"Killing Bonus" - option for cards

[Theguyoverthere]

Concise description:

• Like the No Spoils setting
• However, killing someone will yield in a set amount of bonus reinforcements you can deploy anywhere as soon as you kill them.
• Perhaps something like 10 bonus armies, more or less could be good.
• Could make bonus customizable in game options; ie. select between 5, 10, 15, etc.
• This would create games with all the strategy and diplomacy of a no spoils game, but it wouldn't last as long because there would be incentives for kills.
• Could lead to new, creative playing styles

Specifics:

• Create No Spoils with Bonus option
• Set how much bonus is in game options
• Awarded bonus after one makes a kill; can be placed anywhere at this time

What do you all think? I think it'd be a great way to spice up the classic no spoils game!

[The Neon Peon]

Q: How many troops does a person generally have in a no spoils game?
A: Very many.

Q: Why would someone want to kill someone for less troops than it took to kill someone?
A: No one would do that.

So, the bonus for killing someone would have to be pretty high for anyone to go for someone. But then it becomes an escalating game, doesn't it?

[Theguyoverthere]

The bonus doesn't have to be a set rate like 5, 10, or 15. I suppose it could give you useful abilities, like double or triple the reinforcements you'll get for the next 3 turns or something.

Or, the killing bonus could be worth a certain percent of armies on the map, and that percent would be selectable. 5%, 10%, etc.

[BaldAdonis]

Q: How many troops does a person generally have in a no spoils game?
A: Very many.

That's not true the whole time, just after a certain number of rounds.

Could be interesting, but percentages would have to be higher. If there are 6 players, then odds are you have about 16% of the armies. By the time you kill the person, those armies are gone, as well as yours, so the total amount is probably less than 3/4 what it was when you started. You'd need to get enough armies to recoup the 16% (or at least a good portion of it), so something like 20-25% would be better.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

• Like the No Spoils setting
• However, killing someone will yield in a set amount of bonus reinforcements you can deploy anywhere as soon as you kill them.

Isn't this subtle verion of a cards a game? Sounds like a the killing bonus is a substitute for collecting your opponents card.

E.G.

[Timminz]

Q: Why would someone want to kill someone for less troops than it took to kill someone?
A: No one would do that.

This is also not true. If killing someone gives you a decent shot at a sweep, it might not matter if the first kill was "worth it". Even sometimes when it won't give you a sweep, you can get an extra card, and it might be worth it to take a slight "loss" in armies.

But that has very little to do with this suggestion.

I don't see what this suggestion would accomplish. If you like No Card game, you like no card games. If you like big bonuses for killing people, play escalating. If you want something between the 2, play flat rate.

[The Neon Peon]

Q: Why would someone want to kill someone for less troops than it took to kill someone?
A: No one would do that.

This is also not true. If killing someone gives you a decent shot at a sweep, it might not matter if the first kill was "worth it". Even sometimes when it won't give you a sweep, you can get an extra card, and it might be worth it to take a slight "loss" in armies.

I am talking about his dang suggestion and not escalating games. Please don't twist my statements out of context. Why didn't you try to put in 2 player games as well? You would have to kill at least 18 troops for a set worth 10.

Think about the actual suggestion for a moment and realize that killing someone like that would be similar to killing someone in a flat rate. If we are talking about a flat rate game, then that statement is generally true. YES! I know there are exceptions, but I am talking generally. Take a look at all your games, find the weakest player and see if you would currently kill him for 15 troops. The answer would be "no" 95% of the time at least.

If you find that after looking at all of your games that you would kill someone for 15 troops in most of them, then I stand corrected.
I generalize, and do not wish to say "you should not go for north america in an escalating... unless you have all but one territory in it and that territory is weak, you can secure it easily, you do not lose many troops while taking it, you are doing a sweep and every territory in north america belongs to someone, you are in a team game, you are in a two player game and get the opportunity, you are in an escalating with few people, everyone else is taking bonuses, or..."

[Theguyoverthere]

Q: Why would someone want to kill someone for less troops than it took to kill someone?
A: No one would do that.

This is also not true. If killing someone gives you a decent shot at a sweep, it might not matter if the first kill was "worth it". Even sometimes when it won't give you a sweep, you can get an extra card, and it might be worth it to take a slight "loss" in armies.

But that has very little to do with this suggestion.

I don't see what this suggestion would accomplish. If you like No Card game, you like no card games. If you like big bonuses for killing people, play escalating. If you want something between the 2, play flat rate.

Yes, but flat rate has many luck factors such as red vs. mixed sets. Plus, in a no spoils with bonuses game, you don't have to worry about getting cards each turn. You can use no spoils strategies but still want to kill people. The bonus could be percentage wise, like I suggested so that the kill is most always worth it.

[Timminz]

But, there is a point to killing people, even if you're not being rewarded directly for it.