First pre-beta test finished

On Turn 19, the ruler of Underopia started building a mine 3 hexes from the Stormpeak capital. On Turn 20, Stormpeak scouts noticed him. On Turn 21, High King Peter led a stack of Dwarves and took down Underopia's leader, Queeky, and two Ratman Smiths. High King Peter and the Dwarves suffered no casualties.

In terms of GMing stuff, I noticed one big blaring problem: The combat calculator is buggy. It adds leadership bonuses to the empty spots in the stack, doesn't count the stack modifier, and isn't totally congruent with the rulebook. I might crank out a simplified combat calculator, and since the combat calculator is public, I'll probably make the combat formulas public too.

Also, none of the players (Tobias, Herbie, Twoy) sent me fortification stats for their cities, which is partially my bad for not asking for them. Tobias did send me stats for one of his cities, but he had three, so it's still a problem.

Part-way through the test, I realized that we need a standard format for orders. Turn summaries that clearly show treasury amounts, income and upkeep, units in production and units that pop that turn, and then orders make my job as a GM much, much easier. Anything vague or unspecific makes my job harder. For instance, don't say "..and I upgrade my city to level 3 once I have the schmuckers for it". Instead, tell me exactly which turn. Yes, this requires a little bit of financial calculation. But if the players can streamline things a bit more, the GMs might be able to take on more players. I can see myself managing 3 sides if they all sent in their orders clearly in that way.

Since there was only a single combat for the whole test, I don't have much experience with combat yet. Plus the buggy calculator makes things difficult. I'll work on a fix then get a combat test ready- Give one person a city and some units, give another person some units, let them battle it out. But that's not going to happen quite yet.

I'll also be adding a few things to the rules document soon. Like the order things in a turn happen (Income, upkeep, buildings/units pop, orders), clarification on casters. Also, mathamancers are getting an overhaul since right now they're more or less useless, and Tobias wanted the Retconjurer replaced with a balanced Deletionist. More on this story as it develops.

Mathamancers were my "do not want" for my random caster pop.

Here is my feedback. I may think of some more things later, but I'm out of time for now.

After Action Report:
1. Hills should be able to produce shmuckers.
--Farm $100/turn.
--Mine $300/turn.

2. On the proving grounds map:
What is the terrain type at 13.24? It looks like a forested mountain or forested hills; however we do not have forested mountain or forested hills listed in the terrain rules.

3. Lookamancer spell Contact is not clear:
--Contact: Allows the Lookamancer to see, from a distance, a unit or stack of units as though the caster were standing in front of them. No chance to dispel veils. 5 juice.

--How do you identify which unit you want to "contact"? Can you "contact" unknown enemy units, for example "contact the enemy ruler of that scout that just passed over my capital".

--Also, maybe the spell name should be changed to View, since there is no real contact.

4. Dirtamancer:
--Pit Trap: When this trap is triggered, trigger stack falls into a deep hole. Treat as attack from unit with 3 attack. 20 juice.

Seems a bit underpowered. If the trap hits a stack, there is no way it can do any damage. If the trap hits an individual unit (for example, a stabber) within a stack, if the unit does not get a stack bonus or a leadership bonus, the trap might do 1 hit of damage. That means it would take 5 traps to kill a stabber. Not sure how to fix this one, but it definitely needs some work.

--Dynamite: Must be cast in mine. Mine produces +10% more schmuckers this turn. Stacks with other income-boosting spells and specials. 30 juice. Usable by level 5 stuffamancers.

Compare Dynamite with Gold Rush

--Gold Rush: Can only be cast while in a mine. Schmucker production in the mine is increased by 50% (stacks with warlord patrol bonus). 25 juice. Usable by level 10 clevermancers.

These two spells need to be balanced. Either Dynamite should produce more or Gold Rush should produce less.

5. Clarification of what a Ruler can do on one turn:
--Can a ruler manage a city and build a mine at the same time?
--Can a ruler manage a city and build a mine while he is in the city's zone of control but not actually inside the city?
--Can a ruler manage a city and upgrade the city from level 2 to level 3 at the same time?

