Adjacent Attacks

[OliverFA]

Anyone know if we've gotten an official stance on this Idea? We've been playtesting it for a while. I'd like to know if Lack will at least consider to put it on the To-Do list as a game option

I hope this is finally developed. As we have seen in the test games it prevents most of the current deadlocks while increase the level of strategy.

[n00blet]

Anyone know if we've gotten an official stance on this Idea? We've been playtesting it for a while. I'd like to know if Lack will at least consider to put it on the To-Do list as a game option

I hope this is finally developed. As we have seen in the test games it prevents most of the current deadlocks while increase the level of strategy.

Indeed...

One more for the Conquer Man game?

[OliverFA]

Anyone know if we've gotten an official stance on this Idea? We've been playtesting it for a while. I'd like to know if Lack will at least consider to put it on the To-Do list as a game option

I hope this is finally developed. As we have seen in the test games it prevents most of the current deadlocks while increase the level of strategy.

Indeed...

One more for the Conquer Man game?

Count me in. But please PM me again the password

[satishbhawra27]

At the start of a turn, you can deploy as normal. Once the attacks start though, a country can only conquer adjacent (or, for bombarding territories

[ubersky]

Just a rule clarifier. Does the rule only limit "conquering" or "attacking"? i.e. I have a bunch in territ A, I conquer territ B, and move alot of forces in. Now, can I attack other zones, but just not "conquer" them, or am I prevented from "attacking" them as well?

[SuicidalSnowman]

Just a rule clarifier. Does the rule only limit "conquering" or "attacking"? i.e. I have a bunch in territ A, I conquer territ B, and move alot of forces in. Now, can I attack other zones, but just not "conquer" them, or am I prevented from "attacking" them as well?

I'll be interested to see what everyone else says, but we started the rule this way a long time ago:

If you were, in real life, to conquer and area, it would take you at least some time before being able to attack again. You would need to resupply, move troops, etc. Under that doctrine, I would assume can cannot make any attacks from a newly conquered country, even if you don't actually conquer the next territory.

At the start of a turn, you can deploy as normal. Once the attacks start though, a country can only conquer adjacent (or, for bombarding territories

I don't think you fully understand the rules, but I am also curious as to why a player in 0 games is making such a post. I do hope this is your only account. Assuming you are genuine, the rule is that a newly conquered territory cannot be used to attack from until the next turn.

[sully800]

I agree with SS. The concept is that when troops move to a new territory they are exhausted and therefore unable to do any further attacking (whether the region is conquered or simply weakened). Of course that is impossible to enforce in our current games since the log does not record partial attacks. We must rely on the honor system for that facet, but current AA games always rely on the honor system.

[n00blet]

I agree with SS. The concept is that when troops move to a new territory they are exhausted and therefore unable to do any further attacking (whether the region is conquered or simply weakened). Of course that is impossible to enforce in our current games since the log does not record partial attacks. We must rely on the honor system for that facet, but current AA games always rely on the honor system.

Ditto that.

[ubersky]

I agree with SS. The concept is that when troops move to a new territory they are exhausted and therefore unable to do any further attacking (whether the region is conquered or simply weakened). Of course that is impossible to enforce in our current games since the log does not record partial attacks. We must rely on the honor system for that facet, but current AA games always rely on the honor system.

I wanted to know the rule so that I would not mistake. I had a chance to weaken a target after I took a territ in the Conquerman game we have going, but I didn't, and it prompted my post. The rule is clear for me now

[sully800]

I wanted to know the rule so that I would not mistake. I had a chance to weaken a target after I took a territ in the Conquerman game we have going, but I didn't, and it prompted my post. The rule is clear for me now

No problem, I think this was an aspect of the rule that hasn't been discussed enough though I have thought about it myself a couple of times. It's good to point it out so everyone is on the same page.

[xelabale]

Any new games going? I still like this format and would like to play another...

[n00blet]

We just started a Conquer Man game, but I'm always up for another!

[SuicidalSnowman]

Me too! What map should we try?

Or should we try different settings?

EDIT*
Game 5623575

6 Player assassin on Classic, flat cards, chained forts, sunny.

Same pass.

I figure we should try assassin, see how it works, and I picked classic because, well, it is classic.

[SuicidalSnowman]

Hey, I know a.sub mentioned this in a PM, what do we think about starting a user group?

On one hand, great way for us to keep in touch, keep games running, etc.

On the other hand, this is a better way to advertise across the site.

I think it is worth discussing again.

[a.sub]

Hey, I know a.sub mentioned this in a PM, what do we think about starting a user group?

On one hand, great way for us to keep in touch, keep games running, etc.

On the other hand, this is a better way to advertise across the site.

I think it is worth discussing again.

agreed, especially because it would work very well. One universal password and one thread for all games.
someone breaks the rules enough times and we kick em out and change the password.
simple.

[OliverFA]

Hey, I know a.sub mentioned this in a PM, what do we think about starting a user group?

On one hand, great way for us to keep in touch, keep games running, etc.

On the other hand, this is a better way to advertise across the site.

I think it is worth discussing again.

agreed, especially because it would work very well. One universal password and one thread for all games.
someone breaks the rules enough times and we kick em out and change the password.
simple.

Wonderful idea! At least we could have all our games in the group and keep them running.

[OliverFA]

Is anyone up for an AA Feudal War game? Standard, Flat Rate and Chained.

[SuicidalSnowman]

We have done Feudal before, it worked pretty well.

In fact, the game was pretty classic, Denominator started off by bombarding for the first few rounds and then found he was unable to expand with the rest of us ...

I could go for another.

