[GP/UI] No Fortifications / Reinforcements

[Joodoo]

I'll play a test game (gentleman's rules) if people are up for it.

I'd like to give that a try, actually

I would also, as long as the map is Circus Maximus or Draknor

[saraith]

I'll play a test game (gentleman's rules) if people are up for it.

I'd like to give that a try, actually

I would also, as long as the map is Circus Maximus or Draknor

That's 3... anymore takers?

[Timminz]

I wonder if this couldn't be coded into the next map XML upgrade - X can conquer Y, but X cannot reinforce to Y.

I don't think that would matter, as they could just skip the reinforcement phase of the turn. At least, not in regards to this suggestion. Maybe you were suggesting something different.

[Woodruff]

In theory good idea but bad idea in practice

Did you have...you know...an ACTUAL REASON why you feel this is a bad idea in practice, or did you just want to say something without any justification?

[JoshyBoy]

Look, I'd give it a shot if they wanted to test it out. That makes 4.

JB

[Gozar]

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=18608&hilit=no+fortification&start=150

[BaldAdonis]

I'll play a test game (gentleman's rules) if people are up for it.

We've played a game like this, Game 1696286, it was fun. Works really well.

[ubersky]

Agreed, this is a repeat, but still like it as an option.

[Halmir]

Concise description:

• Add a "No Reinforcement" option alongside Chained, Adjacent, Unlimited as an option that the host chooses at the outset.

Specifics:

• Deploy away as normal with bonus cards etc, attack to your heart's content - but be aware that you can't then move any army anywhere at the end of your turn! In effect this option disables that stage in everyone's turn

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Stops all that unseemly and (quite frankly) implausible shuttling about of armies across maps, planets or even solar systems every turn. Where your attackers halt is where they camp until they fight again
• Adds another tactical aspect - if your opponent leaves a hole in his line you can strike through with one bunch of guys, knowing that he can only follow you with one counterattacking force (unless you're clumsy enough to give him two routes). Also if your opponent drops all reinforcements into one territory he can't then spread them out after the attack. This basically encourages players to attack (and think defence) along a front rather than a spearhead - one big army group will cause havoc but can't hold a bonus zone so easily now.

[Thezzaruz]

No. Don't like it at all. Would just unnecessary prolong games and reward lucky drops, neither is a good thing IMO. Learn to use your deployments (and counter your opponents) instead.

• Stops all that unseemly and (quite frankly) implausible shuttling about of armies across maps, planets or even solar systems every turn.

Having no supply lines would be the unrealistic option tbh.

[Tisha]

can we get this on the to-do list, that is never gonna get to- doed?

[nippersean]

What an awful idea - I think like another suggestion (Snowman's (?) - single ter attacks) - fine if you agree it with friends or a usergroup or something (like RT).
But would you really like it as a main option?

Great with friends that take their turn twice+ a day. The problem being that it could be so slow that with deadbeats and the like....

So a new player joins such a game inadvertently, and it goes on for a year or more.

New least favourite settings - Conquerman, flat rate (errr..edit no spoils), no forts....

Surely this is a little twist friends can play together on......just my opinion....


Nipper

[Falkomagno]

No Reinforcements Option


Concise description:

Allows the option of NO, in the Reinforcements settings



This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Another strategical variance
• It's fun

[JoshyBoy]

I'm not so sure....

[Falkomagno]

Another option its wellcome I think. Show some reasons agaisnt it.

[iamkoolerthanu]

I'm not so sure....

I'm skeptical as well.. Although it does sound interesting, it could have some downsides to it.. But then again, all gametypes has some sort of a downside to them.. I would try this if it were implemented though

[Metsfanmax]

This site is based around variants of a particular board game... removing the reinforcements would basically make this a totally different game. New options are cool, but if we vary too much we'll start to lose focus.

[dwilhelmi]

This site is based around variants of a particular board game... removing the reinforcements would basically make this a totally different game. New options are cool, but if we vary too much we'll start to lose focus.

I am fairly certain that after adding Nuclear spoils, having a No Reinforcement option does not take the game much further into left field.

Another option its wellcome I think. Show some reasons agaisnt it.

As to this, I can think of one potential reason against it - not enough people interested to justify the development time required to implement it. It does not necessarily sound like a bad option, per say, so long as there is enough interest in it. I'd play it, but would not be terribly disappointed if it was never implemented.

[Aalmeida17]

This site is based around variants of a particular board game... removing the reinforcements would basically make this a totally different game. New options are cool, but if we vary too much we'll start to lose focus.

i agree , but we have a lot of (not risk)in CC like nuclear spoils freestyle ways , fog of war , maps , manual start is diferent from the original manual i mean in risk too, why not try this ?!

[Falkomagno]

I agree. i can see this even in the direction of that group of players who wnat a game style were you can onluy advance once after the attack. I think that it's the logical option left behind when it's talking about reinceforcement. I think that can be a good add to the site. And so far, I can not see a valuable reason against it, but the work nvolve to programming it, which is a very weak reason against it.

[Tisha]

do this.

I said so.

lackattack

[Queen_Herpes]

do this.

I said so.

lackattack

Is this really on the to-do list? I'm in full support of it and think it would provide a really interesting twist to the game. While some of the previous posters had mentioned that it might create eternally long games, so what? I like playing games that last forever and I was directed to one game that includes AAFitz that looks like it has been going on for more than one year.

[TheForgivenOne]

Remember guys, the To-Do list is no longer here. If you want something on the To-Do list, bring it to our attention

[Tisha]

bumping it did bring it to your attention. ;)

I said do it, not put it on the To-do list..

[trapyoung]

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.