Sug: Team Chained Fortification

[Timminz]

I absolutely oppose this suggestion, but I would support an option for so-called paratrooper reinforcements, which would make what this thread is suggesting possible without removing more strategic options, for those of us who enjoy that kind of thing.

If you believe that this suggestion IN ANY WAY relates to the so-called paratrooper reinforcements, you clearly are not understanding this suggestion. Seriously misunderstanding it, even.

As usual, you are incorrect about my level of understanding, but don't let that stop you from continuing to jerk off to the though of other people's "lack of comprehension". Besides, if you can't understand how paratroop reinforcements would allow to do what you want here, then perhaps you should go have a nap, and come back again at this, with a fresh head. There's a good boy.



The point is that you are suggesting making a drastic alteration to how team games work, and I will never support that. You're saying, "this is too hard. make it easier for me", while I'm saying, "if you want an easier game, suggest that, but don't take away my preferred, more strategic variation of the game."

[PLAYER57832]

Why "dumbing down".

It would reduce the amount of communication, coordination, and forward-thinking required. To me, those are the most crucial parts of being a good team player at CC.

Why? To me, it would increase all of those things.

How does that work?

What you are saying here, is similar to someone saying that unlimited fortification requires more strategy than adjacent.

I am arguing its just different strategy. You seem to be suggesting it takes strategy away. I disagree.

Anyhow, this applies only to reinforcements and intial deployments. It does not apply to other movements.

[PLAYER57832]

The only question I have is whether you would allow multiple movements for unlimited. That is, right now, if I goof or change my mind, I can move armies again within my own territory, would you be able to move only your own armies in a teammate's territory the same way?

That was not my intention, no. My intention is that once you "place" them onto the teammates territory, they are then immediately theirs.

Yes, that is what I initially thought.. and would probably easier all around.

[Woodruff]

I absolutely oppose this suggestion, but I would support an option for so-called paratrooper reinforcements, which would make what this thread is suggesting possible without removing more strategic options, for those of us who enjoy that kind of thing.

If you believe that this suggestion IN ANY WAY relates to the so-called paratrooper reinforcements, you clearly are not understanding this suggestion. Seriously misunderstanding it, even.

As usual, you are incorrect about my level of understanding, but don't let that stop you from continuing to jerk off to the though of other people's "lack of comprehension".

How could I possibly be incorrect about your level of understanding when you explicitly said that?

Besides, if you can't understand how paratroop reinforcements would allow to do what you want here, then perhaps you should go have a nap, and come back again at this, with a fresh head. There's a good boy.

Despite your clear desire to troll, paratroop reinforcements have to do with moving troops to any location regardless of connectivity, which IS NOT AT ALL similar to what I am suggesting. Do try to grow up.

The point is that you are suggesting making a drastic alteration to how team games work, and I will never support that.

Because it's not possible that they could be improved upon, or because you just don't want to have to bother getting used to the change?

You're saying, "this is too hard. make it easier for me"

I'm not even remotely saying that. You, however, seem to be saying "Don't change it, because then I'll have to figure out how to play it and I don't want to bother".

while I'm saying, "if you want an easier game, suggest that, but don't take away my preferred, more strategic variation of the game."

That is, of course, only your opinion that the current scenario is "more strategic"...I certainly disagree.

[PLAYER57832]

while I'm saying, "if you want an easier game, suggest that, but don't take away my preferred, more strategic variation of the game."

Why is it any less strategic? More options does not equal less strategy. In fact, it can be the opposite.

[Metsfanmax]

while I'm saying, "if you want an easier game, suggest that, but don't take away my preferred, more strategic variation of the game."

Why is it any less strategic? More options does not equal less strategy. In fact, it can be the opposite.

It can be, but one can easily see that saturating a player with too many options makes a game incredibly easy and you lose some of the strategic thinking involved. What makes Risk exciting and challenging is that you have to do the best you can with a limited set of resources. Sometimes you lose because of bad luck, and this is inevitable, but that doesn't take away from what makes the game interesting. If you make it really easy for a player to do what he or she wants to do, then the game becomes dull and you don't get to make your mark on the game by playing it creatively.

[Woodruff]

while I'm saying, "if you want an easier game, suggest that, but don't take away my preferred, more strategic variation of the game."

Why is it any less strategic? More options does not equal less strategy. In fact, it can be the opposite.

It can be, but one can easily see that saturating a player with too many options makes a game incredibly easy and you lose some of the strategic thinking involved. What makes Risk exciting and challenging is that you have to do the best you can with a limited set of resources. Sometimes you lose because of bad luck, and this is inevitable, but that doesn't take away from what makes the game interesting. If you make it really easy for a player to do what he or she wants to do, then the game becomes dull and you don't get to make your mark on the game by playing it creatively.

I fail to see how it makes it easy for a player when the player must account for their opponent's teammates deploying anywhere within their territories that may be connected. Again, you are only considering how it makes things "easy" from an offensive standpoint, and not at all how it makes things "difficult" from a defensive standpoint. And I really don't understand why you believe that it doesn't take creativity to be able to account for the more far-reaching opponent moves...I would suggest it takes MORE creativity to do so.

[jeraado]

Personally I disagree with this suggestion. The debate about which approach best mirrors real life has been interesting, but in my opinion we should focus on function over form i.e. how the change would influence actual gameplay.

I think that the current set up (with the limitation on reinforcing to teammates) forces some difficult choices - Do I take a team-mate's territory so I can pass my troops to the next player? How will my attack on an opponent this turn affect my team-mate's reinforcements next turn? I think these types of choices are what make team games, especially with good teammates and opponents, so challenging.

