Land battles with caps - it’s there already

eumaies#1128

Just wanted to share some info with land battles enjoyers.

The Turin total tavern discord folks have been making a lot of maps.

It now seems clear that we could be playing land battles with caps in tournament just as soon as a land battle map makers opts to make some.

Here’s the gist:

1) map builders confirmed you can make a domination map with no reinforcement spots. That means you play a domination game but your starting army is all you get. Basically a land battle.

2) you can make the same high quality deployment zones and initial vanguard deployment zones as in any existing land battle map you like.

3) you have multiple options with caps. I would recommend placing one cap behind impassable terrain so it’s out of play and having two caps adjacent to each other in the middle. This will give a minimum 2 minutes + 12.5 minute game if one side holds uninterrupted cap control.

Others might enjoy a one cap 25 minute timer (I think that’s excessive) or a three cap or split cap approach which will favor mobile units in the end game. The choices are yours.

4) with maps like this you get the following:

A) a game that requires no rules for a tournament. Do what you want for 15+ minutes but if you draw kite ir cycle charge endlessly or corner camp you’ll lose.
a game mode where surviving with a single entity like sigvald or an endless healing monster blob is not a win condition - if it can’t kill the more numerous enemy in 15+ minutes it will lose.
C) a game mode without army losses artificially ending games early (some of you won’t like this change - I’d love it)
D) a game mode where >95% of the time it’s going to be the battle that decides things except in the case of some cheesy unkillable sem blob or similar. Play as you like because the caps are not likely to matter at all.

Obviously it would be nice to have this in quick battle. But the proof of concept and tools for excellent tournament play (maybe a wwc someday without rules??) are all there for the taking.

Personally I don’t have time or skills to make maps. But I’m sure some people do so wanted to share. You can learn from the other map makers at the total tavern discord.

Peace

p.s. apparently you can also mod unit caps, which means if you want to keep fruit rules caps you could automate all that so players can no longer cheat or make mistakes regarding caps either.

Lotus_Moon#2452

I do think the capping weight etc for land battles needs a full on reword compared to dom, which i think has not well though out capping weight also but more impactful.

The_real_FAUST#6885

I would be VERY interested to try some of these.

But you would still need an army loss mechanic in there.

It does show how easy it would be for CA to sort this however

eumaies#1128

The_real_FAUST#6885 said:

I would be VERY interested to try some of these.

But you would still need an army loss mechanic in there.

It does show how easy it would be for CA to sort this however

Yeah at a minimum it would test the basic design and prove it produces a nice experience.

Is army losses that important when you can just win on caps if someone won’t surrender despite being beaten? Granted it’s a part of land battle tactics but do you feel it’s a positive good or just something needed to be consistent with regular land battles?

The_real_FAUST#6885

That's a good point you have raised. I'd prefer army losses to remain, but a cap win does pose a debate there. I know army losses frustrate people at times.


I'd stick with keeping them in only as I like the certainty of that means of victory as definitive rather than winning but having an opponent drag it out for no real reason for a period of capping they can't contest yet don't concede

saweendra#3399

Two victory conditions = two ways to approach the battle


1. You can stop worrying about caps at all and go for the kill, not have to wait x or y or z points accumulate, or hope opponent concede...etc or fight on theglowy spots.

2. Others can plan properly and go for the caps.


Like this isn't new enticity did have battles on his ladder with out army losses and with out resummoning just 3 caps.

They never really caught on. You should really try to understand what two different victory conditions means

eumaies#1128

saweendra#3399 said:

Two victory conditions = two ways to approach the battle


1. You can stop worrying about caps at all and go for the kill, not have to wait x or y or z points accumulate, or hope opponent concede...etc or fight on theglowy spots.

2. Others can plan properly and go for the caps.


Like this isn't new enticity did have battles on his ladder with out army losses and with out resummoning just 3 caps.

They never really caught on. You should really try to understand what two different victory conditions means

That seems like good advice for you given that there are two conditions here as well.

Hybrid mode on one map with three caps articificial rules around reinforcement summoning and terrible vanguard setup never caught on I agree. But whatever you want I wish you well.

saweendra#3399

eumaies#1128 said:

saweendra#3399 said:

Two victory conditions = two ways to approach the battle


1. You can stop worrying about caps at all and go for the kill, not have to wait x or y or z points accumulate, or hope opponent concede...etc or fight on theglowy spots.

