Improvement of Capitals game type

  • 42 posts
  • Page 2 of 3
Hoop-Heavy wrote:
Hey,
 I like this thread.

I have the same feeling as the OP. I've played games where caps get a +1 on low-die-roll bonus ... that rocks.

I have started a new idea for this site. I call it Big Cap Club. The idea is a longer, slower, more strategic, higher-player-number Cap game. I post the premise at the start. The ethos is to build up one's own strength before trying to tear down anothers. I've started avoiding people who insist on unplanned early cap attacks INSTEAD of building early strength.

I feel like 1) the inclusion of a few extras troops on the cap at the start, 2) the inclusion of a cap defensive bonus, 3) A ban on a direct cap attack for say the first three rounds ... are all good ideas that could support that type of game.

If we can develop a large enough roster, we could leave a daily password somewhere (like here) and hopefully deter the "All-In" crowd who take long odds and rely on dice luck to win

Fell free to offer feedback here or to message me thanks
The_Bishop wrote:
I would keep it as it is -- it's historically entrenched -- maybe just change the name to Headquarters instead of Capitals.
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
anuorre wrote:
Heavy capitals player here.

Would say chance the base number. I don't personally have an issue with the game but I can see how the algorithm can be "tricked" when you're playing a 2p capitals game on Atlantis (which happens to be the biggest map). Both players will likely have region start bonuses + a high number of territories, which means the 1st mover has a huge advantage.

I have never used that strategy - amassing troops in front of an opponent's capital - but I know others that do it. It is one of many strategies, and not a game flaw. I think a higher base number would be a fair thing, as it allows the game to be played longer before an attack is feasible. I would suggest 50% higher.
dough_boy wrote:
I think everyone should get like 25 on their capital, and you cannot move from the capital. You can attack with it, but only out to one around it, and no forting the capital anywhere. Then it becomes war everywhere else until you can amass a roving army to go kill a capital.
The_Bishop wrote:
@anuorre
Biggest map is Texas, however it is not exactly a good map for 2p capitals!
My favourite on that department is Brecourt Manor.
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
Matty wrote:
The number of starting troops currently is 
10 + floor(territories_per_user / 3)
Let's say we add 4 to the initial amount, that would look something like this:

Map# TerritoriesOld # (3 players)New #
World Classic4224 1418
Caribbean2618 1216
Mediterranean States6632 1721
World Expanded9142 2024
Are people ok with this change? Any objections?

@Cireon: For as far as I know this wouldn't cause any problems with ongoing games or even playback of old games, but do you see any problems here code wise?
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
Matty is online.
pygmyhippo277 wrote:
Matty
The number of starting troops currently is 
10 + floor(territories_per_user / 3)
Let's say we add 4 to the initial amount, that would look something like this:

Map# TerritoriesOld #New #
World Classic422428
Caribbean261822
Mediterranean States663236
World Expanded914246
Are people ok with this change? Any objections?

@Cireon: For as far as I know this wouldn't cause any problems with ongoing games or even playback of old games, but do you see any problems here code wise?

It would be an interesting change, but I’m not sure it’s completely necessary and there have only been like 5 people who have weighed in their opinion, I would like to hear from some other players such as irob or other major caps players. (Fightingducks is also another good one to ask on this one)
Eat my dust.
Matty wrote:
Can you ask them?
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
Matty is online.
Rockbert wrote:
I am not a major caps player by any means, but I do regularly play quite a few caps games at a time, whether they be live or long term. I personally don't think there is anything wrong with the way it is currently made up. I have no problem with people using their capital to attack when they see the time is right. It's a different game style than the others and I like the variety we have on the site. For what it's worth, I wouldn't change anything.
"A writer is a person for whom writing is more difficult than it is for other people."
- Thomas Mann
The_Bishop wrote:
I mostly play Capitals and I think 4 more troops can just make you wait a bit more before the beginning of the kill-phase. Not an improvement. Bad gamblers will not play any better, likely the 4 extra troops will be used for carry out even more crazy attacks. So I'm opposed to this change.

What proposed in the first post is different. We should create a new gametype -- call it 'Castles' (similar to Castle Risk) -- in which each capital is a fortress with a defensive bonus and who holds all of them wins the game (troops don't change colour when a player is eliminated).

One possible way to set a defensive bonus for the fortress/castles/capitals is the one mentioned by Hood for the current mode: 3 defensive dice! Although traditionally the attacker uses only 2 dice when assaulting a capital and the defender also uses 2 dice as normal. Other ways exist...

