berickf wrote:

Quick question Tom,

Would it be possible for you to implement that capitals be divvied out randomly at the beginning of the game and not seat assigned?  This would be a way to create semi-token territories (every non-token as a capital), though, they'd not be as good as real token territories.  But it might be easier for you to implement such as a stop-gap?  Plus, such would have many other uses as well.

Thanks

Erick

How would this work ..if there are 5 capitals and 6 players?  ..5 capitals and 4 players? etc..

M57 wrote:

berickf wrote:

Quick question Tom,

Would it be possible for you to implement that capitals be divvied out randomly at the beginning of the game and not seat assigned?  This would be a way to create semi-token territories (every non-token as a capital), though, they'd not be as good as real token territories.  But it might be easier for you to implement such as a stop-gap?  Plus, such would have many other uses as well.

Thanks

Erick

How would this work ..if there are 5 capitals and 6 players?  ..5 capitals and 4 players? etc..

Every on-screen territory would be a capital, then when one's last on-screen territory was captured, they'd be eliminated without off-screen territories, or, on-screen territories deemed non-important being taken into consideration... So eliminations would once again be able to be part of the game for boards with off-screen mechanisms (factories) without the need for abandon to be on.  In my own example, 300 territories (all capitals) would be randomly distributed between 4, 5, 6... 16 players.  It would not be dealing with such a small number of capitals as in your example.

For smaller numbers of capitals, and random assignment, as in your example, then it would be good if a) the scenario would obviously not allow for more players to join then there are capitals to be assigned and b) if the number of players is less (and not divisible) by the number of players assigned to the game then all the remaining capitals would be made neutral.  It would also be nice for the option that only 1 capital be given per player no matter if the number of capitals is divisible by the players or not.  I have seen many such maps on other risk sites that follow such parameters.

This has been asked for several times in the past.  One thing that would also be needed to make it work would be the ability to divide the allocations of random territories. 

For example: Say you have 6 capital territories and 48 regular territories with 6 players.  You would need to be able to say that each person gets a random capital territory and also their allotment of regular territories.

This ability to separately assign groups of random territories has also been asked for before - independent of the capital discussion.  So, the interest for all of this is there - whether it rises in priority I guess is the question -

By the time you get done figuring out all the caveats and fixes for them, I think you might as well just have done all of whatever is required to have tokens.

Cramchakle wrote:

By the time you get done figuring out all the caveats and fixes for them, I think you might as well just have done all of whatever is required to have tokens.

..but doesn't Amidon's suggestion do more than what tokens (as proposed) would do?

Probably, but my response was in the context of berickf's request.

Tokens would be my preference as they would allow board makers to no longer need to "tweak" their per territory bonuses to take into account off-screen factories (which could appear confusing to those reading the description pages), but when Tom told me that Tokens would be a substantial amount of work to implement I was just throwing out the second best way of solving the problem thinking that it might be "easier" for Tom?  Both have a lot of alternative applications though.

My general preference is to hold out for the most efficient and elegant solution(s), even though patience is not one of my strong character traits.  One question in my mind.. Have token territories been pushed down on the list, or is it unrealistic to ever expect them?

Apart from that, it sounds like berick's suggestion stands alone.  I.e., it would still have value even if tokens were implemented.  However, I could get much more excited about it if Amidon's related suggestion (to be able to separately assign random groups of territories) could be woven into such a feature. Among other things, this would make a huge difference where randomizing opening positions for more determanistically oriented boards is concerned.

Token territories would work well with the new win conditions. Specifically, the n number of territories and the n number of armies.

New simple suggestion: Add an option to turn off getting a card for capturing neutrals. Might make things more interesting.

erastus25 wrote:

New simple suggestion: Add an option to turn off getting a card for capturing neutrals. Might make things more interesting.

It is interesting, but I don't see that it would make make much of a difference to game-play.  Are you interested in designing a board with this feature?

M57 wrote:

erastus25 wrote:

New simple suggestion: Add an option to turn off getting a card for capturing neutrals. Might make things more interesting.

