For your to-do list:

I want to be able to setup teams (not necessarily the same size), give default name suggestions, modify the player colors, provide intial reserve armies and cards, see your promised "win scenarios" added (that's a great idea, by the way. I'll get another thread going on possible win scenarios I'd like to see baked in).

Cramchakle wrote:

modify the player colors,

As dumb as it sounds, this is absolutely one of my top favorite things about map design.

Thanks guys - added to list.

Is there a real difference between capital city and allocated in the scenario? If there is special functionality for capitals, what is it and if not, why is it an option.
I'm confused and if it's cool I'nna use it.

Also, could I have a fuller explanation of the border types? I understand fortify only and across borders but the other one (name I can't recall at the moment) that allows you to fortify anywhere within a chain....am I correct about that?
does that mean:
1 If you hold 5 territories in a row and they are all connected with this type of border than you can transfer from 1 to 5 or 1 to 3 if you would like to.
2 Is it one territory that you can connect to several others and if you control that territory and all the others in the line you can transfer to any?

If it's either of them, it's cool but 2 would be totally cool!

What you are referring to is not a border type per se, but a rule that you can select. And I would also like to know exactly how it works :)

Ok so there are three fortify rule types:

1) Across bordering territories only - this is the default fortify behaviour where you can fortify between territory A and B only if A is directly connected to B with a border.

2) To any connected territory - as per Risky's (1) this means if you have a chain of 5 connected territories A-B-C-D-E where '-' is a border you can directly fortify from A to E if you own all 5 territories ABCDE.

3) To any owned territory - you can fortify between any of your occupied territories with no need for any borders at all.

Regarding Capitals, they are a special gameplay feature. The principle is that if you capture a player's last remaining capital, then they are eliminated from the game.

If the Capital capture rule is turned on then the territory remains a Capital and the player who captures it ends up with an extra Capital. If capital capture is off then the Capital is destroyed when it is captured (i.e. the capturing player doesn't end up with an extra Capital).

The other rule setting that affects capitals is the 'Capital city unit assimilation %'. Yes, this sounds incredibly geeky but it just means if capture capture is on, it's the % of units which the player captures from the other player when he takes his last capital. e.g. if it is set to 100%, then when I capture his last remaining capital and eliminate him I get ALL his territories and units as well. If it's set to 50% I only get half his units / territories.

Hope that helps explain things...

Capitals sound superbly fun. I shall work with this.

Dammit tom you just ruined the entire concept of the map I've been making by giving me more really cool options!!!

Love the Capital City Idea.

What happens if you have Capital Cities set in your scenario but the Rule Capital Cities Off? Do those areas just go vacant or are they still set up to go to the specified player?

They turn into normal territories allocated to a particular seat.

I'm adding a couple of new rule settings relating to capitals... tba soon :)

tom wrote:

I'm adding a couple of new rule settings relating to capitals... tba soon :)

Nooooo, I just finished the Help and almost somewhat got myself to understand them without actually playing with them yet :P

tom wrote:

I'm adding a couple of new rule settings relating to capitals... tba soon :)

So the Neutral Capital, it starts off Neutral, if Player A takes it, then Player B takes it from Player A is Player A eliminated even if he still has other territories?

Also what happens if Player A abandons his/her capital city and it reverts to Neutral, do they eliminate their self?

Ok, this is my fault. The concept is that there could be neutral capitals in a map without initial capitals so that it was a risk v reward for taking them. Yes, they may have bonuses or whatever, but then you game is over if you lose just the one.
With my understanding, with the current system, if you have more than 1 capital all will act as your capital so if you lose one but still have the other you are still in the game and the conquering player just got another territory. I've been discussing this with tom in PM's and that is my understanding
I am trying this out with Highlander to avoid the ending clean up. We'll see if I'm right in my thinking.

I like the ideas and think you have everything right (or at least I have a similar understanding).

Yertle wrote:

So the Neutral Capital, it starts off Neutral, if Player A takes it, then Player B takes it from Player A is Player A eliminated even if he still has other territories?

Yes that's right - as per Risky's suggestion, it's a risk-reward type situation.

Yertle wrote: Also what happens if Player A abandons his/her capital city and it reverts to Neutral, do they eliminate their self?

Currently you're not allowed to abandon a Capital (even if you have more than one). This could potentially be another rule option (allow capital abandonment) but would need a safety so you couldn't eliminate yourself.

RiskyBack wrote:
With my understanding, with the current system, if you have more than 1 capital all will act as your capital so if you lose one but still have the other you are still in the game and the conquering player just got another territory.

 Yes that's right!