6. Clarification on what commanders can do:
--Can a ruler order a caster to move to another location and create a city?
--Can a caster upgrade a city from level 1 to level 2?
--Can I as the player just have commanders do what I want them to do, or does my ruler have to send orders to all the commanders?

7. Natural Allies:
--We did not test natural allies, but I'm a bit concerned that they might be game breakers. For example, on Turn 21 I had 15,000 shmuckers in my capital's treasury. If I had natural allies with a Special D Unit such as Blue Dwagons, I would have been able to pop a couple of stacks of Blue Dwagons and terrorize my opponents. That would be especially true if my opponent's natural allies had for example only the capability to pop non-ranged units.

8. Raising levels:
--I may have missed it, but I don't see where in the rules it explains what bonuses a unit receives when it levels, and except for commanders, I don't see if higher level units cost more upkeep.

--It looks like Peter gained +2 Hits, +1 Attack, +1 Defense, and +1 Leadership.

--Also, do we have a system for gaining xp for battles? Peter and 7 Dwarves (Special Unit B) croaked a level 1 warlord and two Ratman Smith (Special Unit C. I also had a separate stack of 3 Dwarves in the hex though they did not engage in the battle. How many xps does each unit get? Does the level 1 warlord give more xp because he was the ruler?

--I know that the GMs would like to keep the xp process secret because in Erfworld, units do not know how many xps they have or how many they need to level. The problem with keeping it secret is that the GMs have to keep track of every unit's xps, and for example if I send in my turn 18 orders and starts planning my turn 19 orders without realizing that one of my casters, warlords or courtiers will raise a level at the end of turn 18, I will have to rewrite my orders for turn 19, which could slow the game down a lot, especially if I don't have time to rewrite the orders on that day.

--For ease of play I recommend we make the xping and leveling process transparent.

As it is, units get +10% stats for leveling, but +50% upkeep.

So, I'd like this to be 10/10, for balance, but I think Shusagi's already amiable to that.

Mathamancers work best in a secret combat system, but because this combat system is so simple that I can program a calculator to run it, well...
BLANDCorporatio had some ideas on Mathamancers for Kaed's game, but I can't remember them and the length of the thread...

What about this as a system for leveling?
1. Warlords, Casters and Courtiers stay the way they are in the rules.
2. Stabbers, Pikers, Archers and Scouts do not gain xp and cannot level.
3. Special Units A,B and C can raise up to level 3 and no higher. Each time they level, they gain +2 Hits, +1 Attack and +1 Defense. Upkeep does not increase as they raise levels.
4. Knights and Special Unit D can raise up to level 5 and no higher. Each time they level, they gain +2 Hits, +1 Attack and +1 Defense. Upkeep does not increase as they raise levels.

Twoy wrote:Mathamancers were my "do not want" for my random caster pop.

Here is my feedback. I may think of some more things later, but I'm out of time for now.

After Action Report:
1. Hills should be able to produce shmuckers.
--Farm $100/turn.
--Mine $300/turn.

2. On the proving grounds map:
What is the terrain type at 13.24? It looks like a forested mountain or forested hills; however we do not have forested mountain or forested hills listed in the terrain rules.

3. Lookamancer spell Contact is not clear:
--Contact: Allows the Lookamancer to see, from a distance, a unit or stack of units as though the caster were standing in front of them. No chance to dispel veils. 5 juice.

--How do you identify which unit you want to "contact"? Can you "contact" unknown enemy units, for example "contact the enemy ruler of that scout that just passed over my capital".

--Also, maybe the spell name should be changed to View, since there is no real contact.

4. Dirtamancer:
--Pit Trap: When this trap is triggered, trigger stack falls into a deep hole. Treat as attack from unit with 3 attack. 20 juice.

Seems a bit underpowered. If the trap hits a stack, there is no way it can do any damage. If the trap hits an individual unit (for example, a stabber) within a stack, if the unit does not get a stack bonus or a leadership bonus, the trap might do 1 hit of damage. That means it would take 5 traps to kill a stabber. Not sure how to fix this one, but it definitely needs some work.