If the reinforcements are changed it would shift some of the strategic thinking away from attacking and into defense. However I don't believe that is preferable. I think this type of change will encourage a much slower, more passive style of play by making territory build-ups in critical areas easier. If, in a built-up game someone breaks through their opponents' defenses, right now the opponent may have to scramble to shift troops in time to counter it, forcing them to think a couple of moves ahead and regroup. With this change it will be easier to simply send a teammate's troops across the board to wherever they are needed. I also think it will make getting easy cards easier and reduce the need for deploying on a team-mate (which I think can be an interesting decision point as well).

In short, I think this suggestion reduces the number of difficult choices which need to be made in a game, and I think that's why a lot of people like team games in the first place

[Timminz]

while I'm saying, "if you want an easier game, suggest that, but don't take away my preferred, more strategic variation of the game."

Why is it any less strategic? More options does not equal less strategy. In fact, it can be the opposite.

It is less strategic, in the same way that unlimited forts are less strategic than adjacent.

Being given less options for moving your troops, means you will have to plan better in order to move them in the most effective manner.



Regardless, this is a stupid suggestion that will never be implemented, as long as it is trying to dumb down team games as they exist now. Perhaps the OP has changed his mind, and changed his idea to be a distinct option in his last couple of posts (I wouldn't know, since I've chosen to stop wasting my time with his posts. I've realized that pompous asses like Woodstuff aren't worth the aggravation they cause. "You've never even been in the army, have you? *scoff*"), but I doubt it.



To summarize: useless suggestion, will never be implemented, not worth me getting woody all stiff over anymore. I'm out.

[Metsfanmax]

while I'm saying, "if you want an easier game, suggest that, but don't take away my preferred, more strategic variation of the game."

Why is it any less strategic? More options does not equal less strategy. In fact, it can be the opposite.

It can be, but one can easily see that saturating a player with too many options makes a game incredibly easy and you lose some of the strategic thinking involved. What makes Risk exciting and challenging is that you have to do the best you can with a limited set of resources. Sometimes you lose because of bad luck, and this is inevitable, but that doesn't take away from what makes the game interesting. If you make it really easy for a player to do what he or she wants to do, then the game becomes dull and you don't get to make your mark on the game by playing it creatively.

I fail to see how it makes it easy for a player when the player must account for their opponent's teammates deploying anywhere within their territories that may be connected. Again, you are only considering how it makes things "easy" from an offensive standpoint, and not at all how it makes things "difficult" from a defensive standpoint. And I really don't understand why you believe that it doesn't take creativity to be able to account for the more far-reaching opponent moves...I would suggest it takes MORE creativity to do so.

It's true that my argument came from the offensive point of view. The argument about the defensive side is irrelevant, because when you make it this easy it would be fairly obvious to a defender where the troops will go.

[PLAYER57832]

while I'm saying, "if you want an easier game, suggest that, but don't take away my preferred, more strategic variation of the game."

Why is it any less strategic? More options does not equal less strategy. In fact, it can be the opposite.

It is less strategic, in the same way that unlimited forts are less strategic than adjacent.

Being given less options for moving your troops, means you will have to plan better in order to move them in the most effective manner.

Except its not, really. Its just that with adjacent troops you have a harder time moving, reacting and acting. This means slower strategy, but not less strategy.

You have to think in advance either way, In fact, you sometimes have more time to change your ming in adjacent, because it takes time for your armies to get to the other guy. If you do wrong in unlimited, you know it right away.

Regardless, this is a stupid suggestion that will never be implemented, as long as it is trying to dumb down team games as they exist now.

Not only are you unsually negative here, but you show an incredible, persistant bias I see a lot among some older CC players. That is, that your particular style of play, whatever it is, is the "most strategic", or "most difficult", etc. The same bias exists with a variety of maps. Those that don't match the classic pattern are "unworthy", with the exception of a few who happen to like those particular maps (those who like AOR, those who like Fuedal, etc.)

Really, it is just YOUR PREFERENCE. That's fine, except when it comes to comments like "this is stupid"... "don't do it [because I don't like it}".

To summarize: useless suggestion, will never be implemented, not worth me getting woody all stiff over anymore. I'm out.

Its definitely not a useless suggestion and will add to, not detract from team games. As an option, you won't have to play it.

[nebsmith]

I have a problem with this suggestion and it's to do with trips & quads.
A big part of trips & quad games is eliminating one of the opposing team members which can take a fair bit of co-ordination and planing. It seems to me that the ability to chain reinforcements through team- mates could make this too easy, particularly if unlimited reinforcements were being used.

I suppose it could also make it easier to defend against, but either way i could see every game revolving around the survival or elimination of one player from round one. I think that could get boring very fast.

[SirSebstar]

I have a problem with this suggestion and it's to do with trips & quads.
A big part of trips & quad games is eliminating one of the opposing team members which can take a fair bit of co-ordination and planing. It seems to me that the ability to chain reinforcements through team- mates could make this too easy, particularly if unlimited reinforcements were being used.

I suppose it could also make it easier to defend against, but either way i could see every game revolving around the survival or elimination of one player from round one. I think that could get boring very fast.

I concur, this suggestion is bad. I do NOT support it

[Queen_Herpes]

I like the idea, but I think it could lead to games where each team just loads up one player for a pseudo-manual deploy like 1v1 game. While I understand the arguments that favor protecting teammates, I still think most team would go for the steamroller.