Suggestion - Battle Readiness Option

Suggestions that have been archived.

Moderator: Community Team

Post Reply
Humanist
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:21 am
Gender: Male
Location: Toronto

Suggestion - Battle Readiness Option

Post by Humanist »

Suggestion Idea:

I suggest a new option be made available - Battle Readiness. In 'real-life' if a large army stands dormant for a length of time, that army would not as ready for battle as veterans who have recently been on campaign. Therefore there could be a penalty for large, dormant armies and perhaps a bonus for active armies.

Specifics:

If an army of 10 or more armies did not attack in the previous round, it will lose 1 army. On the other hand, if an army did attack the previous round it will gain 1 army.

Why it is needed:

More and more games are reduced to a stalemate where the players with continents just sit back, build up and wait for their opponents to destroy each other before taking advantage and stepping in. This would make for a more dynamic, aggressive and (hopefully) a shorter game.
User avatar
brandoncfi
Posts: 1179
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Location: Escondido Ca
Contact:

Post by brandoncfi »

interesting
Highest point total 2774 and a rank of Colonel.
OSA of You
OSA Obsructing Your Sleep
GO STEELERS !!!
Humanist
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:21 am
Gender: Male
Location: Toronto

Post by Humanist »

brandoncfi wrote:interesting
With hindsight, it could be called the "Do or die" option.

And ALL armies would be subject to -1 if they stand still or +1 if they attack.
User avatar
Soloman
Posts: 625
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: The dirty south

Post by Soloman »

Humanist wrote:
brandoncfi wrote:interesting
With hindsight, it could be called the "Do or die" option.

And ALL armies would be subject to -1 if they stand still or +1 if they attack.
there is a few maps that already do that isn't there?
You Have 2 choices,You can either Agree With Me or Be Wrong!!! http://www.myspace.com/solomanthewise http://360.yahoo.com/bolar35
Humanist
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:21 am
Gender: Male
Location: Toronto

Post by Humanist »

Soloman wrote:
Humanist wrote:
brandoncfi wrote:interesting
With hindsight, it could be called the "Do or die" option.

And ALL armies would be subject to -1 if they stand still or +1 if they attack.
there is a few maps that already do that isn't there?
There is? I know about the Dustbowl map where you lose 1 man a round in the middle. But I don't know of one where you gain/lose armies according to whether you attacked or not in the previous round.
Ditocoaf
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes

Post by Ditocoaf »

This would be interesting, either way you implement it. I support this.
User avatar
cicero
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: with the infected neutrals ... handing out maps to help them find their way to CC

Post by cicero »

The game is already fairly delicately balanced and slightly in favour of the attacker (3 dice v 2 dice).
To further tip the advantage in favour of an attacker seems to risk tipping that balance too far ...

Also, ignoring that for a moment, in a build game (which is what you're describing I think) surely all players can happily take the hit of the -1 armies on certain territories and just keep building regardless ... and that sounds to me like it would actually slow such a game down?
Post Reply

Return to “Archived Suggestions”