--Dynamite: Must be cast in mine. Mine produces +10% more schmuckers this turn. Stacks with other income-boosting spells and specials. 30 juice. Usable by level 5 stuffamancers.

Compare Dynamite with Gold Rush

--Gold Rush: Can only be cast while in a mine. Schmucker production in the mine is increased by 50% (stacks with warlord patrol bonus). 25 juice. Usable by level 10 clevermancers.

These two spells need to be balanced. Either Dynamite should produce more or Gold Rush should produce less.

5. Clarification of what a Ruler can do on one turn:
--Can a ruler manage a city and build a mine at the same time?
--Can a ruler manage a city and build a mine while he is in the city's zone of control but not actually inside the city?
--Can a ruler manage a city and upgrade the city from level 2 to level 3 at the same time?

6. Clarification on what commanders can do:
--Can a ruler order a caster to move to another location and create a city?
--Can a caster upgrade a city from level 1 to level 2?
--Can I as the player just have commanders do what I want them to do, or does my ruler have to send orders to all the commanders?

7. Natural Allies:
--We did not test natural allies, but I'm a bit concerned that they might be game breakers. For example, on Turn 21 I had 15,000 shmuckers in my capital's treasury. If I had natural allies with a Special D Unit such as Blue Dwagons, I would have been able to pop a couple of stacks of Blue Dwagons and terrorize my opponents. That would be especially true if my opponent's natural allies had for example only the capability to pop non-ranged units.

8. Raising levels:
--I may have missed it, but I don't see where in the rules it explains what bonuses a unit receives when it levels, and except for commanders, I don't see if higher level units cost more upkeep.

--It looks like Peter gained +2 Hits, +1 Attack, +1 Defense, and +1 Leadership.

--Also, do we have a system for gaining xp for battles? Peter and 7 Dwarves (Special Unit B) croaked a level 1 warlord and two Ratman Smith (Special Unit C. I also had a separate stack of 3 Dwarves in the hex though they did not engage in the battle. How many xps does each unit get? Does the level 1 warlord give more xp because he was the ruler?

--I know that the GMs would like to keep the xp process secret because in Erfworld, units do not know how many xps they have or how many they need to level. The problem with keeping it secret is that the GMs have to keep track of every unit's xps, and for example if I send in my turn 18 orders and starts planning my turn 19 orders without realizing that one of my casters, warlords or courtiers will raise a level at the end of turn 18, I will have to rewrite my orders for turn 19, which could slow the game down a lot, especially if I don't have time to rewrite the orders on that day.

--For ease of play I recommend we make the xping and leveling process transparent.

1. Agreed about the hills, they should be able to produce something. I think Tobias wanted Changemancers to be able to destroy resource points though, and Plains -> Hills or Mountains -> Hills destroys the resource point.

2. I think it's supposed to be forested hills, not mountains. Not that we have any info about that in the rules either way. Will probably remove that terrain type in the future.

3. Lookamancy, and a lot of Foolamancy as well, is sort of vague. I mean, for the Foolamancer's ventriloquism, how would that impact combat? I think rather than describing the physical effect of spells, we should clearly be laying out the benefits of the spells.

4. Agreed. In conjunction with 3, and Mathmancers, and Deletionists, I think we should give a large update to the entire magic system.

5. I'll clarify commander rules. In a given turn they can move and perform a single action (Build or Manage). That action must take place in the turn they end the turn in. So if you only needed one more turn of construction on a mine, you can't finish it at the start of your turn and then leave- You have to end turn 5 times on that space, mine'll pop beginning of your next turn and you can move. Likewise, no managing a city and THEN leaving it. However, you could manage a city, then on the next turn leave and return and continue managing. A ruler can upgrade a city on the same turn it manages it, as long as it is in the city.

6. You can order commanders to build cities, upgrade cities, etc. and this includes casters. Same with building upgrades. It's my understanding that you don't control the rulers directly, you have to send them orders. Otherwise, the thinkamancer ability to relay orders would be useless. However, without a thinkamancer, this puts a lot of the game out of the players' hands. Message hats, purchaseable from the MK, should probably be recommended for all if this is the case.

