Page 10 of 11
Re: No Fortifications [To-do]
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:14 pm
by Joodoo
trapyoung wrote:Quite frankly no forts sounds pretty dumb to me. I get the whole "if you don't like it, don't play it" thing but if that's the real argument then no suggestion would get rejected. Someone gets Australia in a drop or something or eventually nabs it and takes Bangkok to a 1 and leaves it at that. Game over. You can put your 3 there each turn, maybe even not attack and force him to self deploy some for a trim but w/o forts there's really no way to recover. And imagine the stalemates there will be if people have huge stacks stuck behind 1's and people just continue to build to keep the other from unleashing their stack. Aren't there already games going on years? It seems absolutely pointless and turns the game into more of a luck factor. You advance 8 to take out a 2, 1 and sometimes you'll have 6 left over and others you'll not get past the 2. It's just luck and w/o a forting option everyone's stuck and it'll turn on who gets lucky enough dice.
I change my mind about this now
no reinfocement games
Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 4:15 pm
by BoyWonder
Concise description:Specifics/Details:How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:- adds a different strategy
Re: no reinfocement games
Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:56 pm
by TheForgivenOne
Please, try using the search button. This has been suggested before. Merged
Re: No Fortifications
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 8:13 pm
by Keredrex
I think Unlimited Adjacent Fortifications would be a better option to add...
Basically same rule as Adjacent... but it can be done multiple times on your turn. trick is that when a fortification is made between 2 territories, that would be the end of movement for those troops. that way you can't run a continuous line as it is in Chained fortifications.
Reinforcement Option Additions
Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 8:40 am
by Jerz
This is my first forum post ever so it feels like I'm sticking my
neck out, but here are two simple Reinforcement options to change
up the game now and again. I checked to see if it had been
suggested, couldn't find it.Reinforcement Options:- 1) Old time risk, NO REINFORCEMENTS
2) Adjacent reinforcements from all stacks, each turn.
Specifics/Details:
1) Self explanatory, you don't get any reinforcements after your turn
just like the original risk rules.
2) Again pretty self explanatory, just like existing adjacent rules,
Thanks, hope it makes sense!
except instead of only one adjacent move, if you have more than
one stack you can have an adjacent move for each stack. When you
get bonus's auto deployed on some maps, it makes it very difficult
to move them into position with the current adjacent rules
Re: Reinforcement Option Additions
Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 9:54 am
by sirgermaine
I am pretty sure I have seen these each in the rejected pile, although I'm not exactly sure the reason. One was called unlimited adjacent reinforcements (which I assume wouldn't actually be unlimited because then they are exactly like unlimited regular). The other was just called no reinforcements. I think the number of conquest style maps kind of preclude that from happening. It'd be pretty rough to run a random map without reinforcements and turn up feudal epic, for example. I think of the two, I like the no reinforcements better, because it does force you to be very careful, and also would affect your attacking, if you knew you might unleash a big army by mistake. I think that the multiple adjacent mostly helps players who are already winning games, such that they have the most troops to be moving around, and whatever makes games more interesting is better, at least to me.
Re: Reinforcement Option Additions
Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 10:17 am
by chapcrap
Jerz wrote:This is my first forum post ever.
It says you have 14 posts...
Anyway, this has been suggested before and I like it. It was called Unlimited Adjacent I think.
Re: Reinforcement Option Additions
Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 11:09 am
by agentcom
I don't think they've been rejected, but I could be wrong. But definitely both have been suggested before.
Re: Reinforcement Option Additions
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 10:08 pm
by Jerz
Oooops, sorry I haven't seen it. Thank you for taking the time to respond anyway!
As for the first time thing, I meant starting a subject, not commenting on someone else's.
Appreciate your time!
Re: Reinforcement Option Additions
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:20 am
by AndyDufresne
I think Lack has been considering a 'No Reinforcement' option for a while, so it is on his mind!
--Andy
Re: No Fortifications / Reinforcements
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:33 pm
by agentcom
Andy, thanks for stopping by and updating a bunch of these suggestions. Nice to hear where some of them stand.
Re: Reinforcement Option Additions
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:27 am
by Qwert
AndyDufresne wrote:I think Lack has been considering a 'No Reinforcement' option for a while, so it is on his mind!
--Andy
andy this is year 2012, and this sugestion are from 2007, maybe its still to early for implementation ?
Re: No Fortifications / Reinforcements
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 6:33 pm
by MstrGny
I have thought of this one for some time also. This would be the most realistic reinforcement option in my mind. Unlimited ie.transferring troops across the world in one turn is unrealistic. Chained is much the same, but limited to one group of troops. Adjacent is realistic in the space it covers, but unrealistic that you cannot move more than one group. Unlimited adjacent would be the correct way to say it, and would be the most the realistic i.e. move as many groups as you want, but only one space.
Real time risk, like Risk 2 could also be interesting. Pick your place(s) of battle, and decide how many troops to commit, realizing that your opponent(s) is also doing the same. After everyone decides, the battle(s) is executed autonmatically, and you are unable to call back troops if your battle doesn't quite your way. The reinforcing process would be a turn all in itself, followed by the next round of realtime risk, and so on.
a none reinforcement style!!! by caribbean soul
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:15 pm
by caribbean soul
[Delete Me]
PLACE THE NAME OF THE SUGGESTION IN THE SUBJECT LINE!