It is interesting, but I don't see that it would make make much of a difference to game-play.  Are you interested in designing a board with this feature?

I think this feature makes a lot of sense.  It would go right along with "Non-vacant territory capture required."  

IMO this feature would evoke more conflict in both the early game (when most are just looking for cards) and the end game (when large stacks are bordering each other).  Makes for a potentially more aggressive and chaotic game.

AttilaTheHun wrote:

M57 wrote:

erastus25 wrote:

New simple suggestion: Add an option to turn off getting a card for capturing neutrals. Might make things more interesting.

It is interesting, but I don't see that it would make make much of a difference to game-play.  Are you interested in designing a board with this feature?

I think this feature makes a lot of sense.  It would go right along with "Non-vacant territory capture required."  

IMO this feature would evoke more conflict in both the early game (when most are just looking for cards) and the end game (when large stacks are bordering each other).  Makes for a potentially more aggressive and chaotic game.

Exactly my thinking. Wish I had written that response! haha

I assume it would also be very simple to add (probably just a few lines of code?)  and I can't think of a real downside to making the option available.

erastus25 wrote:

I assume it would also be very simple to add (probably just a few lines of code?)  and I can't think of a real downside to making the option available.

I'm not saying it's not a good feature; in fact, I can think of some instances where I might use it, but I'd be surprised if it entailed just a few lines of code.  Consider the not dissimilar designer request for Token territories. These are territories that would not be included when considering if a player is eliminated or not -

When a player is reduced to only Token territories, the player who caused it eliminates the player.

Most designers agree that the addition of Tokens would be a game-changing feature because it would enable them to create certain 'off-board' factory-driven mechanics that are otherwise impossible to create. Regardless, it would make the creation of all off-board mechanics much easier.  It sounds simple enough to implement, but Tom recently announced that it's not that easy. 

>the early game (when most are just looking for cards)

Kind of an aside, but does anyone disagree with this?  Early game is usually when I don't care about cards.  If a set is worth < 12, then a single card is worth < 4.  So why bother attacking if I might lose more than a guy or two. Early on when cards aren't worth much, I often just place and wait. 

I guess if cards don't escalate, then they are more valuable in the beginning, but most games have escalating cards (for good reason).

(Also, I'd much rather have token territories)

Ozyman wrote:

>the early game (when most are just looking for cards)

Kind of an aside, but does anyone disagree with this?  Early game is usually when I don't care about cards.  If a set is worth < 12, then a single card is worth < 4.  So why bother attacking if I might lose more than a guy or two. Early on when cards aren't worth much, I often just place and wait. 

I guess if cards don't escalate, then they are more valuable in the beginning, but most games have escalating cards (for good reason).

I was thinking the same thing. It depends on the board and the card structure.  I'm torn on many boards, especially in earlier rounds.. 

Consider the case where  cards are escalating at 1 per trade.  If you were to trade when cards were worth 6, each card was worth 2 units.  It follows that one question you should be asking yourself is.. "What was the cost of getting those cards?"

I'm thinking that this way of looking at the value of cards has the most weight in the early rounds. Additionally if you pass on getting a card in one of your first four rounds (and no one else does), you are guaranteed to get 9 units in a five player game as the last person to cash (that's 3 units per card).  Also, in the early games gaining a territory often does little for you - where you don't increase your per/diem bonus and, in many cases capturing a territory actually weakens your position.

(Also, I'd much rather have token territories)

Absolutely, though the two seem to employ similar mechanics, disabling card capture is simply a territory attribute that ostensibly affects tactics.  Tokens, on the other hand, open up a world of possibilities for designers.  They aren't really related.

But timing is important too.  A costly card set that gives you the forces to come back from behind and make good crippling attacks can be critical. 

For me it depends on the game and number of players.  In some games you can run the table in your first cash-in, so every card is crucial.  If you want to 'control' when you want to cash I think it is better to defer getting a card when you are 1 before the turn-in limit rather than passing on the first round.

Also, I agree with ratsy  in that you should consider the value of that card you are passing up as its value on your last turn-in instead of you first.