• 11 posts
  • Page 1 of 1
DukeOfWellington wrote:
I'm curious if it is possible or if there would be any interest in making a new game option where the amount of soldiers a player can have on the board at a given time is capped (to, say, 500). One frustration I (and I assume others) have with certain games is they take far too long because people accumulate vast armies of several hundred men per spot. Especially in capped games, this makes attacking too risky and leads to very boring stalemates where nothing happens for weeks on end.

My proposed solution would be to create a game option where the total number of troops a player can have on the board is limited to a set number. This would have at least two benefits. (1) It would keep games from dragging on forever and facilitate more aggression/excitement. Once a player got to the cap (for example's sake, 500) they would gain nothing from doing nothing and thus be encouraged to attack. (2) It would be more realistic. In real warfare, armies are limited by supplies and manpower; they cannot grow to an unlimited amount.

No one would be forced to play under these settings, but speaking for at least myself, I would be far more likely to play more games (and pay for the site) if we could cap not just the card bonuses, but the amount of soldiers any one player can have on the board at once as well.
DukeOfWellington is online.
anuorre wrote:
it's a good option. i would prefer to make this the default setting too.

not only in capped games but in increasing cards game too. once your armies start to outpace the increment (which is negligible once it reaches a certain point, since +100 and +105 makes no difference), the game stagnates.

perhaps make it formulaic that the cumulative army is capped for map size and number players.
anuorre is online.
Axobongo wrote:
I kind of like this idea, as an option. Not sure if 500 is the ideal, maybe 800? Or maybe 3 max settings to choose from. This is the kind of setting we would like to test over many games before streamlining through experience.   
 
(Note: There is something deliciously ironic about the Long Term game player seeking a faster game. But I get it, we have the same problem in Live games. Some people fear the turn setting and will wait hours for a quick game instead of joining a game and playing immediately, erroneously imagining average move time per player will differ. 

  And draws are a bummer,, and suiciding out is a bummer, and revenge suicide because one was attacked by a player hoping to start chipping down a large army, , is a bummer. But put a max cap on the game and however it goes, at least it cuts to the chase.

Also...I hope we also seriously consider an option of “No Rating” games to be put in game creation. I think it would boost the live game arena with experienced players mixing it up with newbies, and help return D12 to a bustling lobby of games)
pdbq wrote:
I like the idea...and shjenkes idea to add another option for shorter turns as well, but I'd say 2 minute or 90 second turns
MrTrotsky wrote:
Comrade, my preference would be that each player has exactly 500 men all the time. This is the only fair solution where all players are treated equally.
Matty wrote:
If we get this option, it cannot be a default. Firstly because I think the max amount of troops should be different per map (size). Second because I think this is a bad idea for increasing card games.

Also, I think you should be able to go over the limit with cards.
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
pygmyhippo277 wrote:
I think honestly it would lead to a more stagnant game, imagine if everyone only had 500 troops and couldn’t place any more, but the stacks were big enough to not warrant attacking, no one can get a lead, even if they had built up a lead in bonus or cards at the beginning
Eat my dust.
periwinkle wrote:
I would agree. You need a different approach.  To be honest, you will always be games that will end in a stalemate. The players involved or that are left are generally not risk takers so the game will last forever. It doesn't matter want setting it's on. We had a solution on our old digs...it was to create a side game with the remaining players in stalemate to determine the winner.  You can always do a draw....isn't that also a solution?
pygmyhippo277 wrote:
DukeOfWellington
(2) It would be more realistic. In real warfare, armies are limited by supplies and manpower; they cannot grow to an unlimited amount.

However it’s not realistic for there always to be a winner.
Eat my dust.
DukeOfWellington wrote:
I appreciate all the feedback. A few responses:

(1) Would it lead to a more stagnant game? I don't think so -- while it is possible once every player reaches the maximum that will deter anyone from attacking, I think what is more likely is the leading player will be incentivized to attack before reaching the maximum so as to retain his/her troop advantage. If the maximum is 500 and I have 480 men and my closest competitors are ~415, I am not going to sit tight and wait for them to reach the same number as me. And if we do all reach the maximum, the incentive to attack is no lower than than it would be in a game with no troop limit. So at worst, even if you don't think this option would reduce stagnant games, I don't think it could make anything worse. Players who are truly worried could also just not play under these settings.

(2) Is it not realistic for there to always be a winner? Sure, in real life, not all wars end with clear winners; indeed, no real life war has ever ended with one power conquering the entire world. But most people play games (especially Risk) with the intention of actually winning. If this option would help more games finish, I think it would be worthwhile; many players such as myself want closure at some point.

(3) "The players involved or that are left are generally not risk takers so the game will last forever." I think this option would self-select for D12 players who are a bit riskier and want games to eventually end, so I think this solution -- while obviously not perfect -- would allow for a marginally more fun experience for players seeking more efficient, more aggressive games.
DukeOfWellington is online.