Conquer Club

fumandomuerte wrote:I support this idea

• Team Game Fortifications Non-Sensical

• Within team games, I can fortify onto a teammate's territory that is directly adjacent to my own. However, I cannot fortify onto a teammate's territory that is connected via that teammate. For instance, using the Classic Map as an example...imagine that I own the Berlin territory and have many troops on it with which to fortify. My teammate owns London and Reykjavik. I can fortify from Berlin to London, but I cannot fortify from London onto Reykjavik. This doesn't really make logical sense. I should be able to fortify to both or neither.

• Team game fortification would follow a more rational structure.

Metsfanmax wrote:I think the current structure makes sense. The idea is that you can send your troops wherever you want, but once they're in another player's territory, you can no longer control them. There's no reason you should be able to command your troops in your opponent's territories.

IcePack wrote:The American commander (in this example, teammate) in charge of the territory would.

Woodruff wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I think the current structure makes sense. The idea is that you can send your troops wherever you want, but once they're in another player's territory, you can no longer control them. There's no reason you should be able to command your troops in your opponent's territories.

So it's your belief that an American commander should not be able to command American troops while they are in German territory? And that makes sense to you?

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I think the current structure makes sense. The idea is that you can send your troops wherever you want, but once they're in another player's territory, you can no longer control them. There's no reason you should be able to command your troops in your opponent's territories.

So it's your belief that an American commander should not be able to command American troops while they are in German territory? And that makes sense to you?

My belief is that commanders wouldn't be rolling 'intensity cubes' to determine who wins
It isn't like real life, so trying to use an analogy from real life to appropriate gameplay doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

-rd

greenoaks wrote:it sounds like you are suggesting you want to be able to paratroop your reinforcements anywhere

Woodruff wrote:

IcePack wrote:The American commander (in this example, teammate) in charge of the territory would.

You guys have never been in the military, have you? The idea that there is "one commander" in a territory is almost as ludicrous as the belief that the "top commander" would be the only one doing any commanding of troops in the territory.

Remember, this is referring to a TEAM game. Which would equate to allies. Even when Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander, Montgomery still commanded his forces.

IcePack wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

IcePack wrote:The American commander (in this example, teammate) in charge of the territory would.

You guys have never been in the military, have you? The idea that there is "one commander" in a territory is almost as ludicrous as the belief that the "top commander" would be the only one doing any commanding of troops in the territory.

Remember, this is referring to a TEAM game. Which would equate to allies. Even when Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander, Montgomery still commanded his forces.

What does me having or not having been in army have anything to do with it?

IcePack wrote:That's as stupid as saying someone who doesn't have a child can't comment on how to raise kids or be a parent.

IcePack wrote:I know it's a team game your talking about, put the bottle down for a second and think, then talk.

greenoaks wrote:it sounds like you are suggesting you want to be able to paratroop your reinforcements anywhere

Woodruff wrote:

greenoaks wrote:it sounds like you are suggesting you want to be able to paratroop your reinforcements anywhere

Not at all. It is logical that one's troops can move through an official ally's territory. And you don't get any more "official" with allies in this game than teammates.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

greenoaks wrote:it sounds like you are suggesting you want to be able to paratroop your reinforcements anywhere

Not at all. It is logical that one's troops can move through an official ally's territory. And you don't get any more "official" with allies in this game than teammates.

While your troops are in an ally's country, they're under the sovereign control of another power. The US doesn't have unilateral authority to just have their soldiers hop in Jeeps and drive across Germany without permission because they wanted to get somewhere. Your ally makes the rules while the troops are in their sovereign territory.

Woodruff wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

greenoaks wrote:it sounds like you are suggesting you want to be able to paratroop your reinforcements anywhere

Not at all. It is logical that one's troops can move through an official ally's territory. And you don't get any more "official" with allies in this game than teammates.

While your troops are in an ally's country, they're under the sovereign control of another power. The US doesn't have unilateral authority to just have their soldiers hop in Jeeps and drive across Germany without permission because they wanted to get somewhere. Your ally makes the rules while the troops are in their sovereign territory.

You're forgetting that communication in these situations is always taking place among the various commanders and levels. Any ally that would so strictly limit the movement of allied troops through their territory would essentially be "throwing the game", as it were. They would effectively be trying NOT to win the war.

And by the way, US troops are NEVER, EVER "under the sovereign control of another power". That is, in fact illegal, including UN missions.

Metsfanmax wrote:It's a basic tenet of sovereignty. While US troops are in Germany, they abide by all the laws and policies of Germany. That doesn't mean that Germany controls the troops, but it does mean that Germany has the right to say when and where troops can move.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

greenoaks wrote:it sounds like you are suggesting you want to be able to paratroop your reinforcements anywhere

Not at all. It is logical that one's troops can move through an official ally's territory. And you don't get any more "official" with allies in this game than teammates.

While your troops are in an ally's country, they're under the sovereign control of another power. The US doesn't have unilateral authority to just have their soldiers hop in Jeeps and drive across Germany without permission because they wanted to get somewhere. Your ally makes the rules while the troops are in their sovereign territory.

You're forgetting that communication in these situations is always taking place among the various commanders and levels. Any ally that would so strictly limit the movement of allied troops through their territory would essentially be "throwing the game", as it were. They would effectively be trying NOT to win the war.

And by the way, US troops are NEVER, EVER "under the sovereign control of another power". That is, in fact illegal, including UN missions.

It's a basic tenet of sovereignty. While US troops are in Germany, they abide by all the laws and policies of Germany. That doesn't mean that Germany controls the troops, but it does mean that Germany has the right to say when and where troops can move.

Woodruff wrote:Concise description:

• Team Game Fortifications Non-Sensical

Specifics/Details:

• Within team games, I can fortify onto a teammate's territory that is directly adjacent to my own. However, I cannot fortify onto a teammate's territory that is connected via that teammate. For instance, using the Classic Map as an example...imagine that I own the Berlin territory and have many troops on it with which to fortify. My teammate owns London and Reykjavik. I can fortify from Berlin to London, but I cannot fortify from London onto Reykjavik. This doesn't really make logical sense. I should be able to fortify to both or neither.

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

• Team game fortification would follow a more rational structure.