2. Others can plan properly and go for the caps.


Like this isn't new enticity did have battles on his ladder with out army losses and with out resummoning just 3 caps.

They never really caught on. You should really try to understand what two different victory conditions means

That seems like good advice for you given that there are two conditions here as well.

Hybrid mode on one map with three caps articificial rules around reinforcement summoning and terrible vanguard setup never caught on I agree. But whatever you want I wish you well.

Eumais the moment you have one victory condition there is on the end of the day one way to win


Even if all other things are fixed thats the reality of the situation


Having two means there is two ways to win.

You can not simply stuff one down any ones throat give both options let players plan around one or the other

Let there be more diversity on what happens on a battle.

eumaies#1128

saweendra#3399 said:

eumaies#1128 said:

saweendra#3399 said:

Two victory conditions = two ways to approach the battle


1. You can stop worrying about caps at all and go for the kill, not have to wait x or y or z points accumulate, or hope opponent concede...etc or fight on theglowy spots.

2. Others can plan properly and go for the caps.


Like this isn't new enticity did have battles on his ladder with out army losses and with out resummoning just 3 caps.

They never really caught on. You should really try to understand what two different victory conditions means

That seems like good advice for you given that there are two conditions here as well.

Hybrid mode on one map with three caps articificial rules around reinforcement summoning and terrible vanguard setup never caught on I agree. But whatever you want I wish you well.

Eumais the moment you have one victory condition there is on the end of the day one way to win


Even if all other things are fixed thats the reality of the situation


Having two means there is two ways to win.

You can not simply stuff one down any ones throat give both options let players plan around one or the other

Let there be more diversity on what happens on a battle.

I'm honestly confused. What do you think will happen if you delete the enemy army? You think you will lose?

saweendra#3399

eumaies#1128 said:

saweendra#3399 said:

eumaies#1128 said:

saweendra#3399 said:

Two victory conditions = two ways to approach the battle


1. You can stop worrying about caps at all and go for the kill, not have to wait x or y or z points accumulate, or hope opponent concede...etc or fight on theglowy spots.

2. Others can plan properly and go for the caps.


Like this isn't new enticity did have battles on his ladder with out army losses and with out resummoning just 3 caps.

They never really caught on. You should really try to understand what two different victory conditions means

That seems like good advice for you given that there are two conditions here as well.

Hybrid mode on one map with three caps articificial rules around reinforcement summoning and terrible vanguard setup never caught on I agree. But whatever you want I wish you well.

Eumais the moment you have one victory condition there is on the end of the day one way to win


Even if all other things are fixed thats the reality of the situation


Having two means there is two ways to win.

You can not simply stuff one down any ones throat give both options let players plan around one or the other

Let there be more diversity on what happens on a battle.

I'm honestly confused. What do you think will happen if you delete the enemy army? You think you will lose?

Ok let me give you a example.


Lets say we have big old fight in the end of the battle i am left with a flyer and single unit of tatterd cav


Your left with couple of mid tear infantry left

And a single unit of hounds .


Obviously has the points advantage.


Now since i can not just rout your infantyry core and cause army losses in time you win.

Even though in vaccum where there is absolutely no win condition i would win sonce my lord can and will cycle all of your infantry. Terror route them and shatter them


See there lot of things that can happen in between this


Or some random **** can decide to wait for what ever time i need to gather points and not fight the rest of the battle and there is little to no benifit for me to hunt him down even though i could hunt him.

Just give two victory conditions? What are you so afraid of.

eumaies#1128

So you prefer single entity blobs to win via army losses and don’t like the win condition being kill the enemy army. I don’t think that’s the game most land battle players want but I’m not trying to keep you from your goals. Good luck.

saweendra#3399

eumaies#1128 said:

So you prefer single entity blobs to win via army losses and don’t like the win condition being kill the enemy army. I don’t think that’s the game most land battle players want but I’m not trying to keep you from your goals. Good luck.

No what i am saying is both should be viable.