It would be an interesting gametype, however I wouldn't delete the current Capitals which is a little jewel for me!
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
pygmyhippo277 wrote:
You could also have a mechanic with plus one to the highest roll of the defending capital
Eat my dust.
AlexCheckMate wrote:
Matty
The number of starting troops currently is 
10 + floor(territories_per_user / 3)
Let's say we add 4 to the initial amount, that would look something like this:

Map# TerritoriesOld #New #
World Classic422428
Caribbean261822
Mediterranean States663236
World Expanded914246
Are people ok with this change? Any objections?

@Cireon: For as far as I know this wouldn't cause any problems with ongoing games or even playback of old games, but do you see any problems here code wise?

There is an error in your math here; you forgot to divide by three. Corrected:

Map# TerritoriesOld #New #
World Classic421418
Caribbean261216
Mediterranean States661721
World Expanded912024
Also, these are only applicable for 2p and 3p caps games. With more people, the initial amount on the cap goes further down.

I recognise the 'problem' people mention in this thread. However, I expect the proposed 'fix' to be detrimental and not have the desired positive effect. I think the issue is rooted in experience/skill. People who aren't that well versed with the capital gametype are (more) likely to attack more with their capital to amass a/several region/s. Subsequently by doing so, they weaken their capital (& reduce their options for taking others out in the future, by cutting their way out). Therefore, I expect that with more initial troops on the cap, the gap between these less experienced players and those with a deeper understanding becomes ever so more apparent.

Personally, I currently don't see a use case to alter this gametype. Perhaps add a new variation in which people aren't allowed to do much with the capital in the first few turns, or stronger defensive dice. But then again... it would probably add more of "the same", without real distinct advantages. I could imagine that the two latter options increase confusion by having 'illogical?' rules and due to the confusion add 'bad' gameplay.

Just my view as of right now. Happy to read about others.

-Alex
“Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love. How on earth can you explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love? Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.”

― Albert Einstein
anuorre wrote:
I agree with Matty's suggestion. Just +4.

anuorre
Would say change the base number. I don't personally have an issue with the game but I can see how the algorithm can be "tricked" when you're playing a 2p capitals game on Atlantis

There are definitely limitations but those are edge cases, which I think adding a higher base number (+4 seems fair) should reduce the risk of badly timed/ early attacks and the advantage of a 1st player move in a 1v1, big map scenario.

Remember this is risk, people do make silly moves and win. In a game dictated by probability, unless it's an absolute 0, there's always a chance that a 2 man territory can and will defeat a 100 man army. 

Fighting ducks is an ok capitals player ;)


pygmyhippo277 wrote:
AlexCheckMate
Matty
The number of starting troops currently is 
10 + floor(territories_per_user / 3)
Let's say we add 4 to the initial amount, that would look something like this:

Map# TerritoriesOld #New #
World Classic422428
Caribbean261822
Mediterranean States663236
World Expanded914246
Are people ok with this change? Any objections?

@Cireon: For as far as I know this wouldn't cause any problems with ongoing games or even playback of old games, but do you see any problems here code wise?

There is an error in your math here; you forgot to divide by three. Corrected:

Map# TerritoriesOld #New #
World Classic421418
Caribbean261216
Mediterranean States661721
World Expanded912024
Also, these are only applicable for 2p and 3p caps games. With more people, the initial amount on the cap goes further down.

I recognise the 'problem' people mention in this thread. However, I expect the proposed 'fix' to be detrimental and not have the desired positive effect. I think the issue is rooted in experience/skill. People who aren't that well versed with the capital gametype are (more) likely to attack more with their capital to amass a/several region/s. Subsequently by doing so, they weaken their capital (& reduce their options for taking others out in the future, by cutting their way out). Therefore, I expect that with more initial troops on the cap, the gap between these less experienced players and those with a deeper understanding becomes ever so more apparent.

Personally, I currently don't see a use case to alter this gametype. Perhaps add a new variation in which people aren't allowed to do much with the capital in the first few turns, or stronger defensive dice. But then again... it would probably add more of "the same", without real distinct advantages. I could imagine that the two latter options increase confusion by having 'illogical?' rules and due to the confusion add 'bad' gameplay.

Just my view as of right now. Happy to read about others.

-Alex

Couldn’t have said it better myself, this is kinda what I was getting at in the first few posts when I was talking about how it’s not as viable a strategy.
Eat my dust.
elysium5 wrote:
Myself, I also agree with some of the takes so far that maybe we should leave the capitals games the way they are and instead discuss a possible new game type.

On a side note, my 2 cents are that 3 player cap games are the worst. Some players who play this game type understand the dynamics and do enjoy them without complaint, which is perfectly fine, but most don't and it is quite possibly the most reported game type for teaming/cheating and M/S even though it is very rarely the case and is usually just a bad math error or bad dice scenario, etc.

For 3 player games, I like to play assassination mode in order to avoid all of the 'cheating/teaming, M/S' accusations and innuendos.
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."
elysium5 is online.