Conquer Club

Incandenza wrote:Giant autoattacks tend to crach the attacker's browser. I autoattacked 2000 vs. 2000 and it almost broke my computer.

well that will just make it even more interesting

my computer's pretty good, but im fairly certain that it wouldn't be able to handle 100,000 sets of dice (500,000 dice images on one page...).

It'll be intense

increase # of armies that can be forted or deployed

Specifics:

Alow more then 999 men to be deployed or forted at one time.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

will allow large army counts to be used properly in attacks
will help to finish long term games that have grown to large for a limit of 999 men allowed for movement

I am in a few long term games, and find it very irritating to not be able to move my mass piles of men into attack positions.
This limitation of 999 , has stopped many a good opportunity for finishing my games.
I am sure it would take very little to allow a larger # t be deployed or moved forward.
Currently this limitation is a hindrance in finishing some of my games.

I agree.

No more else to say

This is a great suggestion. Can't say I haven't had the idea myself a number of times. There comes a point in a game where a stale mate is, more or less, forced. You can attack, but after that you are stuck with 999 men able to continue attacking. It just isn't enough. The only hope is that everybody comes to their senses and start slowly decreasing the armies on the board, but even then the board doesn't change much besides the numbers for awhile.

I think i agree. .. i'll think a little more.

bump

yes, and its about time someone said it too

truly needed

right now to defend [a bonus] in a high army game, all you have to do is put 2000 on an interior territory behind one of you outer territories thats not part of a bonus you want to keep, and if someone did decide to attack you, they can never break you can they cant advance enough armies

Yep I agree .We should be able to move our whole army .

Same for deploying...let us deploy over 999 at a time...its a right farce deploying 2+ times when you have to scroll so much.

Merged:

Troop deployment bug - posts 30 May 2006 to 2 June 2006 - first post here
Brazil map - posts 25 Feb 2007 - first post here
Unable to advance large amounts of armies on World 2.0 - posts 16 to 17 March 2007 - first post here
1000 + armies bug - posts 4 to 6 October 2007 - first post here
Armies stranded urgent 40 minutes until turn ends - posts 16 October 2007 - first post here
999 TROOPS - posts 24 to 25 December 2007 - first post here
increase army movement amounts, 999 is not enough - posts 8 August 2008 to date - first post here

Cicero

How about upping the limit, but also reflecting the limit in the drop down menu. No need to populate the drop down to 1001, and then say "illegal fortification". So if the limit you can move is 5000 and you have 8000 armies, you can lighten the load on the server by not populating that field to 8000.

Why not just have it as a text field, or would parsing a number cause more grief and be a bigger strain on the server?

Concise description:

• Having no maximum number of armies that can be moved at one time.

Specifics:

• In games with large armies (1000+), at the end of your turn there is a maximum of 999 armies that you can move at one time. So if i have 1040 armies on (classic map for example) Alaska and i want to move them to Northwest territories, i would have to do that in two turns (999 first turn and 39 second turn).I know this happens rarely, but when it does happen it would be nice to be able to move as much as you want. I'm not sure if this is even possible because of computer coding, but of what i know of computer it is possible.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• This will improve the efficiency of troop fortifications in large army games. Im in one of the few das schloss games and its annoying and ruins strategies that i cant move more than 999 at a time. I know this is like maybe 1% at most of CC games, but as i said when it does happen, it would be nice to do what you want to do.

..Just a suggestion, in the long, it doesn't make much of a difference. It would be nice though.

Diamonds.

I understand how this could be a problem in adjacent and chained games, and in unlimited how it's annoying.

But, as you said, it doesn't happen that often (most commonly on World 2.1).

As far as I know, it is possible (most anything is possible, but many things aren't probable)

blakebowling wrote:I understand how this could be a problem in adjacent and chained games, and in unlimited how it's annoying.

But, as you said, it doesn't happen that often (most commonly on World 2.1).

As far as I know, it is possible (most anything is possible, but many things aren't probable)

..So the point of that post was.. to let us know that it happens on world 2.1 most often (which im not too sure if thats true) and that its possible.. so pretty much you needed something to say so you just made up some stuff.