It shouldn't be oh you have to just get the points or you just have to get Army losses


I am saying to have both. To have the option to do both.
To have option to startagize and use tactics to achive one or the other or change your game if one doesn't work.


Its about creating options

Edit did you also miss the part where you have no prayer of killing my lord or the cav. But i can kill your entire remaining army if had time.

Sarmatianns#6760

I certainly wouldn't cry much if that play style is discouraged. One SEM cycle charging and terror routing everything is not a selling point of land battles.

I'd certainly like to see how it works.... If tourney ever gets organized, I'd certainly watch it. Maybe even play it if I find the time.

saweendra#3399

Sarmatianns#6760 said:

I certainly wouldn't cry much if that play style is discouraged. One SEM cycle charging and terror routing everything is not a selling point of land battles.

I'd certainly like to see how it works.... If tourney ever gets organized, I'd certainly watch it. Maybe even play it if I find the time.

Here is the thing though is it my the players fault though?

Think about it you bring 2k plus lord or monster and you spend all of your effort making sure any thing that can kill it dies.

Taking away their mobility ..etc.

Than that player straight up out played the other player than yes that player should win in my book.


Than there is the other issue of flyers not being able to cap or being able to cap depending on what ever balance changes.

Either case will bring trouble


Or what about one player only having elite cavalry left in a end of battle and couldn't kill the opponent in time

Or monsters infantry

Look all i am trying to say take one win condition out than you absolutely limit what a player can do to win

Have multiple win condition have more ways to win
Meaning that there will be more game play variety and more fun in the long term

eumaies#1128

the variety argument is simply innacurate. in both versions of land battles you have two ways to win - it's kill or cap versus army loss or cap.

equal variety of options; just different options. totally fine to prefer the army loss one, but it's the same number of options.

saweendra#3399

eumaies#1128 said:

the variety argument is simply innacurate. in both versions of land battles you have two ways to win - it's kill or cap versus army loss or cap.

equal variety of options; just different options. totally fine to prefer the army loss one, but it's the same number of options.

Not really eumais

You could 100% go in to a fight with a final goal of caping

Or you can go in to battle with a final goal of routing an army.

All you got to do is destroy the units that would prevent you from either holding or destroy units that can kill the units that can cause rout.

So the impotence of units that is important to the process changes


If you want to just cap all you got to do is kill the high dps units of a enemy and just hold so impront units you want to save in the end is infantry

And if you wanna rout you wanna take out ld, and mobility.

That is two very different goals you could hyper focus on


But there is gonna be lot of situations where in a actuall battle one player is gonna left with either elite units with low cap weights or no cap weight

Or lot of high cap units but low end


So both players should get the opportunity to either pursue trying to route and kill the enemy

Or try to win via caps.


By putting just caps or just army losses you either guarantee one player from having advantage.


Now don't get me wrong you can balance this either by army losses or caps alone if both armys are from identical races and so either the balance of power or the ticket rate.

But this isn't shogun 2 where everything is so identical that you can have that level of balance its never going to happen with this game


Tldr what your trying to do is in the end of the limit what a player can do to win not increase it so the game can be better.

But what do i know its not like i helped to balance the oh so great domination

Sarmatianns#6760

saweendra#3399 said:

Sarmatianns#6760 said:

I certainly wouldn't cry much if that play style is discouraged. One SEM cycle charging and terror routing everything is not a selling point of land battles.

I'd certainly like to see how it works.... If tourney ever gets organized, I'd certainly watch it. Maybe even play it if I find the time.

Here is the thing though is it my the players fault though?

Think about it you bring 2k plus lord or monster and you spend all of your effort making sure any thing that can kill it dies.

Taking away their mobility ..etc.

Than that player straight up out played the other player than yes that player should win in my book.


Than there is the other issue of flyers not being able to cap or being able to cap depending on what ever balance changes.

Either case will bring trouble


Or what about one player only having elite cavalry left in a end of battle and couldn't kill the opponent in time

Or monsters infantry

Look all i am trying to say take one win condition out than you absolutely limit what a player can do to win

Have multiple win condition have more ways to win
Meaning that there will be more game play variety and more fun in the long term

Well, I would say that play style more or less relied on abusing the game mechanics, because it is extremely hard to actually hit such a lord.

