[GO] HQ / Capital Game Type

by **sniffie** on Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:18 am

thanx M8!!!

Without tapping myself to much on my shoulder, it truly is a good idea

by **Bavarian Raven** on Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:40 pm

i like this idea, it seems cool =D
i would play it asap, so bring it on :lol:

by **SirSebstar** on Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:37 pm

did you know...
this suggestion is compatable with the christmas gameplay, in that you have a single area you need to keep in the advent calender or else you are dead in the game. i think this option is feasable.. without the choose a spot part then. but the rest is feasable within current html.
you could keep it to a certain map instead of new settings though

by **ben79** on Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:39 pm

SirSebstar wrote:its suggestion is a good one. In fact at least one map uses a similar principle. the christmas map, where you can get killed when you run out of advent places... i think its an 8 player assassin style terminator game.
i support this suggestion

same

by **Queen_Herpes** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:09 am

Would the capital be identifiable to the other players? Or would it be hidden?

by **Metsfanmax** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:43 am

For once, QH did something good by necroing this thread. Great suggestion OP.

by **natty dread** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:01 am

We already have this, in a way. We have support for maps with this feature, and we already have one map utilizing it (Middle Ages) but it is map specific, not an option for all maps, and I think it's good this way... I don't think having capitals would work on all maps.

by **Metsfanmax** on Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:33 pm

natty_dread wrote:We already have this, in a way. We have support for maps with this feature, and we already have one map utilizing it (Middle Ages) but it is map specific, not an option for all maps, and I think it's good this way... I don't think having capitals would work on all maps.

I think it would be a really fascinating style of play. Would everyone enjoy it? Probably not. But not everyone plays Assassin games either.

by **sniffie** on Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:54 pm

Queen_Herpes wrote:Would the capital be identifiable to the other players? Or would it be hidden?

It would be indentifiable to the players, but with fog of war you must be next to it to see it. There is no reference in the stats but the territory will be marked

by **sniffie** on Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:57 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
natty_dread wrote:We already have this, in a way. We have support for maps with this feature, and we already have one map utilizing it (Middle Ages) but it is map specific, not an option for all maps, and I think it's good this way... I don't think having capitals would work on all maps.

I think it would be a really fascinating style of play. Would everyone enjoy it? Probably not. But not everyone plays Assassin games either.

I realize not everybody wants to play this but the variaty of game types is one of the things that ensures that players can play there own specialized game.
Can you give some examples why it would not work on every map?

by **natty dread** on Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:22 pm

Well, maps like doodle and luxemburg come to mind. Or any other really small map - when someone's capital is next to your troops and you manage to start first, it's instant elimination, possibly.

Then there's maps that already have losing conditions... how would this work with them? Each player would have the "capital" defined in the map xml, and an additional capital as given by the game type. And what about a map where each territory you start with is already a "capital" (like the Antarctica map that is soon to be in beta)?

by **sniffie** on Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:33 pm

natty_dread wrote:Well, maps like doodle and luxemburg come to mind. Or any other really small map - when someone's capital is next to your troops and you manage to start first, it's instant elimination, possibly.

Then there's maps that already have losing conditions... how would this work with them? Each player would have the "capital" defined in the map xml, and an additional capital as given by the game type. And what about a map where each territory you start with is already a "capital" (like the Antarctica map that is soon to be in beta)?

i respect your opinion but to mee it sounds more like an extra dimension to the game, because players need to find a better balance between attacking and defending.
For example: Age of Realms, if a player is moving to take a player out he/she can leave his/her castle undefended, whit this option a player cannot "just attack" anymore.

Der sniffter

by **OliverFA** on Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:11 am

I think that despite there is an XML for this, we would also benefit from having it as a game option. Specially because this makes the game more strategic.

by **sniffie** on Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:03 am

OliverFA wrote:I think that despite there is an XML for this, we would also benefit from having it as a game option. Specially because this makes the game more strategic.

Totaly my point!
I understand not everybody wants to play this but we also have adjacent forts, not everybody plays that. We also have Freestyle gameplay, a lot of people really hate that. Not everybody is going to play this type of game, but if this suggestion is implemented a lot of people will have a totally new challenge, because the game would become even more strategic.

Der sniffter

by **OliverFA** on Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:55 am

der sniffter wrote:
OliverFA wrote:I think that despite there is an XML for this, we would also benefit from having it as a game option. Specially because this makes the game more strategic.

Totaly my point!
I understand not everybody wants to play this but we also have adjacent forts, not everybody plays that. We also have Freestyle gameplay, a lot of people really hate that. Not everybody is going to play this type of game, but if this suggestion is implemented a lot of people will have a totally new challenge, because the game would become even more strategic.

Der sniffter

In my humble opinion, the part of CC players who like the strategic approach needs more attention. After all, what's the strategy in getting lucky with nuclear spoils? I bet that more players would stay in the game if it could be configurated more as an strategic wargame.

And the good thing about options is that player who want a more abstract approach would have their settings too. Maybe even a group of grouped pre-settings that game could choose so they don't have to decide every setting.

by **sniffie** on Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:37 am

OliverFA wrote:
der sniffter wrote:
OliverFA wrote:I think that despite there is an XML for this, we would also benefit from having it as a game option. Specially because this makes the game more strategic.

Totaly my point!
I understand not everybody wants to play this but we also have adjacent forts, not everybody plays that. We also have Freestyle gameplay, a lot of people really hate that. Not everybody is going to play this type of game, but if this suggestion is implemented a lot of people will have a totally new challenge, because the game would become even more strategic.

