Capitals Idea

Capital games idea for a more strategic game.

At the end of your turn (after fortication:adjacent/chained/unlimited) a final play prompt what
I'm calling it Troop Sacrifice. The idea, is to have an option to sacrifice your troops on one territory
(not your capital)to turn neutral (grey). That territory could have any amount of troops you decide to sacrifice.

Reason.

This idea comes from playing in a game with seasoned players where we know what the obvious outcome is going
to be. It just comes down to cards and order of play, and you can't prevent the outcome. You cant throw up a block
like you can in a domination/deathmatch game to prevent it, because your block troops would just be inherited
as a player takes your capital. You may need those troops for your capital. Sometimes we throw up some speed bumps,
but that's all you can really do to prevent anything in a capitals game.
If you could sacrifice your troops to neutral on an end turn on whatever territory you own for a strategic path block
it may cut out more of that luck factor. (your capital is less attractive for gathering outside troops).

Another benefit of this would be for opening a path for yourself if you have blocked yourself off in a game. You are
pretty much stuck with no option against skilled players who know not to open you up. With this idea, You could use
your troops sacrifice each round by creating a path for yourself, as you sacrifice your 'one spot territories' to
neutral.

So basically you are saying that I should be able to (1) move off my troops from a territory to my cap - and that territory happends to be in the only path from two other players to eachother - and then (2) turn that territory into a neutral with 5k troops.

Seems like a kind of unfair advantage to the person that happends to control a choke point.


Maybe it's better to just have the kings aka moving capitals gametype.

Not a bad idea Hood, but it is a bit an intricate rule.

"Kings" sounds more promising, even if I thing it would make easier to run the board, but I can't wait to try it. Not sure if you should allow the Kings to move one next to another, I think you shouldn't, I don't know why exactly but I think it might cause some weird effects.

i understand Hood i think..put differently if u know a player is going to take u out cause he can use yr other armys to keep going to next player or to bolster his own cap..a sacrifice would in fact deter that move from happening...like the concept...mabe that along with Kings moving cap ..more i think of this more i like it ..it would add more strategy thats for sure .

Lol, if you don't, how are you going to kill another king?
You can leave the king without troops and then reinforce maybe, but not sure if that's how it's supposed to be.

lol very true Matty  dang looks like i got that foot in mouth virus again

I see your reasoning but I also see potential trouble Matty mentioned. If player A falls behind and doesn't think they can win then they can almost choose who they don't want to win. They can turn in cards and then move all their troops off their cap to a territory that blocks Player B from killing C or D and then turn them neutral. I can see such moves causing gamer rage.

At the same time I do understand the need to be able to throw up roadblocks to prevent a win. But I haven't been able to come up with a solution for that except to tell you to not play capitals, it's an inferior game type. Capitals games are supposed to be quicker. If players can throw up roadblocks then that prolongs the game. If all the players are seasoned players they should be playing deathmatch if they want to avoid predictable games.

I don't think you meant "all their troops".
Of course, this would be a suicide move, regardless of the Capital game type.

I think the problems you all mentioned are still apparent and true:
1. Player (A) can choose to give up their Cap, blocking player ( on their only route by placing enough troops off Cap and leave their Cap just weak enough for player (C) with less to kill on an easier route.
2. Player (A) can block player ( on their only route to player (D) Cap, but leave an easy path for player (C).

In both cases, there would be false claims, something like:
1. "I thought I had left enough in my Cap to defend and didn't realise the amount of troops player (C) was due"
2. "I didn't realise player (C) had an easier route to player (B or D)".

However, these sort of things are possible right now and do happen. Usually the player claims to not understand what they did wrong.

I did mean all their troops. It would be a form of suicide that players would try to get away with.

Changing the game mode to be like this would solve the issue:


But it will significantly change the gameplay involved with the game mode.

This would allow players to block themselves in for points bonuses early on and then just neutralize one of their troops and provide themselves with a neat escape route., effectively changing the entire capitals game IMO.

Yeah, his request basically means he wants a different gametype, hence my suggestion to just have a different gametype: kings