7. I'd say that you don't pay a single turn of upkeep to pop a unit. If the natural ally is a stabber-class infantry, you don't pay 300 to make 10. Maybe you pay 300 to make 1. It'd be expensive enough so that you wouldn't pour tons of money into it, but cheap enough to be viable. Also, D-unit natural allies probably won't be extremely common. Maybe tameable D-unit beasts, but natural allies will probably be weaker unit types, Knights at best.

8. I gave your king an extra hit by mistake, it seems. It's +10% per level, rounded. I think warlords and casters should have the +50% upkeep stay, but that basic infantry and A-D units should be cheaper. I really like the idea of all units levelling since it's very erfworld, but it's also very complicated and will be nearly impossible to keep track of once there's hundreds of units on each side. Taking away levels for basic infantry makes a lot of sense. I'd like to keep it for Knights, Warlords, and Casters at the very least, perhaps reducing the upkeep cost on Knights. A-D units could level as well at a lower upkeep, like 10% to match the 10% stat bonus.

There IS an XP system for battles, pretty simple one at that. It doesn't line up much with canon though (A level 1 warlord gives the same XP as a level 1 stabber), so it might be adjusted. I dunno if Tobias wants it too public. Since we're going to be doing turns slower for the actual game, I don't think it'll be a big deal (48 hours a turn, or so, after the initial 10-20 of preparation)

On Mathmancers, we could allow them to give a % bonus to certain things. Like, increase or decrease the chance of encountering wild units or natural allies, increase the chance of mines hitting a gem, and so forth. In-game-reasonining would be that the mathamancer calculates the best hexes to search, or the best places to mine, increasing the chance of the desire outcome. I can't really think of much more for them to do, though, and am open to suggestions.

I think ironing out casters and then having a real combat test are the only things that need to be done before a 6-person game can start.

Found BLAND's Mathamancer suggestions:

Dehn Surgery:

a) for 2 turns, a chosen hex boundary is uncrossable- it becomes an indestructible impassible obstacle for all; space ceases to exist on that edge. The hex edge must be between hexes that are at most 15 hexes away from the caster. Cuts cannot be placed that would completely sever a region of the map from the rest. 60 juice.
b) can "glue" together two hex boundaries that have been previously cut by Dehn surgery- these hex edges might be edges on hexes that are not adjacent, but they must be in hexes that are at most 15 hexes away from the caster. Any unit passing through one edge in the first hex will exit, teleported, through the edge in the other hex. The glue only lasts as long as the original hex cut lasted. 100 juice.

The barrier/glue is effective on spell ranges also. Hexes that are glued become neighbours for spell range purposes, while an edge being cut between two hexes means that a spell needs to go through the hexes around the cut. This will affect Dehn Surgery too.

Specified turn duration at 2 for the cut. This is because of the typical use scenario for this- a caster (and there won't be many) places two cuts on a turn, then glues an edge from each pair resulting from the cut. The glue also lasting a turn.

Specified spell range, and it's reasonably large. The reason for that was that another use of this is supposed to be a "magic relay" to extend the reach of casters.

Increased cost for glue a little. Note that this spell is more expensive than Hat portal, but yeah it functions rather differently.

And I'm more in favor of a quick revision of the magic system, as well as not trying to include Deletionism--I just think it might take too long to balance it.

For the combat test, what were you thinking of, exactly?

I think a quick revision is much more useful if we want to get this started soon, which we do. So I'll try to make as few changes as possible, just correcting what desperately needs to be changed. As far as Mathamancy, I like it- Not super canon, but it's not like we really know the full capabilities of many of the caster types anyways, so it's not exactly anti-canon either.

Here's my current idea for a combat test.
Two sides, two Titans. Each titan manages one side. An 10-hex across, hex-shaped island with each side having a Level 5 city with 6 hexes in between, and something useful (resource point? Natural allies?) in the middle to discourage turtling. Each side starts with 50-turns worth of units (or 100? I'll decide that later). This'll allow the GMs to practice coordinating different side's orders, a bit of combat practice for the GMs, and if there are any flaws or kinks in the combat system, they'll hopefully get worked out here. It'll be exactly like normal play with income and upkeep and upgrades and so forth, the only differences being that you can't build any more cities, which'll help get the combat rolling quicker.

