My 2 cents analysis:

1: It is a tough market for this kind of game under any circumstances.
2: MW is not a casual game, which limits the player base.
3: Whether AW cares about the players or not is irrelevant from a business point of view, as long as they don’t scare away their customers.
4: Playing IRL might be better and more social (I certainly think so), but that is not an argument against online gaming in itself.
5: The player base is fickle. There are MANY good games, so if there are few or no opportunities to play a game, the players will move on to something else.

The question, I believe, is about community building from a business point of view. Community is not about having control over every individual player, but building spaces where your product will be used or promoted.

I agree that word-of-mouth is very important, but in order to get the word-of-mouth to happen, the game needs to be present in the mind of the potential ambassadors. It will not be present, if it is more than six months since you played a game (as a totally arbitrary rule of thumb).

That means that it is not important if some people play for free or if some people gets scared away because of a home-made program. The important thing question is, if MORE people gets scared away than people gaining or maintaining an interest, because every person who gains or maintains an interest in the game is both a potential customer and a potential ambassador.

I believe that the OCTGN platform is good for MW and AW, because every opportunity to play is good for players and every opportunity to promote the game is good for the company. A lot of big gaming companies are having huge problems because they are used to have total control over their product, but they are losing terrain to smaller companies that loosen the reins and let their customers be more involved in their product.

I don’t think OCTGN is for everyone and I don’t think it will guarantee AW success, but I think it slightly increases the chances of success.

Afterthought: There is a difference between the success of the game and the success of the company. The success of the game is measured in how much time people spend on the game, the success of the company is measured in income. There are probably various ways to make money on your product, but I think that in most cases the second is dependent on the first.

Just discovered this thread. Inspired from some of the other suggestions, I would suggest:

The Gentleman Way: First option – if one is clearly in a stronger position or have played better, the other may give him/her the game. In a single/casual game players can agree to a tie. This can happen even before the time expires and is the equivalent of offering a draw in chess in chess.

Approximated calculation: The second option is trying to calculate which player is ahead. See below.

Lady Luck: If the two above fails, it is probably impossibly to say anything objective about who is ahead, therefore luck might as well decide. Each player rolls 5 dice, the highest wins. If tied, reroll.

Calculation table. For each player:
a)   Add remaining life, channeling, remaining mana/2 (rounded down) and subtract any upkeep not coming from opponents spells.
b)   Add the manacost of all the enchantments you control, subtract the removal cost for each negative condition on your mage and your creatures*.
c)   Add the manacost of each conjuration you control, subtract any damage.
d)   Add the manacost of each creature you control, subtract any damage.
e)   Add the manacost of all your equipment.

Compare a-e. The winner in each category gets 1 victory point (vp). If the difference > 5, the winner gets 2 vp, if the difference > 10, the winner gets 3 vp etc.

*in this step, add 2 points for each armor token from the Priestess crown of protection and subtract 2 points for each counter below three on the Forcemasters Forcefield.

The last option should hopefully never be used, but I think it is better to have this, than obvious bias in the calculation. And yes, I know this calculation isn’t perfect.

here is some ideal analysis.

battle forge is the equivalent to a mana crystal + a free quick action.
battle forge cost 8
crystal cost 5
so you spend 3 mana to get a free quick action per turn.

lair is equivalent to two mana flowers plus a full action.
lair cost 15 mana
2 flowers cost 10 mana
so you spend 5 mana to get a free FULL action per turn.

so in an ideal case battle forge and lair are similar in there efficiency. but I think I figured out the problem. at the start of the game you will never have enough mana to use 2 full action moves(lair), you will have enough for 2 quick actions (battle forge). perhaps if I changed my mindset to save spawn points for mid-late game where I want there turn advantage more then there mana advantage I could get spawn points to work...... I must go back to excel

Yeah, I did a similar calculation. Also, the mana is committed to creatures. When you have the mana, you don't have the actions and vice versa.

I have been thinking of clerics to the Asyrian temple. The clerics speed op the return and can be swithched to guards, when the enemy comes. So I need to summon more guarding creatures and several because the enemy has a big tempo-advantage. By the time the temple would start to pay off I would be out of creatures to summon.

What we need is an expendable spawnpoint. 5 mana (according to your calculations) for a single-use spawn point and 8 for one with channeling.

Right, my mistake.

Let me clarify.

This is only relevant when playing with a Temple of Asyra opening and there sure are other ways to playing Priestess, especially if you want a quicker game.

That being said, it is a "guard-swarm", so its not meant for attack. Cleric vs. Bitterwood fox is an equal fight if you do the numbers. Having 5 clerics (25 mana) will give you 30 hitpoints of guards, two Knights of Westlock (26 mana) is only 20 hit points and are easier to focus fire (yes, they have armor and defense which is powerful, but both can be mitigated). If a knight dies you will lose tempo, if a cleric dies, it is not a big deal. One guard can be controlled, three guards is a bit more tricky. The clerics actually have the same number of attack dice as the two knights although it counts as less against armor. The trick is to keep the damage spread out, using other clerics to heal the damaged ones if able and generate mana when possible.

The whole point would be an alternative way to turtle-up untill you gain tempo. Once the clerics are out (around turn 3-4) you start summoning archers and angels (assuming you have your temples out). With 12-14 mana/turn you can summon one every turn and still have a bit to spare. Or you could cast Valshalla and watch her power up as the clerics die (because they eventually will). If your opponent instead focus on the new threat,  your clerics become a free minor heal/turn.

This is of course speculation, but looking at the cleric I can only see them being good in larger numbers.

Good tips Koz!

But wouldn't it be more effective not to rush, while your opponent spends his actions on moving?

I am thinking Turn 1 - Temple of Light, Turn 2 - Samadriel, Turn 3 - Staff of Asyra+fight. That way you get around the problem with your angel getting beat that piousflea mentioned. I am not sure I would stay in the corner or move one up to get the temple to a better position, that would depend.

I am also looking at knockdown-spam in these mage+big vs mage+big situations. Perhaps Knockdown+Hand in turn 3 instead of Staff if your opponents creature hasn't acted?

It is an interesting subject and more ideas would be welcome.

I want to try a Gray Angel rush against a BM with Lair tactic at some point, it should be pretty annoying for the BM, though I can't say if its effective. But I include a Circle of Lightning and an Orb of Suppression with my Priestess as a more "standard" answer to swarm.

True, but I would not be passive while you chose how to deal with my defenses. The "guarding" creatures could focus-fire your attackers just as well. Flying might be a problem, but that is why I include Maim Wings, knockdown and such. You have spend mana or actions getting to me quickly while I have been building, that gives me a small advantages. And I only need to be guarding with one creature since you probably only have one or two creatures besides your mage.

You are right that its not a question about offense and defense. I was just discovering the flexibility of BM creatures. A conjuration might be defensive but usually cannot be turned into an offense. A Gorgon might also be a powerful defense, but will be lacking if you suddenly need to go on the offensive (unless you have prepared for this). Similarly, most aggro-openings cannot be turned into effective defense if the tide turns. If you make a big investment in the first turns, into offense, defense, spawnpoint, or something else, that investment will make you vulnerable if it doesn't pay off later and the opponent can (and should) play to keep this from happening. But BM investment in creatures is flexible enough that it doesn't leave him vulnerable to any particular move. In 3 turns he can have a powerful force that can be used as offense or defense depending on the situation.

This is perhaps trivial, but I still find it interesting from a generalist vs specialist perspective. I dislike having builds that are very vulnerable against one type of strategy.