Things to remember when posting a new suggestion are that the dice are random, and that lots of analysis has been done on them both internally and public by community members. Also, please take time to search for previous similar suggestions and, if possible, to check current and archived threads before posting something "new". Delete the xxxxxxx, and substitute your text.
Any questions, contact one of the Suggestions Moderators.
[/Delete Me]
Concise description:
you must be very strategic in your deployment bc you CAN'T reinforce!!!
Details
this would be no reinforcing! it would be more strategic because you could NOT reinforce!!! so you must have a much more strategic deployement
How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
it would benifit trophy wise, there would be a trophy for 400 non reinfocement style,
[*]xxxxxxx[/list]
Re: a none reinforcement style!!! by caribbean soul
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:22 pm
by BGtheBrain
*****
Re: a none reinforcement style!!! by caribbean soul
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:34 pm
by DoomYoshi
I like it. It's kinky, but I can deal with some bondage.
Re: a none reinforcement style!!! by caribbean soul
Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:32 am
by Metsfanmax
This was an idea that had some merit a
long time ago:
viewtopic.php?f=471&t=116801viewtopic.php?f=471&t=83813It never really had whole hearted support, so it didn't get off the ground. If people are more interested in it now, we can re-examine it.
Re: a none reinforcement style!!! by caribbean soul
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:30 pm
by chapcrap
I think this would be a good option.
Re: a none reinforcement style!!! by caribbean soul
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:34 am
by agentcom
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 71&t=83813This thread that Mets linked to is awesome. There's some great smart-ass commentary and some people actually played a test game to see how it would work out. At some point, these identical suggestions should probably get merged together (and I'm sure there are more like them out there). There is some good stuff in these old threads.
Also, in the two threads linked to, I can't really find any reason for this being rejected. So maybe we should keep this one in the active suggestions forum and try to pull these threads together (especially given what the OP here looks like).
Re: a none reinforcement style!!! by caribbean soul
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:38 am
by Metsfanmax
agentcom wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=471&t=83813
This thread that Mets linked to is awesome. There's some great smart-ass commentary and some people actually played a test game to see how it would work out. At some point, these identical suggestions should probably get merged together (and I'm sure there are more like them out there). There is some good stuff in these old threads.
Also, in the two threads linked to, I can't really find any reason for this being rejected. So maybe we should keep this one in the active suggestions forum and try to pull these threads together (especially given what the OP here looks like).
Go for it. I'm normally opposed to minor variants on existing gameplay, if the only real reason for doing it is just so that players have more options, but I think that no reinforcements is a different enough style of gameplay to warrant serious consideration.
Re: a none reinforcement style!!! by caribbean soul
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:53 am
by DoomYoshi
Ok, I withdraw my support after thinking about it.
Consider a few ridiculous scenarios:
I attack a territory and I can advance troops, but if I advance 0 and end attacks, then I can't immediately place those troops there. This seems like a ridiculous and arbitrary choice. The same can be said about trench though (if you advance to a new terrritory you cant attack the same territory that you would have been able to attack) which is a setting I like, but in that case, the strategy element of it makes sense.
I start with territories in the middle of the dust bowl. Normally, I can save 1 troop. This way, I can save 0 troops.
1v1 becomes a total dice slog.
Re: a none reinforcement style!!! by caribbean soul
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:58 pm
by chapcrap
DoomYoshi wrote:Ok, I withdraw my support after thinking about it.
Consider a few ridiculous scenarios:
I attack a territory and I can advance troops, but if I advance 0 and end attacks, then I can't immediately place those troops there. This seems like a ridiculous and arbitrary choice. The same can be said about trench though (if you advance to a new terrritory you cant attack the same territory that you would have been able to attack) which is a setting I like, but in that case, the strategy element of it makes sense.
I start with territories in the middle of the dust bowl. Normally, I can save 1 troop. This way, I can save 0 troops.
1v1 becomes a total dice slog.
First, move your troops correctly, that's your fault, not the settings' fault.Second, not every setting is for every map. And, with Dust Bowl's new XML, that wouldn't matter anyway, because both players would be in the same boat.
Re: No Reinforcements Option
Posted: Fri May 31, 2013 3:09 pm
by spiesr
Re: No Reinforcements Option
Posted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 11:42 am
by Funkyterrance
I'm anti this suggestion and I'll tell you why: I think there are already too many "obscure" settings.
This would be an unsettling setting for a new player and games started like this might drive away newcomers. I also think this might turn into another setting that high ranks would just use for a while to gain points until people got used to it and then it would probably be abandoned. I personally think it might be fun but for the sake of the greater good, maybe it should not be done. You could always play the "gentlemanly" version mentioned earlier and make a private game where everyone agrees not to fortify right?
ng option Re: No Reinforcements Option
Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:44 pm
by Fazeem
Interesting option but should it not be called no fortifications?