Emperor Gametype

So, I thought of a new gametype. What if there were 2 or so people on a team, one is the emperor and the object of the game is to kill him. The other person tries to keep their emperor alive, while trying to kill the other emperor? Emperor can stay back behind their guard or run out and fight, with the risks inherent in each.

Might give the emperor some sort of bonus. I don't know.

What does everyone else think?

Like capitals except a movable emperor?

Yeah, basically. That's where I came up with it. Instead of taking a territory, you kill the emperor.

Yes, it sounds good to me. the idea is when you kill the emperor you also get all of his territories/troops?

I think that would work. I was just thinking 2 teams, and then whoever killed emperor first won. Getting all his territories/troops would let you play with more teams if you wanted, though.

I don't understand what you mean by 2 teams. like 1v1 or 2v2 but not more than 2 teams?

you've got a pretty raw idea there, any more specific details you have ideas about?

Well, when I first posted it, it was just a stray thought. Been working on it, though.

What I am thinking is doing 2 teams of whatever (at least 2 or it's just a 1v1 battle). Each of these teams would be assigned an emperor. The emperor would start in a designated place on the map, or at least with all his troops together. Each team would try to kill the other team's emperor. If the emperor dies, it's game over and the team who lost their emperor loses.

I was also thinking about giving the emperor a bonus of some sort, such as a higher minimum number of troops or something, but I don't know. Might make the game take too long.

Start locations would probably have to be predetermined so that the emperor starts with his team instead of in the middle of a bunch of people trying to kill him.

I can still see that coming down to a normal fight though, like you said, in a 1v1 they players are equal, and in 3v3 the teams are essentially equal, just have one player that may have a bonus, who decides weather the team lives or dies. It presents a cool situation for established teams, but for your usual random teams, it'd be a mess with you depending on your emperor to play smart.
Its an interesting idea, but I'm not sure I'd play it much as it takes me destiny in the game significantly more out of my hands than it already is. 

*edit* With predetermined positions, any map this gametype was on would have to be symmetrical to be fair

Ok, I was actually planning on coding both this and the capitals game today before my boss told me to rewrite all of my lesson plans.

Here is the way I saw it. The 2 gametypes would be nearly the same. When creating a map, I will make it so we choose 8 territories that can be the "capital/emperor" territories. Then when a game is started the players are randomly given one of those 8, if planned correctly then even if 2 people played and got the closest together points, it still should be fine. It will just make the game a bit more interesting.

Each player would start with 10 troops on either his capital or where his emperor is. All the other territories start with 3. Then on top of the 10 the map immediately calculates the territory bonuses everyone would get and adds those to the 10. If you start with 3 troops on all territories and get 3 reinforcements your first turn it would be quite difficult to take out a 10 and kill the emperor, however for some big maps you might start with 8 reinforcements your first turn, and that on top of 3 on a territory could take out an emperor, so we add the amount of reinforcements everyone would get on top of the 10. So if you would get 8 reinf your first turn then your emperor will have 18. This would make it so you can take out the other persons emperor or capital immediately, then they can always put more troops on there to defend it.

So I was going to make it so these games both allow as many players/teams as any other of the games, each person has his own emperor/capital to protect and if they are defeated I was going to make it so you take all of their territories/troops, but perhaps we should make it so they all just go to neutral.

The only difference between the two is that an emperor/King can be moved and will have a different icon.

I think it would work. What do you guys think?

the system for adjusting for the starting number on the capital/emperor is brilliant, I came across that issue last night when we were testing out capitals gametype and your idea is a perfect fix. 

I would really like to see the inheriting troops feature for capitals, just think it'd be more fun to play that way. Perhaps another difference could be that in capitals you inherit the person you defeated's troops whereas in emperor/king they become neutral?

The problem I see with randomizing the starting capital/emperor territories is not in a 2 player game, that would still be fair no matter where they were, but in multiplayer games. take a 3 player game for instance, if there are 8 possibilities for starting location, its very possible that 2 people end up close to each other, while the third is across the map. the two next to each other are going to be more inclined to fight and will always have to be more prepared to defend themselves than the 1 away from them. This could cause an unfair advantage, which is why I was thinking a separate set of starting territories for each # of people in the game. 

I've got a preliminary set of territories for world map almost worked up I'll post soon, and I'll take another look at the 8 player breakdown to see if there's a way to adapt it so that its fair for any possibility. 

So it would be like:

2 person games:
Siam
Western United States

3 person games
Siam
Western United States
Northern Europe

Something like this? I will have to think of a way the map makers can add that to the territories.

yeah, something like that, basically the guidelines I'm going by for picking them is they should be about equidistant apart, not giving anyone too distinct an advantage in taking a continent and not on a a crucial border(siam, iceland-greenland, north africa etc) I may have to break that on the 8 player one, but that can still be relatively fair
I'm posting the preliminary ones for the world map in a few minutes and you can see what I mean

Seems like Siam might be a problem because it's the only way into Australia. If someone starts with 15-odd people on it, they get the continent right off the bat.

i'm well aware, its waht I was talking about with the no crucial borders thing, check the capitals thread, I listed the set ups for each set of players, see what you think