Conceding Territories To Teammates

[craig84]

In my opinion it gets annoying to tyr to take over ur partners country which has a 1 and u have a 4 and u lose em all and attacking an ally is just plain stupid.

so I say there should be a convert round where u can turn some of ur armys into ur parnters. this makes more since than attacking a friendly, dont u think?

and if u disagree then i think there should be an avaliblity on "start your own game" to include convertiblity in doubles and triples games

[Marvaddin]

You are right, thats really annoying, but I disagre. I would like if always when you are attacking your partner with 1 army in a country, he could roll 1. Its a very better thing, since convertibility can be a used to abuse... well this is my opinion.

[pevanelagas]

And you get a card for taking over a 1 territory, even if it costs you 3 armies.

[kingwaffles]

Pev does bring up a good point there, if you take one of youra llies countries you are still going to get a card and if it was set up so they automatically lost you would get a free card. That doesn't exactly seem fair to me....

[edsegio]

The answer to this is no card for if you defeat an ally.

Convertability is good.

In fact, I would just award the continental bonus to the player that has the majority of territorities and/or troops in the continent (as in Risk II). That way there is no need to attack an ally or convert troops.

[wcaclimbing]

you should be able to attack your allies to get your card , but also just convert countries that you have to your teammates.

then, if someone had to deadbeat, they could convert all their guys to their teammates so no one would have to worry about neutral countries (or would that just be abuse waiting to happen?)

[edsegio]

Attacking an ally is just completely unrealistic, unless you don't want that person to be an ally anymore.

Imagine any war where one ally turned on another. Do you think that the excuse, "oh, sorry, but I needed the resources of your territory and I wasn't in a position to attack an enemy of ours," would work?

[Oggaia]

**Rejection Reason**

**Would Remove Much Of The Strategy Of Team Play**


Could it be possible to have team members exchange countries... or is it now possible for a continent to be owned by various members of a team thereby giving a continent bonus to the team ? How would such a bonus be awarded to the team?

[Evil Semp]

To get the bonus you have to own the continent.

If you could trade countries would that take some of the tactics out of the game? Why not just give each player a continent at the start of the game then?

[Oggaia]

If it isn't possible for team-mates to exchange countries, then it would have to be possible for me to attack a team mate, and that seems against all that team play seems to stand for. ... how else would team game players get a continent?

[Evil Semp]

If you want the continent bad enough have your teamate move all his extra men out of the continent, then attack the country you need.

This is a game of luck when in comes to getting your countries to start. Once in a great while a player get Aussie or SA at the beginning of the game. But quite a few times a team has a continent to start with and trading countries would be an unfair advantage.

[sfhbballnut]

I think this has been rejected already

[DoomOmen]

I apologize ahead of time as I am sure that this has come up before, but I haven't seen the thread on it. A search did not yield the results I was looking for and I really want to know about this, so I am posting it anyway.

Concise description:
Would it not be a better idea in team games for teammates to be able to concede a territory to another teammate? For example, say there is a doubles game in Classic and Player 1 on Team 1 is working on the Africa bonus. The only territory Player 1 doesn't own is owned by his teammate, Player 2. As it is, Player 1 must attack Player 2. Wouldn't it be better if Player 2 can just concede that territory? In an actual war, allies are not going to attack each other when one unit relieves another unit of their position. There is no reason why we should have to attack our own teammates.

Specifics:

• Players should only be able to concede territories adjacent to a teammate just like they can only fortify to a teammate's adjacent territories.
• When conceding a territory, whatever troop value is on that territory should remain the same but just be flipped to the color of the teammate being given the territory.
• You can add another button for the attacking player to where instead of just assault and auto-assault, that player now has the options of assault, auto-assault and concede.
• The concede button can have its own drop down boxes. One drop down box lists the territories that the player is able to concede and the other drop down lists his teammates adjacent to that territory so he can choose which one to give the territory to.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:
This would make team games more efficient and more realistic.

[Tatts_83]

i agree, sounds like a good idea. as it is if you get bad dice you can lose quite a few men trying to take a teammates territory. I understand some people may say this adds to the strategy but i think it's a good idea.

[DoomOmen]

I just found this: viewtopic.php?t=9265. It is dated 2006. Seems to me this idea needs to be revisited.

Nothing in that thread mentions anything about teammates only being able to exchange adjacent territories, so maybe the idea was misinterpreted as teammates being able to give any territory they want to another teammate, which is a bad idea indeed. Only being able to give a teammate adjacent territories is not a bad idea, however, and it takes nothing away from the strategy of the game. On top of that, attacking an ally for a mutual advantage would never occur in actual life. Yes this is just a game, but the game does not have to be illogical.

One of the arguments in that thread was that being able to concede territories is unfair to the other team. That is a ridiculous argument because it all works the same way for every team. Sometimes you get the nice drop, sometimes the enemy will. If this is the main argument for rejecting conceding territories, then you may as well reject random drops too, because that's just as unfair. All advantages and disadvantages in this game are universal; everyone gets good drops, everyone gets bad drops, everyone gets good rolls, everyone gets bad rolls.

Strategy would be better suited being dedicated on how to eliminate the enemy rather than how to eliminate a teammate from your bonus area. Troops would be better spent attacking the enemy and claiming his territories than attacking your teammate.

I will say this though, there needs to be a limit or some measure taken to prevent a player from conceding all of his territories to a teammate thus allowing that teammate to eliminate him. Perhaps only allow two or three concessions per turn and allow no concessions when a player has less than ten territories or so.

