Killed general means player is dead

There are 2 options in every game of what to capture 1. capital 2. all city's these are the only ways to kill a player but i was thinking of a third what if u had to kill the general so the player is dead i know u guys are thinking that's too easy but he gets a bonus a +50 attack and +50 defense and get a plus 9 hp with a +4 ARB and maybe more then it will be hard to kill this idea will open up new ways to use your general either use him to conquer or protect him lot and probably make new scenario's and this idea is in the setting so players choose if they want to or not

OR instead of killing the general what about capturing the general (EX: X=player O=player : so X captures O's general and has to hold the general for 5 turns. but O's general give a -3 defense and attack and range for units in O's general stack this make's it harder for X to keep the general. but at the end X kill's O. the O general becomes a normal general with updates that X bought and O general is normal and can be killed. X general has to be captured to kill the X player) this idea allows people to have more generals too

plus can u add a cease fire it means that there are no first turn attack's

It was origina
Lu meant for this, but it would be too easy to win

Wr1tt3n by KYBL, 23.03.2012 at 07:16

It was origina
Lu meant for this, but it would be too easy to win

i added new things read it

We've had this before, but never capturing the general. That idea is actually pretty good. I especially like the fact that O's general in your example (and it's abbreviated e.g., not "EX") reduces the stack's potency.
However, I think this can easily be counteracted by simply moving units out of a stack and it just wouldn't be practical. This could be solved by setting a minimum number of units that must be in the stack containing the captured general or making them unable to depart from the stack, but then again, the players could just send the minimum number if the general is alone for instance and have just 1 infantry guarding the guy or something.
Furthermore, the -3 defence and attack is a way too extreme a punishment.

But a bonus +50 attack and +50 defence? Give me a break, I would need 6 frickin' tanks to take the one guy down. That's without even taking the HP and increased ARB into account! The first part is not a good idea, I reckon, due to this. And it is less strategic than defending a key city or two (if it's capture whole country).

Qu0t3:

at the end X kill's O and the O general becomes a normal general with updates that X bought and O general can be killed, X general has to be captured)

It stops making sense at this point, can you elaborate with more full stops please?

Wr1tt3n by YOBA, 23.03.2012 at 12:54

We've had this before, but never capturing the general. That idea is actually pretty good. I especially like the fact that O's general in your example (and it's abbreviated e.g., not "EX") reduces the stack's potency.
However, I think this can easily be counteracted by simply moving units out of a stack and it just wouldn't be practical. This could be solved by setting a minimum number of units that must be in the stack containing the captured general or making them unable to depart from the stack, but then again, the players could just send the minimum number if the general is alone for instance and have just 1 infantry guarding the guy or something.
Furthermore, the -3 defence and attack is a way too extreme a punishment.

But a bonus +50 attack and +50 defence? Give me a break, I would need 6 frickin' tanks to take the one guy down. That's without even taking the HP and increased ARB into account! The first part is not a good idea, I reckon, due to this. And it is less strategic than defending a key city or two (if it's capture whole country).

Qu0t3:

at the end X kill's O and the O general becomes a normal general with updates that X bought and O general can be killed, X general has to be captured)

It stops making sense at this point, can you elaborate with more full stops please?

ill try. this is only a idea the + 50 can be changed by u guys if they decided to add it to the game

This is a terrible idea, just awful, if a country loses its best general, the country wouldn't surrender, right? And all you would have to do to win is spam a bunh of units, kill/capture the enmy general focusing on defence not at all, and jsut putting you general into the super army.

Although i like the idea, i don't like how the games will turn with it.
it needs a lot more work on this, so the game doesn't lose its essence.

I played this Warcraft 3 map, called "Hunters vs Farmers", the game would pretty much look alike with this mode.
All your going to do is protecting the general..

Wr1tt3n by Taffx, 23.03.2012 at 18:18

Although i like the idea, i don't like how the games will turn with it.
it needs a lot more work on this, so the game doesn't lose its essence.

I played this Warcraft 3 map, called "Hunters vs Farmers", the game would pretty much look alike with this mode.
All your going to do is protecting the general..

some players will or use him as a super trooper

I have a great idea too,
if you kill the units and the general left, you have the option to capture or execute, if you execute the general dies, if you capture, your opponent has the option to pay you for the liberation of the general?.

because is pretty annoying to lose your general for the whole game

Wr1tt3n by Tundy, 23.03.2012 at 22:46

I have a great idea too,
if you kill the units and the general left, you have the option to capture or execute, if you execute the general dies, if you capture, your opponent has the option to pay you for the liberation of the general?.

because is pretty annoying to lose your general for the whole game

hmmm it a good idea but kill all units will take a long time

Wr1tt3n by GOD 2.0, 23.03.2012 at 23:09

Wr1tt3n by Tundy, 23.03.2012 at 22:46

I have a great idea too,
if you kill the units and the general left, you have the option to capture or execute, if you execute the general dies, if you capture, your opponent has the option to pay you for the liberation of the general?.

because is pretty annoying to lose your general for the whole game

hmmm it a good idea but kill all units will take a long time

Units on the stack, when you attack a stack and the general is in there. or a city and the general is in the city, or if he attack you with a army and general, and his army die.

Oh good idea

Hasn't this already been suggested?

Bumping this old suggestion... not so much the stuff like the huge bonuses to the general, but the general idea (pun not intended). I think it would only work as an option and then allowing the other end game requirements to be valid also, not just a game of kill the general. But I think it might tilt gameplay back to having to use stealth detection and be a little more defensive, which might be cool. Again, if only an option.

Wr1tt3n by Cherse, 06.01.2013 at 05:46

Bumping this old suggestion... not so much the stuff like the huge bonuses to the general, but the general idea (pun not intended). I think it would only work as an option and then allowing the other end game requirements to be valid also, not just a game of kill the general. But I think it might tilt gameplay back to having to use stealth detection and be a little more defensive, which might be cool. Again, if only an option.

Well, i proposed this in other topics, and arbitrator mentioned this to ivan and amok if i dont remember bad.
Basically they wont add this.

What happens if you lose your general first turn while expanding on neutrals?

Then you lose. Your army loses complete faith in their operations.

Wr1tt3n by Cherse, 06.01.2013 at 13:36

Then you lose. Your army loses complete faith in their operations.

lol!