[GO] Unlimited Adjacent Fortification

[killthejoe]

I'd like to know why this was rejected? Is it too difficult to code, or does the site operator simply not like this idea? I personally think this is by far the best way to play.

Think of it as military mobilization. If the US has troops in Northern Iraq, Southern Iraq, and Western Iraq, they can "fortify" each group of armies at the same time into Eastern Iraq.

I used to play this way on a Hasbro board with my friends and believe it to be the most realistic form of play.

Please reconsider this rejection.

Thank you.

[cena-rules]

I'd like to know why this was rejected? Is it too difficult to code, or does the site operator simply not like this idea? I personally think this is by far the best way to play.

Think of it as military mobilization. If the US has troops in Northern Iraq, Southern Iraq, and Western Iraq, they can "fortify" each group of armies at the same time into Eastern Iraq.

I used to play this way on a Hasbro board with my friends and believe it to be the most realistic form of play.

Please reconsider this rejection.

Thank you.

it was rejected because it would be too hard to program

see that turtle dude what he says goes

[Genghis Khan CA]

I'd like to know why this was rejected? Is it too difficult to code, or does the site operator simply not like this idea?

Too hard to program.

[john1099]

I'd like to know why this was rejected? Is it too difficult to code, or does the site operator simply not like this idea?

Too hard to program.

lol.

[James Julius]

Without a doubt unlimited adjacent fortification is the best option in terms of realistic strategic simulation. The existing options are weak by comparison. I came to the forum to suggest it myself, as I'm sure others will in the future. Those who oppose the idea of it are lacking in strategic understanding.

What a shame this is too difficult to program.

[Simon Viavant]

Concise description:
What if you could fortify only one space, but make more than one fortification?
Basically unlimited adjacent fortifications.

Specifics:
You have 10 armies on Indonesia and 10 on North Africa. You hold Siam, India, Brazil, and Argentina. You can fortify from Indonesia to Siam, but not on to India. You can also fortify from North Africa to Brazil, but not on to Argentina. You can do both of the above mentioned fortifications in one turn.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:
It would be more realistic militarily than adjacent, because you can move all of your armies, but only a little ways. It would provide another option for fortifying.

[Thezzaruz]

It's a bit tricky though as it would have to be a limit on how far each single army could be fortified for each round (and it would need to keep track of each individual army and its movement).

i.e a army standing on indonesia can be fortified to siam but not from siam to india (in the same turn), however an army standing on siam (before the indonesian troops where fortified) should be able to fortify to india (even after the indonesian troops was fortified). Because if you allow armies to be double fortified then you just have a slow "unlimited" and that would be a crappy idea.

[Simon Viavant]

That would be simple to do, But it still might confuse people. If there are 4 armies on siam and you move 10 from indonesia then you can only move 3 to india. But I can see people hitting fortify over and over again and wondering why it's saying illegal fortification.

[ParadiceCity9]

This is just literally unlimited forts...no point...

[Simon Viavant]

Did you even read it? Let's try this again. Each army can move one space, and then can't move. So, you have four armies in Brazil and seven in Venezuela. You can fortify three to Venezuela from Brazil, but you can only fortify seven from Venezuela to Central America.

[ParadiceCity9]

Well it would be too complicated regardless. And no i did not read it.

[Thezzaruz]

That would be simple to do,

Not at all sure about that...

[Simon Viavant]

I hate it when people take one phrase out of context.

[Thezzaruz]

I hate it when people take one phrase out of context.

Well as you wrote the post that sentence had a different context than the rest of the post so I don't see what you a complaining about.

[blakebowling]

This Idea has already been rejected, next time check the Suggestion Box at the top of this forum

[Kemmler]

Concise description:

• Unlimited Adjacent Fortification

Specifics:

• It is like adjacent but you can make unlimited fortifications to adjacent teritories.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• nice new fortifying option

[Stroop]

Has been rejected in the past

[pancakemix]

Then I could just fortify through all my territories until I get them where I want them. All this is is Unlimited that's annoying and takes forever.

[Stroop]

The general idea is that you can't do that. Every army could individually make 1 adjacent fortification move.

For example, you have 3 on A, 4 on B and 1 on C. You could fort 2 from A to B, but then only 3 from B to C, as two of them had moved from A and used up their fortification move.

It's already been rejected though, so really no point in discussing it

[blakebowling]

The general idea is that you can't do that. Every army could individually make 1 adjacent fortification move.

For example, you have 3 on A, 4 on B and 1 on C. You could fort 2 from A to B, but then only 3 from B to C, as two of them had moved from A and used up their fortification move.

It's already been rejected though, so really no point in discussing it

right, it's too much work coding that in

[Skittles!]

And you can just do it anyway..

[Kemmler]

The general idea is that you can't do that. Every army could individually make 1 adjacent fortification move.

For example, you have 3 on A, 4 on B and 1 on C. You could fort 2 from A to B, but then only 3 from B to C, as two of them had moved from A and used up their fortification move.

It's already been rejected though, so really no point in discussing it

no I had the move any army you want in mind

[Stroop]

The general idea is that you can't do that. Every army could individually make 1 adjacent fortification move.

For example, you have 3 on A, 4 on B and 1 on C. You could fort 2 from A to B, but then only 3 from B to C, as two of them had moved from A and used up their fortification move.

It's already been rejected though, so really no point in discussing it

no I had the move any army you want in mind

oh, you mean Unlimited? I think we have that

[cicero]

Merged with existing thread:
Unlimited Adjacent Fortification - posts 4 to 10 December 2006 - first post here

[gundiesalvo]

Concise description:

• To make another form of adjacent fortifications, or substitute the current one with REAL adjacent fortifications, meaning one could make an unlimited amount of fortifications as long as the units he's moving only move one territory away (or two for horses in Waterloo and similar territory types)

Specifics:

• Whenever I play risk with adjacent forts (Real board game), what this rule implies is you can move ANY units in the map, but only one territory. So if you had South America, and your borders were on Mexico and North Africa, and let's say you traded in a set that had Brazil and Venezuela and you get 2 on each, you want to reinforce Venezuela to Mexico and Brazil to North Africa, then that you can do, it's two adjacent reinforcements, however, if someone decides to attack your North Africa border and weakens it, you CAN'T reinforce it with units from Mexico, they'd have to go to Venezuela the first round, to Brazil the following, and then to NA if it's still yours...

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Make the adjacent forts setting a bit more dynamic.
• Give players more possibilities for different strategies.