Most of the specialists don't have a compounding effect when you have multiples.

Admiral was fixed, and General still adds more bonuses.

However, should there be a limit on the number of Kings a player has?

Thematically, you can only have one queen, so parity may make sense. Also, there is no real penalty for the second king as there is with the first.

Worth considering?

I've wondered this too. I think part of the slowdown at the end of the game is because people have stockpiled so many specialists it's hard to come up with an attack that can't be countered easily by one of the 10 specialists at their outpost.

The doubling up on specialists can be powerful too. 2 engineers on an attacking sub gives 100% of your drillers back for instance. I've had two Kings before, but never early enough in the game to make a real difference. It seems like fun though.

Maybe the queen could be coded to not offer a specialist you've already selected (unless that specialist gets destroyed I guess). So you could get a duplicate specialist by attacking or by gift, but not by luck of the draw.

All that being said, I think the way people are playing is still evolving. A lot of the hesitancy to attack might because the player pool is so limited. Chance are, pthe same players are gonna be in the next game I play.

Yeah, there is no strategy that can't be out maneuvered if there is enough planning, forethought, diplomacy and paranoia.

I don't know where to draw the line on what wouldn't be allowed to repeat in rotation.

Maybe the answer is a max per game and not player, I don't know.

Maybe it's not even an issue.

With a big enough player base, it's going to come up enough that we'll know eventually.

If it's determined that two kings are too many, maybe you just can't upgrade a second hypnotist, or maybe you get a prince, which does.... Something.

Owning a second King somewhat removes the penalty of having only one king - the loss of shields.

If the enemy has 30 drillers at an outpost, with one king, during specialist combat 10 of your drillers are removed first. So already you need to send in 40.

With two kings, 20 specialists are removed.

They have 100 drillers present? That's like having a shield of 60 that fully recharges after every combat if the enemy keeps 100 drillers - so you can't send 3 subs of 60 to attack the 100.

I do think that double kings is a tad overpowered, but I think that's the case with most promoted specialists. For instance, I have never seen someone with two Security Chiefs lose an outpost. So maybe Bigred's solution is the best? I think you should have to earn that large of an advantage, rather than having it be handed to you.

On the other hand, it does make the game move faster. If I had two kings, I'd sure be playing more aggressively than if I only had one. And if I had two Chiefs, I'd sure be mining aggressively to capitalize. The same applies for most specialists. It's a huge edge that encourages faster play, which I think is healthy for a game like this.

absolutely agree that two of most promoted specialist is OP... but... we think this is actually good. in normal length games this rarely happens, and when it does, it's interesting. in games that go on for a long time for whatever reason, this adds some chaos to the game and allows for larger upheavals. it's kind of like upping the ante in poker tournaments, speeds up the end.

I like the upping the ante analogy, and I guess having 2 kings is a counter to my thought that people tend to attack less at the end of the game because there are so many specialists.

As I think about it more, I don't know that 2 kings is much more OP than 2 of any upgraded specialists. A king and a tycoon would be a great combo. Same with king/admiral, king/engineer, king/general, etc.

Yeah, in the broadcast exhibition (without giving away any spoilers), promoted specialists have played a *huge* part. I don't think it would have been anywhere near as interesting without them.