I think you should be allowed to set a specific percentage of assimilation for individual capital cites.  If you take a smaller town, you only take 10%,  but if you go for a bigger city you may take 50%.  Eh?

You only get troops from the other player though if you eliminate them through the Capital City (meaning it was their last capital city). Which seems like a capital city is a capital city and not necessarily individually different other than how the map designers sets them on the map.

Hmmmm, that may not make any sense, but I may not understand your example either. The smaller town capital city would have to be the last capital city of the player to be eliminated and receive any troops (ie 10%), where as the bigger city would have to be the last capital city of the player to be eliminated and receive any troops.

I see. Then I propose a new option of either Final Capitals, which act like they do now, or multiple capitals, which take a percentage of your empire despite how many you have.

Interesting idea. So if you have 3 capitals, if you lose one you lose 33% of your units?

No way.

I was hoping that you could make multiple city mode, where you can set the percentage assimilation for each city. So imagine 2 countries divided by a river. One either side of the river are a few small towns, the further you get away there are larger cities, each one increasing with % assimilation. So you can make your way across the river and take out a portion of your opponents empire by taking a city. If you take the big castle in the back, it's 100% assimilation. So you cut down their unit count instead of their bonus.

Is this much different from what I've heard of "Supply Depot Territories"? Sounds similar, but I'm not sure I understand either of them completely.

Yertle wrote: Is this much different from what I've heard of "Supply Depot Territories"? Sounds similar, but I'm not sure I understand either of them completely.

Yert, I think you're lost on this one.

I see what you're going for here EN, but it seems fairly pointless in actual gameplay. If you can by the conquering of one territory, not only take away a substantial portion of you opponent's property, but also gain that for yourself it would create such a swing of power that the game would pretty much be decidedly over for the player losing the portion of land. You might as well finish the job instead of kick him in the crotch and let him writhe in pain for a handful of turns.

What if you could start with territories that are linked to specific capitols. you could have the option to have a the capitol to knock the player out.

eg. Crams's castles board. each castle would be set where if you take a castle off someone then any of their territories within that continent would default to you but not knock them out even if it was their castle.

KrocK wrote: What if you could start with territories that are linked to specific capitols. you could have the option to have a the capitol to knock the player out.

eg. Crams's castles board. each castle would be set where if you take a castle off someone then any of their territories within that continent would default to you but not knock them out even if it was their castle.

Again, it would be such a crippling blow to that player that you may as well just put them out of their misery all together.

Not necessarily, it depends how the bonuses were distributed. It could definitely be balanced. I like KrocK's idea of setting a radius of assimilation. If it only effected the amount of territory you owned, and not necessarily your core bonus, you could strike right back and take your city back plus maybe another. I'm convinced it would be well utilized.

Especially in a game of more than 2 players, it wouldn't necessarily be that crippling. You could even set small ones to 5%, just to make a hit.

You could have a board where you have a cannon that can hit the towns with an artillery border, you have to knock out their towns to slowly eliminate them. You can't take your land back, it's just how long can you keep it and how well can you distribute your units to keep up.

Toaster wrote:

Yertle wrote: Is this much different from what I've heard of "Supply Depot Territories"? Sounds similar, but I'm not sure I understand either of them completely.

Yert, I think you're lost on this one.

Sounds good, then my vote would just be like asm's, no :P.  Just my vote, so can be thrown out if needed.

Why not?

I personally just don't think it would be worth it from the perspective of the programming, designing, and trying to figure out how to play it points of view.

Sure, it could provide for some different scenarios, but many of those same situations could be simulated 90% of the way with the current tools we have and some healthy imagination.

Toaster wrote: I personally just don't think it would be worth it from the perspective of the programming, designing, and trying to figure out how to play it points of view.

Sure, it could provide for some different scenarios, but many of those same situations could be simulated 90% of the way with the current tools we have and some healthy imagination.

Pretty much this is my reasoning.  More options are good, but they do just add more complexity to the site (and to every board on the site), and more complex options (which I would say something like this is a bit more complex) add even more complexity.

I know there are already some complex boards/features that are unRisk-like here, but at some point there may need to be a division on the site from "Risk" to some other strategy type gameplay (I think this is pretty much what Cram was suggesting on another thread).

Again, I like some of the complex boards that are out there and that are on WF, but adding more complexity to already some existing complexity for a "Risk" based site, IMO, may not currently be the best route for a growing site.

This is the opposite of what people are asking for here, but it seems relevant: it would be nice if a board designer could designated certain territories as not needing to be captured in order to eliminate the player.  These "extra" territories would revert to neutral if all of the player's other territories are captured.  In other words, it would be the same effect as having all other territories be designated as capitals with 0% unit assimilation.  Perhaps the designer could also choose whether or not these extra territories actually count toward the territory count for calculating units/turn.

Such a setting would be interesting to have because it would more easily allow for players to get differing bonuses for holding the same continent.  For example, a three player space map could have each player start as a different alien "race", indicated by which extra territory they happened to be assigned.  This territory would not have any incoming or outgoing connections, so it would always be in control of the player who originally received it.  One of these race territories could be linked to an extra bonus for holding volcanic planets, while another could be linked to ice planets, and then the last might be linked to desert planets.  This could set up an interesting dynamic where each player has a slightly different agenda.

Taking this one step further, this "race" territory could lead to other extra territories, allowing for some sort of tech tree.  Perhaps investing in this tree would grant extra bonuses for holding certain continents.  Again, none of these extra territories could be attacked by other players: the point is that they don't really count as territories on the board.

I like that idea norseman, but back to my idea... I don't know why you're limiting the potential of this site to just risk. There is a lot of room to expand and make new, fun games. Some of these things are not implementable with the tools we have, and I don't see why requesting new tools should be shot down. There are a lot of ideas on this site that everybody seems to shoot down because of personal preference. I could utilize this multiple capital city tool well to provide games for players who don't necessarily want to just play a world/europe map. I personally am not here for world maps, I am here because I have to resources to make much more dynamic games, and seeing as Spy vs Spy is a highly popular map, it shows that there are other people on this site looking for a game that steps out of the risk mold. I don't see how adding this option affects you negatively, or why you would speak out against this idea, when you can still play your world maps all you want.
Multiple Capitals is an idea that has merit. You don't have to play a board that uses it, but it could be utilized to make a fun game... and in the end, isn't that why we're here?

I'm not shooting anything down, it is tom's site and ultimately tom's decision. I would cast my vote against something that adds too much complexity to the site and/or takes away from other development. Just throwing my opinion out there.

I think adding more options affects all games, not just those that enable the new options. Even maps that wouldn't use Multiple Capitals, the flow would be to look at the Rules to see if Capitals are enabled, if enabled then look to see if multiple capitals are enabled, adding more layers to maps is just something that I am not a fan of. That's why I would cast my vote for time spent on other things; BAO, tournaments, fixes, etc.
There just seems like already a huge amount of untapped potential with the current system, yet there's always one more thing for one more map with one more flow, I would just like to see time spent elsewhere, and then if the site does get "split" I would be in favor of clearly distinguishing between the two.

Again, I enjoy some complex maps, and I know I could get used to them and they would be a great way to gain championship points (as the case normally is with complex maps), but currently I'm just a bigger fan of using what is already present (and that doesn't mean just creating simple world maps).