EDIT: Or perhaps give one side a bigger city and more units, but set a time limit of 10 or 15 turns, at the end of which the underdog automatically wins. To encourage even MORE combat.

Going to make a simplified combat calculator first. Then I'll ask for volunteers.

Nihila wrote:As it is, units get +10% stats for leveling, but +50% upkeep.

So, I'd like this to be 10/10, for balance, but I think Shusagi's already amiable to that.

Mathamancers work best in a secret combat system, but because this combat system is so simple that I can program a calculator to run it, well...
BLANDCorporatio had some ideas on Mathamancers for Kaed's game, but I can't remember them and the length of the thread...

I think it should go down to 10/less than 10. Maybe 10/5. This would make higher level units not only more powerful, but more cost effective, which would seem to be a far more reasonable outcome. 'Upkeep', as far as I can see, refers to the cost of keeping the unit alive. As in, food and other supplies. So why should, say, some random stabber that leveled cost that much (if any) more?

doom3607 wrote:

Nihila wrote:As it is, units get +10% stats for leveling, but +50% upkeep.

So, I'd like this to be 10/10, for balance, but I think Shusagi's already amiable to that.

Mathamancers work best in a secret combat system, but because this combat system is so simple that I can program a calculator to run it, well...
BLANDCorporatio had some ideas on Mathamancers for Kaed's game, but I can't remember them and the length of the thread...

I think it should go down to 10/less than 10. Maybe 10/5. This would make higher level units not only more powerful, but more cost effective, which would seem to be a far more reasonable outcome. 'Upkeep', as far as I can see, refers to the cost of keeping the unit alive. As in, food and other supplies. So why should, say, some random stabber that leveled cost that much (if any) more?

I was thinking of something like this. It makes levelling worthwhile. It ENCOURAGES levelling, rather than making you think "Oh, don't give that Dwagon too much EXP, it's upkeep'll skyrocket if it levels". But then, casters and warlords- Should their upkeep increase a lot with levels, due to their high potential? Leadership and casting are both very powerful.

If yes, would C-units, D-units, and Knights with casting/leadership be subject to increased upkeep as well? Would one person then be able to have a cheap C-unit, and the other an expensive one because it has leadership?

The 10% Stats for 5% upkeep idea really meshes with basic infantry levelling (otherwise it wouldn't make any sense). But levelling infantry will probably be a huge hassle to keep track of too, unfortunately. I reeeeeally wish we could keep that, but we can't. It does make this issue simpler, though, since we only have commanders, A-D units, and knights to worry about.

Leadership, perhaps. But because casting power does not increase at all with leveling, NO for sharp upkeep increases on Limited casters.

Edit: Actually, here's my thoughts on how to upkeep-balance stuff:
For units with Leadership: +50% upkeep per level (balances w/Warlords)
For units with 2 or more Limited Casting abilities: +25% upkeep per level (they get random -Mancies, so they do get more powerful. Quickly.)
All others: +5% upkeep per level

Just take the highest value from this. So, if a D-unit had 3 Limited -Mancies and Leadership, it'd be +50% upkeep per level, not +75%. I like the idea of basic infantry levelling, but with a hidden xp system, it'd put too much work on the GM's.

Nihila wrote:Leadership, perhaps. But because casting power does not increase at all with leveling, NO for sharp upkeep increases on Limited casters.

Edit: Actually, here's my thoughts on how to upkeep-balance stuff:
For units with Leadership: +50% upkeep per level (balances w/Warlords)
For units with 2 or more Limited Casting abilities: +25% upkeep per level (they get random -Mancies, so they do get more powerful. Quickly.)
All others: +5% upkeep per level

Just take the highest value from this. So, if a D-unit had 3 Limited -Mancies and Leadership, it'd be +50% upkeep per level, not +75%. I like the idea of basic infantry levelling, but with a hidden xp system, it'd put too much work on the GM's.

