Sug: Team Chained Fortification

[Fireside Poet]

..and I *still* think this would be nice.

[fumandomuerte]

I support this idea

[Incandenza]

I support this idea

[richardgarr]

Make total sense to me that you should be able to chain fort through allied territories. Like it was already said, I can drop on a partner, why not fort through one. It is only logical.

[bedub1]

Concise description:
Expand the concept of Unlimited Fortifications in Team Games so you can fortify your men to your teammates leading army edge, not just to the back.

Specifics/Details:
Right now in a solo game you can move your men as far as you want. In a team game although you can give men to your teammate, you can only move them to a spot adjacent next to your men. So this isn't really "Unlimited" Fortifications, but really "Unlimited - Adjacent" fortifications. We should expand unlimited fortifications to treat your teammates armies as your own so you have truly Unlimited abilities to fortify.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
This is an expansion of current capabilities designed to offer the player more options.

[Metsfanmax]

I don't like this. The intent of the current system is that you have no control over your teammate's armies. Once you allow this, you effectively have control of your teammate's territories because you can move armies through their territories.

[Woodruff]

Concise description:

• Team Game Fortifications Non-Sensical

Specifics/Details:

• Within team games, I can fortify onto a teammate's territory that is directly adjacent to my own. However, I cannot fortify onto a teammate's territory that is connected via that teammate. For instance, using the Classic Map as an example...imagine that I own the Berlin territory and have many troops on it with which to fortify. My teammate owns London and Reykjavik. I can fortify from Berlin to London, but I cannot fortify from London onto Reykjavik. This doesn't really make logical sense. I should be able to fortify to both or neither.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• Team game fortification would follow a more rational structure.

[Metsfanmax]

I think the current structure makes sense. The idea is that you can send your troops wherever you want, but once they're in another player's territory, you can no longer control them. There's no reason you should be able to command your troops in your opponent's territories.

[Woodruff]

I think the current structure makes sense. The idea is that you can send your troops wherever you want, but once they're in another player's territory, you can no longer control them. There's no reason you should be able to command your troops in your opponent's territories.

So it's your belief that an American commander should not be able to command American troops while they are in German territory? And that makes sense to you?

[IcePack]

The American commander (in this example, teammate) in charge of the territory would.

The commander in Iraq doesn't commander the troops in afghan.

[Woodruff]

The American commander (in this example, teammate) in charge of the territory would.

You guys have never been in the military, have you? The idea that there is "one commander" in a territory is almost as ludicrous as the belief that the "top commander" would be the only one doing any commanding of troops in the territory.

Remember, this is referring to a TEAM game. Which would equate to allies. Even when Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander, Montgomery still commanded his forces.

[rdsrds2120]

I think the current structure makes sense. The idea is that you can send your troops wherever you want, but once they're in another player's territory, you can no longer control them. There's no reason you should be able to command your troops in your opponent's territories.

So it's your belief that an American commander should not be able to command American troops while they are in German territory? And that makes sense to you?

My belief is that commanders wouldn't be rolling 'intensity cubes' to determine who wins
It isn't like real life, so trying to use an analogy from real life to appropriate gameplay doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

-rd

[Victor Sullivan]

I think the current structure makes sense. The idea is that you can send your troops wherever you want, but once they're in another player's territory, you can no longer control them. There's no reason you should be able to command your troops in your opponent's territories.

So it's your belief that an American commander should not be able to command American troops while they are in German territory? And that makes sense to you?

My belief is that commanders wouldn't be rolling 'intensity cubes' to determine who wins
It isn't like real life, so trying to use an analogy from real life to appropriate gameplay doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

-rd

But technically the intensity squares are representing warring parties, no? I think reasoning with realism isn't out of bounds here.

[greenoaks]

it sounds like you are suggesting you want to be able to paratroop your reinforcements anywhere

[TheForgivenOne]

it sounds like you are suggesting you want to be able to paratroop your reinforcements anywhere

Not really. He only wants to be able to reinforce through teammates. Not through opponents.

[IcePack]

The American commander (in this example, teammate) in charge of the territory would.

You guys have never been in the military, have you? The idea that there is "one commander" in a territory is almost as ludicrous as the belief that the "top commander" would be the only one doing any commanding of troops in the territory.

Remember, this is referring to a TEAM game. Which would equate to allies. Even when Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander, Montgomery still commanded his forces.

What does me having or not having been in army have anything to do with it?

That's as stupid as saying someone who doesn't have a child can't comment on how to raise kids or be a parent.

I know it's a team game your talking about, put the bottle down for a second and think, then talk.

IcePack

[Woodruff]

The American commander (in this example, teammate) in charge of the territory would.

You guys have never been in the military, have you? The idea that there is "one commander" in a territory is almost as ludicrous as the belief that the "top commander" would be the only one doing any commanding of troops in the territory.

Remember, this is referring to a TEAM game. Which would equate to allies. Even when Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander, Montgomery still commanded his forces.

What does me having or not having been in army have anything to do with it?

I explained that above. Didn't you read it?

That's as stupid as saying someone who doesn't have a child can't comment on how to raise kids or be a parent.

Not at all - I was referring to a clear lack of understanding of the situation, and the only reason I could see for that obvious misunderstanding was a lack of experience in the military.

I know it's a team game your talking about, put the bottle down for a second and think, then talk.

