Deploy on Opponents

[ksslemp]

I think it would interesting and cool if there was an option to reinforce any country, including your enemies.

It would be used in this manner, lets say one of your opponents are about to eliminate another and collect their cards, you want their cards but are not in a position yet to accomplish this. so on your turn you reinforce them with a couple of your armies to ensure they stay around long enough for you to kill them.

This could be added to some of the exotic gameplays like Assassin for example.

JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE!

[AK_iceman]

Maybe for Assassin, but I can't see myself using this anywhere else.
I voted no.

[ksslemp]

I guess when i think about it, this option although i think would make for a more interesting game, would also be a boon for cheating multis.

would have to limit its use to doubles.

[CreepyUncleAndy]

There are two problems with this idea:

(1) You'll get hundreds of complaints from players who accidentally reinforced their enemies. Who hasn't accidentally deployed armies to the wrong territories? Imagine how bad it'd be if you accidentally deployed all your armies to an enemy territory.

(2) Abuse, abuse, abuse. You'll see dozens of multis exploiting this technique to get their Colonels to General at the expense of a bunch of sub-thousand-point puppet-Privates. On the good side, however, this will make it far easier to find multis (at least the ones whose greed outweighs their patience and cleverness).

I had already posted a related idea which is less abusable and met with more favorable responses:

Allow reinforcement of neutral territories.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13202

[usidyr]

Concise description:

• Allow players to gift troops to opponent players during deployment and reinforcement stages.

Specifics/Details:

• Allow players to deploy and reinforce on opponent player territories. It can be similar to the present system of how one can deploy and reinforce on a team mate's territory. However, a limit may be imposed on how many troops can be gifted per opponent per turn. I suggest this limit be 1/5th the troops due to the donating player at the beginning of his turn. This feature can be allowed in all games or introduced as a game type.

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

• This will vastly improve diplomacy and introduce new game dynamics such as proxy battles.

[chapcrap]

I think it would be interesting, but could really tick some people off.

[Jippd]

To play devils advocate, it could help multi's even more, and n00bs would accidentally drop on other people or fort away their troops.

[chapcrap]

To play devils advocate, it could help multi's even more, and n00bs would accidentally drop on other people or fort away their troops.

This is all true.

I don't think this will really work on CC. I would definitely play this way with a group of friends though.

[zimmah]

it would have to be a new option, diplomatic style. no teams but option to form teams during games (temporary teams or permanent teams, to be decided by the players during the game)

but it will also potentially increase multies, but they'd be quite easy to catch because it's too obvious it it happens often.

[usidyr]

Valid point about multis and noobs. But if this feature is introduced as a gametype, noobs can be denied access to these games. As for multis, isn't this feature also a good way to detect multis? If somebody regularly feeds a particular opponent in multiple games, that is a very strong indication that multis are involved. It is probably true that players will eventually not like to play with unknown players, but at least one can play with friends and known players, who they trust not to use multis.

[mviola]

This would have an interesting dynamic in 6-8 player escalating games.

[DoomYoshi]

Misclicks would be my biggest problem. I like this, as it makes the game more sandbox style, but I don't think it would be a very popular option.

[Extreme Ways]

it would have to be a new option, diplomatic style. no teams but option to form teams during games (temporary teams or permanent teams, to be decided by the players during the game)

but it will also potentially increase multies, but they'd be quite easy to catch because it's too obvious it it happens often.

Agreed. But when you have an alliance with a team, it's fair if they can deploy on their allies. That would be just perfect.

But can it be coded that when
-A player is forming an alliance with the same other players about 5 times orso
-A player dumps his troops in atleast 5 games

an automatic warning is being sent to multi hunters?

So when player A enters a 3 player game with player B (no multi's), and they play together in 5 games and in all 5 games they form an alliance, the C&A team will automatically will recieve a warning that they should look into it and maybe warn them.

[zimmah]

Valid point about multis and noobs. But if this feature is introduced as a gametype, noobs can be denied access to these games. As for multis, isn't this feature also a good way to detect multis? If somebody regularly feeds a particular opponent in multiple games, that is a very strong indication that multis are involved. It is probably true that players will eventually not like to play with unknown players, but at least one can play with friends and known players, who they trust not to use multis.

yes, you can make them private and make posts in callouts in a seperate section just for this type of game. just like the 1600+/1800+and 2000+ sections.

[IcePack]

One of the issues I see is guys like albestar (spelling?) who join random team slots and deadbeat / screw over random teammates (on purpose) would get off using this to further screw his team over and lose.
Deadbeating rids them of reinforcements etc but they get his troops after. This way he can hand all his troops to the other team!

IcePack

[Industrial Helix]

Concise description:

• 1)Bartering is a game special option, similar to how trench warfare or fog works. It can be turned off or on before the game starts.
  2)when activated for a game the bartering allows a player to both reinforce and deploy on another player's territory.

Specifics/Details:

• See above

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

• This would improve game play by making game dynamics more interesting and fun. It would allow for better in game alliances where you can aid your ally to fight your enemy by deploying or forting his troops in a critical battle ground. It would also allow for better deals during the game, for example a player may be willing to trade a territory in exchange for X amount of troops. As a player who loves the diplomatic aspect of CC, this would be a significant improvement, just short of allowing in game team c creation

[betiko]

humm... I don't really see how i could trust enough an opponent to the point of deployin on him and forting him...

here is another idea, if you deploy/fort on an opponent's territory, this territory would be unable to attack you for 1 turn.
Could lead to interesting strategies to defend bonuses.

[Metsfanmax]

humm... I don't really see how i could trust enough an opponent to the point of deployin on him and forting him...

There wouldn't be many situations where you would want to do this, but consider an objective map where the only way for you to save the game is to fort some troops to another player, who can use those to take back one of the objective territories.

[betiko]

humm... I don't really see how i could trust enough an opponent to the point of deployin on him and forting him...

There wouldn't be many situations where you would want to do this, but consider an objective map where the only way for you to save the game is to fort some troops to another player, who can use those to take back one of the objective territories.

so he can hold the objective himself with your troops and win!!
more seriously, the situation you describe never happens. If a player takes objectives with a few opponents left, it's because they are outnumbered and you are probably receiving 3 only which won't make much difference.

I think there could be something to think about with this idea changing a bit more radically the gameplay; but just like this there would be no interest IMO.

Other idea: if you create this type of alliance, it's for the whole game and the dominant receives more points that his helper. You would want to become a helper only if you don't have much chances to win. It could be a good way to avoid losing too many points or even win a little something. The dominant would have to agree to have the helper on his side and win less (but if he doesn't accept it, this helper will probably become the ally of another enemy....) I don't know with those mechanics you could have some pretty interesting diplomacy tactics.

[WILLIAMS5232]

i pretty much like this.

i play monopoly and similar board games like this. it's such a good game to include real world rules.

[usidyr]

I support this suggestion. It can lead to very interesting game dynamics such as improved diplomacy and proxy wars.

[BigBallinStalin]

I support this too. Let players drop and fort as they see fit, and let them come to their own agreements and ways of enforcing those agreements.

[JBlombier]

This will be the ultimate version of 'diplomacy games'. I'm not sure I would play it, but it sure is an interesting option.

[smegal69]

ability to drop troops on other players



be able to drop troops on any region on the board

Deploy troops or fort to any region on the board, even regions that are not held by you or a member of your team

add another dimension to the game play

be able to save another player in a assassin game,
add more defense or add a block to prevent someone breaking your bonus

[spiesr]

MERGED:

• ability to drop troops on other players
• REINFORCE OPTION

See Also: Reinforcing neutrals