Der sniffter

In my humble opinion, the part of CC players who like the strategic approach needs more attention. After all, what's the strategy in getting lucky with nuclear spoils? I bet that more players would stay in the game if it could be configurated more as an strategic wargame.

And the good thing about options is that player who want a more abstract approach would have their settings too. Maybe even a group of grouped pre-settings that game could choose so they don't have to decide every setting.

I admit nuclear and capital is for the dardevils, but that is for the players to decide, it''s the same with speed doodle assasin, doodle 8 man nuclear. Not everybody wants a strategic game, some players just want to make fun

by **SirSebstar** on Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:46 am

Just a question Der Sniffter,
Can you comment on the new middle ages map where you also have a feature of capitals?
Does this change the need for your proposal, or can you clarify why you still need the addition?

I am thinking a map already has the capital setting, though it is fixed and not placable, its as close to your original premise as possible.
What is then the reason for making it placable. is it like stratego where you can capture the flagg.. and you place it where you want?
Can you elaborate?

by **sniffie** on Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:11 am

SirSebstar wrote:Just a question Der Sniffter,
Can you comment on the new middle ages map where you also have a feature of capitals?
Does this change the need for your proposal, or can you clarify why you still need the addition?

I am thinking a map already has the capital setting, though it is fixed and not placable, its as close to your original premise as possible.
What is then the reason for making it placable. is it like stratego where you can capture the flagg.. and you place it where you want?
Can you elaborate?

First off all, i haven't really looked at the map middle ages. To my knowledge there is only 1 map with something like a Capital option. Making it possible to play this at other maps as well gives a new dimension to the game and makes it more strategic because a player cannot just attack without having a proper balance between attacking and deffending.
The reason for making it placable? good question, for example the classic map, 6 players capital option, and the capital is set automatic then it is possible that all the players have their capitals next to each other.

Did I answer your question to your statisfaction?

sniff

by **OliverFA** on Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:07 am

In my opinion, the existence of the XML tags to create capitals don't substitute the capital settings, for two reasons.

- First, all the maps previous to this XML update (and past to it without specifically using the tag) can benefit from the capital setting. Having a group of territories (capitals) of which each players needs to hold at least one makes for a very interesting game.
- Second, the source code is already written (it works for the XML update) so implementing this new game setting should have a lot less work.

There is the question about how would the setting work with games that already have capitals in the XML. I think the most reasonable is to say that this setting would always be forced to "capital" for that kind of maps, and would have no effect.

By the way, I think it would be nice for mapmakers to decide that they didn't want "capitals" for their map. That would avoid arguments like "but this setting would ruin maps X, Y and Z". In fact I still thing that mapmakers should be able to decide which settings are good for their maps.

by **SirSebstar** on Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:13 am

I think i still like the idea.
also, i beleive i heard somewhere that existing maps will not get their xml updated or changed. they are already approved.. or something.
Still as a new setting, i would like it.

by **sniffie** on Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:20 pm

OliverFA wrote:By the way, I think it would be nice for mapmakers to decide that they didn't want "capitals" for their map. That would avoid arguments like "but this setting would ruin maps X, Y and Z". In fact I still thing that mapmakers should be able to decide which settings are good for their maps.

Did it ever happen that a mapmaker said his map wasn't used properly? just curious.

Sniff

by **Metsfanmax** on Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:24 pm

der sniffter wrote:
OliverFA wrote:By the way, I think it would be nice for mapmakers to decide that they didn't want "capitals" for their map. That would avoid arguments like "but this setting would ruin maps X, Y and Z". In fact I still thing that mapmakers should be able to decide which settings are good for their maps.

Did it ever happen that a mapmaker said his map wasn't used properly? just curious.

Sniff

Look up qwert

by **OliverFA** on Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:48 am

Metsfanmax wrote:
der sniffter wrote:
OliverFA wrote:By the way, I think it would be nice for mapmakers to decide that they didn't want "capitals" for their map. That would avoid arguments like "but this setting would ruin maps X, Y and Z". In fact I still thing that mapmakers should be able to decide which settings are good for their maps.

Did it ever happen that a mapmaker said his map wasn't used properly? just curious.

Sniff

Look up qwert

With Research & Conquer, I had a lot of problems at the begining, because the concept did not fit Assassin settings. Gameplay had to be changed in a way that did not make much sense just to make possible this kind of games. Fortunatelly, the "capital update" allowed us to solve that issue while keeping the gameplay logical and within common sense.

by **sniffie** on Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:24 pm

SirSebstar wrote:I think i still like the idea.
also, i beleive i heard somewhere that existing maps will not get their xml updated or changed. they are already approved.. or something.
Still as a new setting, i would like it.

I am a bit of a noob concerning XML and stuff like that. When implementing this option, do a lot of maps need to change their XML?
Isn't it almost the same as terminator and Assasin?

Would be totaly great if assassin or terminator is to be combined with this option

Greetz sniff

by **GeneralMao** on Thu May 12, 2011 10:14 am

I played several modern types of risk and they utilize the use of capital cities that you can place on a territory of your choice (one capital on a territory that you control). They offer an extra man per turn, so it's worth defending your capital! You can also over take an enemies capital then get 2 extra men per turn! That would be easy to incorporate into this online dynamic.

[GO] HQ / Capital Game Type

Re: Capital

Re: Capital

Re: Capital

Re: Capital

Re: Capital

Re: Capital

Re: Capital

Re: Capital

Re: Capital

Re: Capital

Re: Capital

Re: Capital

Re: Capital

Re: Capital

Re: Capital

Re: Capital

Re: Capital

Re: Capital

Re: Capital

Re: Capital

Re: Capital

Re: Capital

Re: Capital

Re: Capital

Need Capitals for personal city and extra men!

Who is online