So, said lord gets to charge, hit, throw models away from hit, do significant damage in one hit and immediately trigger damage taken, losing combat, faster and stronger unit near by debuffs all at once, and then pull out suffering negligeble damage and do it all over again. Add terror on top and even high price units will turn and run on most ocassions.

That is the reason such a play style was heavily discouraged through tournament rules, which discount SE as attackers unless they're only thing left. It was style open to abuse, but much less so with such rules.

What I'm trying to say, that style of play was something we always tried to discourage in tournaments. It might be your thing, no judgement here, but in this particular example, such a play style being discouraged by game mechanics is positive in my book.

Now people would have to worry about having a few additional units as boots on the ground while a dragon lord does his thing.

saweendra#3399

Sarmatianns#6760 said:

saweendra#3399 said:

Sarmatianns#6760 said:

I certainly wouldn't cry much if that play style is discouraged. One SEM cycle charging and terror routing everything is not a selling point of land battles.

I'd certainly like to see how it works.... If tourney ever gets organized, I'd certainly watch it. Maybe even play it if I find the time.

Here is the thing though is it my the players fault though?

Think about it you bring 2k plus lord or monster and you spend all of your effort making sure any thing that can kill it dies.

Taking away their mobility ..etc.

Than that player straight up out played the other player than yes that player should win in my book.


Than there is the other issue of flyers not being able to cap or being able to cap depending on what ever balance changes.

Either case will bring trouble


Or what about one player only having elite cavalry left in a end of battle and couldn't kill the opponent in time

Or monsters infantry

Look all i am trying to say take one win condition out than you absolutely limit what a player can do to win

Have multiple win condition have more ways to win
Meaning that there will be more game play variety and more fun in the long term

Well, I would say that play style more or less relied on abusing the game mechanics, because it is extremely hard to actually hit such a lord.

So, said lord gets to charge, hit, throw models away from hit, do significant damage in one hit and immediately trigger damage taken, losing combat, faster and stronger unit near by debuffs all at once, and then pull out suffering negligeble damage and do it all over again. Add terror on top and even high price units will turn and run on most ocassions.

That is the reason such a play style was heavily discouraged through tournament rules, which discount SE as attackers unless they're only thing left. It was style open to abuse, but much less so with such rules.

What I'm trying to say, that style of play was something we always tried to discourage in tournaments. It might be your thing, no judgement here, but in this particular example, such a play style being discouraged by game mechanics is positive in my book.

Now people would have to worry about having a few additional units as boots on the ground while a dragon lord does his thing.

Here is the thing you should read what i wrote


I have big flying lord and some tatered cav

eumaies#1128

I’m not sure yet but it might also be possible to mod unit caps, which would automate fruit rules caps, further streamlining the land battle experience.

Loupi#8512

eumaies#1128 said:

I’m not sure yet but it might also be possible to mod unit caps, which would automate fruit rules caps, further streamlining the land battle experience.

yes modding unit caps is easy

The_real_FAUST#6885

All of which is so encouraging, but even more irritating that CA is mute/inactive

Sarmatianns#6760

Well, it is unlikely that CA wants to balance the game so restrictively in regards to unit caps... They just want to forbid most egregious abuse, I assume.

Furthermore, there are so many intricacies with caps in tournament rules (and disagreements) that it would be quite a chore to tweak them constantly to keep up with changes to rules, and you're bound to annoy people.

eumaies#1128

Sarmatianns#6760 said:

Well, it is unlikely that CA wants to balance the game so restrictively in regards to unit caps... They just want to forbid most egregious abuse, I assume.

Furthermore, there are so many intricacies with caps in tournament rules (and disagreements) that it would be quite a chore to tweak them constantly to keep up with changes to rules, and you're bound to annoy people.

Certainly fine to just write them down in a pdf.

But since I’m told it’s easy mod, seems easy for an entire season to update a mod to reflect the fruit rules latest edition.

eumaies#1128

Fyi I’m running a prototype tournament with this kind of land battle with caps and embedded “fruit” rules unit caps.

Come play and help test and provide feedback on land battle with caps!

https://totaltavern.com/tournament/248