This system sounds good, and makes it so that not everyone will slap leadership/limited mancies on all the units they can, which the current system encourages (You can pop a D-unit in the same time you would pop 120 stabbers. The only reason to pop a D-unit, then, is if it has some seriously useful special ability. But now that they can level, with EXP they'll actually become more useful over time. A level 1 D Unit < 120 stabbers, but a level 5 d-unit? Or higher?)

And even WITHOUT a hidden EXP system, levelling infantry won't work. When you get to be popping 8 or 12 infantry a turn in EACH city, you're going to have hundreds of infantry in no time, and keeping track of individual units' position and EXP will be tedious. If City A and B each have 100 stabbers, and you send 50 from A to B (So now A has 50, B has 150), you're beseiged and lose 40 (so 50/110) and then send 60 stabbers from B to A (So 110/50), it gets hard to figure out which ones of which level go where.

The problem I have with the 10% bonus is claculating what bonus my Centaur: 6/3/3/5 gets at level 2 or do units with Breath Weapon, Battle Crap or Toxin get a +10% to those special abilities damage. A straight +1 is much simpler.

As far as hidden systems, who will track them? Having a GM track the hidden information for a side, or two since we should have more players than GMs, means managing all the unseen stats on every unit. It isn't too difficult, but it would slow down turns just in that the GM would have to update everything.

I'm not saying don't do it, I like the idea of stats that the players can't see, like experiance, loyalty, etc. I'm just pointing out it'll be a lot of work.

Also, I agree that a straight +1 with level ups is better than a percentage, because powerful units are gonna take a lot to level up anyway... In fact have we ever seen a non-humanoid unit refferred to gaining exp or a level? Since A-D units are already typically stronger than basic Infantry, is it necessary for them to gain levels?

Twoy wrote:The problem I have with the 10% bonus is claculating what bonus my Centaur: 6/3/3/5 gets at level 2 or do units with Breath Weapon, Battle Crap or Toxin get a +10% to those special abilities damage. A straight +1 is much simpler.

If we're going to add +1 to each stat, the increase to upkeep should be similiar.

Think of a stack of A-units fighting a D-unit.
If those A-units are Level 1, their upkeep is 400. If they're level two, their upkeep increases by 40 and they gain +10 attack.
That D-unit has it's upkeep increase by 25 for a single bonus to attack.

If we have a flat +1 to each stat per level, it puts the D-units and perhaps Knights back into the category of being worthless without Natural Mancies or Leadership or some other special ability. And on that note, if we increase upkeep significantly for natural mancies/leadership, it makes them even harder to make useful.

Then again, it could be worthwhile to make A-D units unfavorable and have infantry the norm. Then people would be forced to get creative with their special units to make them effective, and use them strategically rather than as a bulk force. Thoughts on that?

Crovius wrote:As far as hidden systems, who will track them? Having a GM track the hidden information for a side, or two since we should have more players than GMs, means managing all the unseen stats on every unit. It isn't too difficult, but it would slow down turns just in that the GM would have to update everything.

I'm not saying don't do it, I like the idea of stats that the players can't see, like experiance, loyalty, etc. I'm just pointing out it'll be a lot of work.

Also, I agree that a straight +1 with level ups is better than a percentage, because powerful units are gonna take a lot to level up anyway... In fact have we ever seen a non-humanoid unit refferred to gaining exp or a level? Since A-D units are already typically stronger than basic Infantry, is it necessary for them to gain levels?

Tracking EXP and Loyalty needs to be the GM's job. Turns are probably already going to be 48-hours or so after the initial 20-30.

As it is now, getting rid of those two stats on some units makes the job a lot easier. Already it's been semi-decided that basic infantry won't have EXP. It might end up going as far as "Only warlords/casters" or "Only warlords/casters/knights" have EXP. We have good reason to believe that, in-comic, everything levels. In terms of our own system, this would explain why various units of the same type can have different move- Some are higher levels. But we need to decide what makes the best sense for this system, and at the moment, only A-D, Warlords, Casters, and Knights are possibly gaining EXP. It might make sense to restrict it just to Warlords/Casters, but I'll have to think about it.