[a.sub]

i like this idea in general, especially the whole "must be adjacent" part because that prevents player A from giving his partner a bunch of bonuses that he didnt earn. However i do have a few things to add to this:
to begin, i think that this shouldnt be added to the attacking phase as that would both complicate things and would be heavily abused. instead it should be its own phase of the game, something like, deploy, attack, reinforce, concede.
the next problem i can think of is the abuse of this, partners conceding whole continents, doesnt seem like it would be a fair part of the game as you would never be able to take out someone unless you hack at both them and their partner simultaneously, which would leave you incredibly weak if it was 6 player dubs. not to mention a trips/quads game would be utter hell, it would be impossible to take someone out.
overall a good idea but until you iron out the kinks i wouldnt implement it.

[DoomOmen]

Right, A.sub. I do think it could be abused if one player is allowed to concede all of his territories to a teammate, but I think the main abuse aspect of it would be related to eliminations. Say Player A only has two territories left and both territories are adjacent to his teammate. He concedes both territories to his teammate thus allowing his teammate to eliminate him. That shouldn't be allowed. That's why I mentioned in my previous post that there needs to be some sort of cap figured out, such as allowing only two or three concessions per turn and no concession when you have less than ten territories or so. I just put out those numbers as an example, by no means do I feel they have to be concrete at this stage.

I would love to work out the kinks and get a solid plan figured out, but people need to give more feedback before that can happen. I would like to get some discussion about this topic and see where it goes. For some reason, most of these suggestion threads get completely ignored. You cannot improve the site if changes are not discussed and implemented more frequently.

[a.sub]

i agree with ya, personally i think that the rules in order to allow it will be too complex, again i love ur idea but it would only work if ppl with a sense of competition (not point whores) were playing

[Blinkadyblink]

I like the idea, and I think that there should be a separate concede phase before you receive your deployment. Otherwise, people can just concede their territories back and forth after their turns, allowing both teammates to have a massive territory bonuses that they don't deserve.

[fumandomuerte]

Hard to implement. Personally, I like the way teammed games work atm.

[stahrgazer]

This might work if done in lieu of an attack turn....
maybe have the option come up during the deploy phase, "deploy on" or "concede to" where the player's troop deployments automatically go to the conceded terr for his teammate, then bypass the "conceding player" attack option right into reinforcing/end turn. In other words, a player cannot both concede one terr and attack from that or any other terr in the same turn. Instead, his platoons are working on "being relieved."

That way, it's a strategic choice along with a risk, rather than just something that weights a game in a team's favor. Plus, it's realistic. Troops "being relieved" are unlikely to go on the attack.

Also, limit conceding to one terr per turn. If "Concede" is chosen instead of "deploy," those deployments auto-deploy to the chosen concession terr, then reinforcing comes up, then end turn.

I'd think this should also be limited to an inability to concede a last terr; or if a last terr is conceded, spoils do not exchange hands...to prevent a teammate being able to "suicide" into giving his teammate his spoils.

[drunkmonkey]

What if you were just given perfect rolls attacking a teammate's territory? Makes sense in a battle simulation. Why would your allies fight back while you're trying to advance an army through their territory? You would more likely relieve them of their duty, as the OP said. This would also do away with the need for an extra "concession" phase.

[DoomOmen]

I like the idea of having the concede phase begin the turn. That should help in preventing teammates from exchanging massive armies between turns to attack with. If you concede before you attack, you obviously can't use a territory conceded to you and then just concede it back. That's a great idea, Blink.

However, teammates can kind of already do this in the reinforcement phase. I don't think concessions would really be able to be abused like that since you can just do it by reinforcing anyway. I think as long as we can prevent suiciding, then the concession option will only ever be used for it's original intent, which is to vacate a teammate's bonus area or to perhaps strengthen a teammate or give him an extra territory so he can get an extra troop deployment on his next turn. All valid strategies that concessions could be used for that shouldn't upset anyone.

I think it works best this way: Concession Phase, Attack Phase, Reinforcement Phase.

I see what you're saying, Stahrgazer, but I have to disagree about having to choose either to concede or attack. Attacks are so important. I think most players would just attack their teammate instead of losing attacks altogether (I know I would), and then what was the change for?

DrunkMonkey, getting perfect rolls would still cause your teammate to lose troops. The idea is that neither you or your teammates should lose any troops when exchanging territories because that would never happen in an actual wartime situation. I know it's just a game, but still. That's like in WWII the Americans coming to relieve some British troops from a post and the British troops just disappear into thin air.

I doubt this is impossible to code. I don't know how to code, but it just seems pretty straight forward to me. If you can make the nuclear spoils turn a territory into a neutral without any rolls or turn all of a player's territories to neutrals when they miss too many turns without rolls, you should be able to make it to where you can switch adjacent territories to a teammate without having to roll the dice. Of course I am not sure about this, but it seems feasible to me.

And again, I think if concessions are limited to about two per turn, it would go a long way in preventing abuse. I've also been suggesting something like no concessions if you have under ten territories, but that is useless when playing small maps where you don't even start with ten territories. Instead, I like what Stahrgazer said, disallow players to concede their last territory. That should suffice in preventing suicides in most cases.

[darkangelsguy205]

good idea

[jefjef]

Makes luck of the drop even more important.

Bad idea.