Capped troop count

This suggestion came up in another thread but I have decided to move it here.
The idea is to put a maximum limit on the troops one can have in a game. That would cause people to attack more rather than lose their reinforcements.

I guess the limit should be set according to the size (in territories) of the map. Let me say, five times the number of territories, giving a count of 210 troops in the World Classic map and 455 in the World Expanded, just an example.

Can be fine as anti-stalemate rule in your opinion?

That's a good idea!
It would be great on maps like world expanded, where it is commonly getting into a 4 or 3 player stalemate.... ad it lasts for months and months...

Might be a nice idea. But I don't think it is a priority right now. Avoiding stalemates is also part of the game and there are other things that are more important to be implemented I think.

Yeah, what is the priority currently? A surrender button? (Sorry if I sound impatient, I am not trying to sound like that

The priority is: first your homework, then dominating12 >,,,<
Sorry if I sound joking, really I'm serious!

By the way someone liked the idea since I wanted to share it. But, ok, if it is not a priority I keep it in mind for the future. Just because usually I avoid to play fixed games because they last several hours live and several months long term. (Thanks for your comment Urgul)

That is why capped cards have been introduced partly.

The main priority is fixing bugs. Think of same time games, joining games and I don't know what is on the list of the other's. We are also doing our best to introduce changes to prevent suiciding and things I remember both of you saying ruin the game or make it possible/easier to get those that ruin games.

There are long lists of stuff that need to be done. Things like this are in my own opinion not even necessary that much, hence I will not program them because I am a volunteer programmer and therefore I also weigh in my personal preference when choosing what to do.

In the end, our main priority is and will always be to make this site better, more stable and more fun. I think there are things which add way more "better-ness", stability and fun to this site than this right now and thus I think those should be prioritised.

Im wondering how you are going to do this.

Imagine the limit is 100 troops on a small map.
now the player before me placed his troops in such a way that the total is 100, can I now no longer use my troops?

And if I attack, does that mean that the next player will be able to place his troops, wheres I coudlnt myself?


Or if I can place my troops, and decide not to attack, we are stuck with a troop count above 100...
Should then random troops of mine die?

The idea was to do this per territory I think. However, what happens when you filled up all of your territories?

I would like that the troop limit were by player; I mean, that the maximum amount of troops that a player may have it's (just an example) 100 troops. So, if I am going to reach that number I will attack to get the reinforcement later, otherwise I would let the other players have the same number of troops I have.

I think the idea was to have a limit for each player. So say the limit is 100, that means there can be a maximum of 300 troops on the board. If player A gets a 15 troop bonus but already has 90 troops, he can only place 10 more.

I like this idea, not only for avoiding stalemates (though they will certainly happen much less often), but as a new type of game. I'm sure lots of new strategies would make this mode quite interesting.

Or a max number of troop is depended on the current amount of territory held by the play in a game. Ex player holds 20 territories that player can have a max of 100 troops in play (5 per territory) but he can deploy them all in one spot if wanting. This would encourage players to attack because the more land you posses when your turn comes back around the more potential troops you could have

Something unnoticed is that with 300 troops games can still easily stalemate, and if you let the limit go down gradually it might not be fair (as the first player's turn might have an advantage or something).

Sorry, maybe it wasn't clear, I was speaking about a limit of troops per player as in Pixels' example. I guess the limits that I proposed were too high. Try to think about this: each player can have a maximum of 126 troops in World Classic and 273 in World Expanded, maybe is better.

Matty you are the one who suggested that every player has to reduce his troops in case of a stalemate. This rule is to force people to do that. I'm not sure it works but still is something. At least it would avoid games with ridiculous high numbers.

Dferguson's idea sounds even better but more complex. I guess in most of the cases it works finely, but there are some exceptions that have to be clarified. I mean what happens if I conquer all your 1's territories so that you find yourself with an illegal high troop count? (due to the reduced amount of territories you hold) You will start your turn selecting the troops you want to take off? Or nothing, you'll just go on playing without reinforcements until you have not enough territories?

To add to this is what would be the reason be to have territory bonus if you our maxed out? Or what happens when you attack, killing a player and you now get more bonus and you want the bonus to take out the next player...but you have yous troops to stop another players from attacking you and is this a stalemate now?

I assume this rule would primarily be paired with fixed or no cards games since increasing games don't stalemate. So that issue Thorpe would be a rare occurrence if it ever happened.