[SuicidalSnowman]

Also guys, I just wanted to throw this out there since Oliver reminded me, I am running an objective based tournament. Since you guys have been into trying different game rules, you might want to check it out. Only three spots left though.
viewtopic.php?f=90&t=96367&p=2202118#p2202118

[OliverFA]

If anyone is in the mood, I created a Feudal War AA game.

Game 5644204 usual password

[n00blet]

In, as always.

On the topic of a usergroup though, I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I feel having the games organized in this thread is better for "publicity," so to speak. Just my $.02.

[Tupence]

In, as always.

On the topic of a usergroup though, I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I feel having the games organized in this thread is better for "publicity," so to speak. Just my $.02.

If the thread is to be hijacked for "publicity", really there should be a new thread made in the Callouts forum for that purpose

[SuicidalSnowman]

In, as always.

On the topic of a usergroup though, I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I feel having the games organized in this thread is better for "publicity," so to speak. Just my $.02.

If the thread is to be hijacked for "publicity", really there should be a new thread made in the Callouts forum for that purpose

Ok, so what I am hearing is that on one hand, we want to be able to play games easier, but on the other hand, we want to make sure we keep this where the general public, including new players, can see it, as well as hopefully show the powers that be that this option has been popular enough to support several hundred positive votes, so many posts, so many games, etc.



Here is my proposal. We start a thread in callouts where we post regular AA games. The Adjacent Attacks Call Out Thread. In the first post, we can keep a running list of games available. Also, we can keep a very brief updated "news" paragraph, you know something like "Nooblet wins AGAIN on Feudal!" or "Suicidalsnowman learns the hard way that holding alcatraz is a bad strategy in AA." Possibly we could also have players indicate interest, and if they do, we can keep a list and send out group PMs when new games are posted. This would also make changing passwords MUCH easier. I am also thinking that there should pretty much always be at least one open AA game.

Additionally, we can also collect results from the games, and sort of run ladder standings or maybe just a won/loss record.


I also think it might work best if, in general, people post what type of AA game they would like to play (I want to play on Feudal, or I want to play with FoW) and then whomever is editing the first post can create the games and post them. This is to keep everything organized in the first post, and make it easier for players to follow. <-- This is just a proposed idea.

I think this might be the best of both worlds.
1) We can have much more frequent games played.
2) We can test more and more settings, maps, etc.
3) We can continue to advertise, especially to players who aren't active in Suggs and Bugs.
4) We can use this topic more strictly for discussing ideas and improving the suggestion.
5) I think this topic might be too long and unwieldy for new players, so we can have an easy, brief one so people will feel more open to checking this out.
Many other bountiful benefits.

[Tupence]

Here is my proposal. We start a thread in callouts where we post regular AA games. The Adjacent Attacks Call Out Thread. In the first post, we can keep a running list of games available. Also, we can keep a very brief updated "news" paragraph, you know something like "Nooblet wins AGAIN on Feudal!" or "Suicidalsnowman learns the hard way that holding alcatraz is a bad strategy in AA." Possibly we could also have players indicate interest, and if they do, we can keep a list and send out group PMs when new games are posted. This would also make changing passwords MUCH easier. I am also thinking that there should pretty much always be at least one open AA game.

Additionally, we can also collect results from the games, and sort of run ladder standings or maybe just a won/loss record.


I also think it might work best if, in general, people post what type of AA game they would like to play (I want to play on Feudal, or I want to play with FoW) and then whomever is editing the first post can create the games and post them. This is to keep everything organized in the first post, and make it easier for players to follow. <-- This is just a proposed idea.

Good idea, it would be nice to keep this thread just for different ways of modifying and improving the suggestion

[n00blet]

In, as always.

On the topic of a usergroup though, I wouldn't be opposed to it, but I feel having the games organized in this thread is better for "publicity," so to speak. Just my $.02.

If the thread is to be hijacked for "publicity", really there should be a new thread made in the Callouts forum for that purpose

Ok, so what I am hearing is that on one hand, we want to be able to play games easier, but on the other hand, we want to make sure we keep this where the general public, including new players, can see it, as well as hopefully show the powers that be that this option has been popular enough to support several hundred positive votes, so many posts, so many games, etc.



Here is my proposal. We start a thread in callouts where we post regular AA games. The Adjacent Attacks Call Out Thread. In the first post, we can keep a running list of games available. Also, we can keep a very brief updated "news" paragraph, you know something like "Nooblet wins AGAIN on Feudal!" or "Suicidalsnowman learns the hard way that holding alcatraz is a bad strategy in AA." Possibly we could also have players indicate interest, and if they do, we can keep a list and send out group PMs when new games are posted. This would also make changing passwords MUCH easier. I am also thinking that there should pretty much always be at least one open AA game.

Additionally, we can also collect results from the games, and sort of run ladder standings or maybe just a won/loss record.


I also think it might work best if, in general, people post what type of AA game they would like to play (I want to play on Feudal, or I want to play with FoW) and then whomever is editing the first post can create the games and post them. This is to keep everything organized in the first post, and make it easier for players to follow. <-- This is just a proposed idea.

I think this might be the best of both worlds.
1) We can have much more frequent games played.
2) We can test more and more settings, maps, etc.
3) We can continue to advertise, especially to players who aren't active in Suggs and Bugs.
4) We can use this topic more strictly for discussing ideas and improving the suggestion.
5) I think this topic might be too long and unwieldy for new players, so we can have an easy, brief one so people will feel more open to checking this out.
Many other bountiful benefits.

I think that would be awesome. I, for one, wouldn't have time to keep such a thread running though. If someone else was to take up that responsibility, I'd be all for it.

Good idea, it would be nice to keep this thread just for different ways of modifying and improving the suggestion

But if no one has any suggestions, perhaps this sug has enough merit for a stamp of approval/disapproval?