I am thinking - unfortunately, you do not seem to be trying very hard.

[Woodruff]

it sounds like you are suggesting you want to be able to paratroop your reinforcements anywhere

Not at all. It is logical that one's troops can move through an official ally's territory. And you don't get any more "official" with allies in this game than teammates.

[Metsfanmax]

it sounds like you are suggesting you want to be able to paratroop your reinforcements anywhere

Not at all. It is logical that one's troops can move through an official ally's territory. And you don't get any more "official" with allies in this game than teammates.

While your troops are in an ally's country, they're under the sovereign control of another power. The US doesn't have unilateral authority to just have their soldiers hop in Jeeps and drive across Germany without permission because they wanted to get somewhere. Your ally makes the rules while the troops are in their sovereign territory.

[Woodruff]

it sounds like you are suggesting you want to be able to paratroop your reinforcements anywhere

Not at all. It is logical that one's troops can move through an official ally's territory. And you don't get any more "official" with allies in this game than teammates.

While your troops are in an ally's country, they're under the sovereign control of another power. The US doesn't have unilateral authority to just have their soldiers hop in Jeeps and drive across Germany without permission because they wanted to get somewhere. Your ally makes the rules while the troops are in their sovereign territory.

You're forgetting that communication in these situations is always taking place among the various commanders and levels. Any ally that would so strictly limit the movement of allied troops through their territory would essentially be "throwing the game", as it were. They would effectively be trying NOT to win the war.

And by the way, US troops are NEVER, EVER "under the sovereign control of another power". That is, in fact illegal, including UN missions.

[PLAYER57832]

What Woodruff suggests is certainly more realistic, is more how real armies operate. However, whether it would change the game structure too much is another issue.

I would say maybe this should be an option.. like the difference between unlimited, chain and adjacent fortifications.

[Metsfanmax]

it sounds like you are suggesting you want to be able to paratroop your reinforcements anywhere

Not at all. It is logical that one's troops can move through an official ally's territory. And you don't get any more "official" with allies in this game than teammates.

While your troops are in an ally's country, they're under the sovereign control of another power. The US doesn't have unilateral authority to just have their soldiers hop in Jeeps and drive across Germany without permission because they wanted to get somewhere. Your ally makes the rules while the troops are in their sovereign territory.

You're forgetting that communication in these situations is always taking place among the various commanders and levels. Any ally that would so strictly limit the movement of allied troops through their territory would essentially be "throwing the game", as it were. They would effectively be trying NOT to win the war.

And by the way, US troops are NEVER, EVER "under the sovereign control of another power". That is, in fact illegal, including UN missions.

It's a basic tenet of sovereignty. While US troops are in Germany, they abide by all the laws and policies of Germany. That doesn't mean that Germany controls the troops, but it does mean that Germany has the right to say when and where troops can move.

[PLAYER57832]

It's a basic tenet of sovereignty. While US troops are in Germany, they abide by all the laws and policies of Germany. That doesn't mean that Germany controls the troops, but it does mean that Germany has the right to say when and where troops can move.

but they don't necessarily decide where the troops go initially. (or the two would work together on that)
In the context of CC, that might very well translate as you can move troops to any other position within the connected partner's territory, but not have any say after that.

i.e. Woodruff's suggestion This is just reinforcement, not attacks or moving the other person's troops or any "donated" troops once deployed at the correct location.

[Woodruff]

it sounds like you are suggesting you want to be able to paratroop your reinforcements anywhere

Not at all. It is logical that one's troops can move through an official ally's territory. And you don't get any more "official" with allies in this game than teammates.

While your troops are in an ally's country, they're under the sovereign control of another power. The US doesn't have unilateral authority to just have their soldiers hop in Jeeps and drive across Germany without permission because they wanted to get somewhere. Your ally makes the rules while the troops are in their sovereign territory.

You're forgetting that communication in these situations is always taking place among the various commanders and levels. Any ally that would so strictly limit the movement of allied troops through their territory would essentially be "throwing the game", as it were. They would effectively be trying NOT to win the war.

And by the way, US troops are NEVER, EVER "under the sovereign control of another power". That is, in fact illegal, including UN missions.

It's a basic tenet of sovereignty. While US troops are in Germany, they abide by all the laws and policies of Germany. That doesn't mean that Germany controls the troops, but it does mean that Germany has the right to say when and where troops can move.

As you even admitted, US troops are NEVER, EVER "under the soverign control of another power". It is in fact illegal.

Now, you're STILL forgetting that communication in these situations is always taking place among the various commanders and levels. Any ally that would so strictly limit the movement of allied troops through their territory would essentially be "throwing the game", as it were. They would effectively be trying NOT to win the war.

[L M S]

Concise description:

• Team Game Fortifications Non-Sensical

Specifics/Details:

• Within team games, I can fortify onto a teammate's territory that is directly adjacent to my own. However, I cannot fortify onto a teammate's territory that is connected via that teammate. For instance, using the Classic Map as an example...imagine that I own the Berlin territory and have many troops on it with which to fortify. My teammate owns London and Reykjavik. I can fortify from Berlin to London, but I cannot fortify from London onto Reykjavik. This doesn't really make logical sense. I should be able to fortify to both or neither.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• Team game fortification would follow a more rational structure.

no.