Shusagi wrote:If we're going to add +1 to each stat, the increase to upkeep should be similiar.

Not necessarily. The +1 can be a reward for keeping the unit alive long enough to level.

In the game I am currently playing (Elemental: War of Magic) when your units level, the upkeep stays the same. I'm fairly certain that is true of many if not most of the games I have played over the years.

Is there anything in cannon that indicates the upkeep increases as unit level?

Shusagi wrote:We have good reason to believe that, in-comic, everything levels.

The only examples I can think of are casters, warlords, knight-class infantry and Bogroll (I don't know what unti type Bogroll is)

Just to throw in my 2 cents

There is already a lot involved in this game. Keeping track of unit levels is going to be a large undertaking for the GMs, they are going to have to keep a record for each of the 300 + units, and every GM will have to keep that spreadsheet in sync, for combat puroposes. Then, whenever there is a fight, you are going to have to find each unit in the table, copy over its stats, run the combat, then update the table.

If the GMs feel they can handle the leveling for every unit, then you guys can ignore this, but running the game seems to be trying the old "sink or swim" method, which to my experiance doesn't work to well with forum type games.

Ok, I've read the topic and will add a few things now:

1) The management of unseen stats: this is mostly automated by the spreadsheet which I encourage the Titans to use so that should probably work fine.
2) On the subject of leveling: I'd want to make a compromise; all base infantry and specials will increase stats by 10% on leveling (but NOT upkeep), all warlords, courtiers and caster will (aside from their natural leveling bonuses like juice, leadership or management) increase standard bonuses by 10% AND upkeep by 50% of base. (an heir unit will have a base upkeep of 100 (warlord base) with an increment of 400). My reasoning for making the unique characters more expensive is their inherent benefits. Uniques can cast spells (and get increased juice), lead units and manage cities (as proven by this table a courtier or warlord will be cost efficient while managing a city of level 2 or above https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0Ag7pBn2-fbf0dHgxMHdlTllDWUI0UGJ1YmlSMnpsY0E&hl=en&output=html). I'd say that this warrants their increased price
3) on the subject of spells: I wanted to revamp the complete mancy system and if I have the time to do so I will. (this will probably be introduced in a second game tho')

I like the idea of upkeep only going up for Warlords, Courtiers, and Casters. We can try to keep tracking EXP for basic units (the spreadsheet calculates the stats easily enough, it's just actually keeping track of which unit is in which stack and gains EXP and inputting it manually that's going to be annoying. Annoying but doable).

Only question is, what about C/D/Knights that take Leadership or a natural mancy? If natural mancies are weakened (or normal casting made better) then that doesn't really need an adjustment, but leadership should. Unless C/D/Knights with leadership only ever count as a level 1 leader (Limited leadership?), they should increase in upkeep as well.

We could test the practicality of basic units levelling in Shusagi's combat test, as well as the upkeep increase stuff. I'm interested in participating in a combat test, but Snowpoint isn't really suited to testing the stuff I'd like to test, so could I design another side to test the Leadership/Casting upkeep increases?

Yes, for the tests whoever participates can feel free to use new sides.

Can I volunteer to participate so I can see how well the Vaygr actually fight? I'd like to take this opportunity to refine my design based on practical examination of my own...

Ok, so the exo ideas seem to be workign well.

How about the Mancies? They seem to me we need a review of the magic system and use of various spells, to decide if they are worth their cost, nerfing any spells that are OP, lowering cost of spells that are simply not worth their current cost, maybe buffing weaker spells to make their cost acceptable, etc.

For the magic are you thinking major revamp or minor tweaks?

I'm going to fix Magic's blaring issues (Dynamite vs. Gold Rush, obscure lookamancy/foolamancy) if Tobias doesn't get to it first, and probably leave it at that for now. I'm not going to change much else until we see it in action and can determine how to balance it.

And then Doom and Nihila can send their armies at each other on a sudden death asymmetrical island battle.