Yes. I know it is not a big issue. But would be nice to fix it. And shouldn't be so difficult from a technical point of view.

Diamonds14 wrote:

blakebowling wrote:I understand how this could be a problem in adjacent and chained games, and in unlimited how it's annoying.

But, as you said, it doesn't happen that often (most commonly on World 2.1).

As far as I know, it is possible (most anything is possible, but many things aren't probable)

..So the point of that post was.. to let us know that it happens on world 2.1 most often (which im not too sure if thats true) and that its possible.. so pretty much you needed something to say so you just made up some stuff.

Can we remember that this is 'Suggs and Bugs', not 'Criticize the post before you'

blakebowling wrote:

Diamonds14 wrote:

blakebowling wrote:I understand how this could be a problem in adjacent and chained games, and in unlimited how it's annoying.

But, as you said, it doesn't happen that often (most commonly on World 2.1).

As far as I know, it is possible (most anything is possible, but many things aren't probable)

..So the point of that post was.. to let us know that it happens on world 2.1 most often (which im not too sure if thats true) and that its possible.. so pretty much you needed something to say so you just made up some stuff.

Can we remember that this is 'Suggs and Bugs', not 'Criticize the post before you'

You weren't adding anything to or commenting on the suggestion, you didn't even say if you liked the suggestion or not, so why did you post? Diamonds14 is right to say what he said

I don't know if this is actually the meaning of it, but perhaps the fortification limit is meant to discourage people from building up such huge stacks, in an attempt to prevent never-ending games, in that case I think it should stay in place. If 999 is the limit simply because lack felt like making it 999, this should definitely be increased.

Stroop wrote:

blakebowling wrote:

Diamonds14 wrote:

blakebowling wrote:I understand how this could be a problem in adjacent and chained games, and in unlimited how it's annoying.

But, as you said, it doesn't happen that often (most commonly on World 2.1).

As far as I know, it is possible (most anything is possible, but many things aren't probable)

..So the point of that post was.. to let us know that it happens on world 2.1 most often (which im not too sure if thats true) and that its possible.. so pretty much you needed something to say so you just made up some stuff.

Can we remember that this is 'Suggs and Bugs', not 'Criticize the post before you'

You weren't adding anything to or commenting on the suggestion, you didn't even say if you liked the suggestion or not, so why did you post? Diamonds14 is right to say what he said

I don't know if this is actually the meaning of it, but perhaps the fortification limit is meant to discourage people from building up such huge stacks, in an attempt to prevent never-ending games, in that case I think it should stay in place. If 999 is the limit simply because lack felt like making it 999, this should definitely be increased.

I think it was done because he didn't envision games with more than 999 armies,

and I said that it was annoying when it happened, therefore I thought it should be changed.

I fully support complaining about something that happens only to build-games which means the whole point of the game is ignored anyway.

Been suggested multiple times if I recall...

I can see why it could be in place stroop, now that you said that.. as i said.. it really makes no big difference.. it probably wasnt even worth a post.. but i thought ill try.

FabledIntegral wrote:Been suggested multiple times if I recall...

Merged with existing thread:
No maximum amount in fortifications - posts 10 September and 11 September - first post here

Cicero


Not to mention my post of 13 August 2008 in that/this very thread ...

cicero wrote:Merged:

Troop deployment bug - posts 30 May 2006 to 2 June 2006 - first post here
Brazil map - posts 25 Feb 2007 - first post here
Unable to advance large amounts of armies on World 2.0 - posts 16 to 17 March 2007 - first post here
1000 + armies bug - posts 4 to 6 October 2007 - first post here
Armies stranded urgent 40 minutes until turn ends - posts 16 October 2007 - first post here
999 TROOPS - posts 24 to 25 December 2007 - first post here
increase army movement amounts, 999 is not enough - posts 8 August 2008 to date - first post here

*cough* search button *cough* ...

cicero wrote:*cough* search button *cough* ...

They'll never learn

Oh yes and....if it's possible, sure change it. I've had only a few games with over 1000 armies each. It really confused me, but I worked through it. Doesn't happen too often though.

wherever this ends up... it is time.. .i also think in the long run it will end lots of neverending games... its the 1000 rule thats holding many in place