Would it work?

[The Neon Peon]

I've been thinking for a while of a map with absolutely no deploy, only varying amounts of autodeploy on territories. The computer I had photoshop installed on has broken beyond repair so I can't take a shot at making a map in the near future, but I was just thinking of the concept.

Do you think it could work? Gameplay would be tricky to balance, but I think it would make for a fun game on something like no spoils and adjacent.

[the.killing.44]

That would be epically sweet, but I'm not sure the game engine can bypass the dropping stage…

[lanyards]

Maybe deployment adjustment like ConquerMan has?

[oaktown]

i seem to recall lack being opposed to maps with no per turn deployments, because it would allow somebody to create a stalemate map; eg. nobody holds any bonus regions, and nobody gets an automatic deployment, and every territory gets knocked down to one army and the game can't end. Thus the CC game engine requires that each player receive a standard deployment based on # of territories - though you can control what that deployment rate is.

[demonfork]

i seem to recall lack being opposed to maps with no per turn deployments, because it would allow somebody to create a stalemate map; eg. nobody holds any bonus regions, and nobody gets an automatic deployment, and every territory gets knocked down to one army and the game can't end. Thus the CC game engine requires that each player receive a standard deployment based on # of territories - though you can control what that deployment rate is.

I've been thinking for a while of a map with absolutely no deploy, only varying amounts of autodeploy on territories. The computer I had photoshop installed on has broken beyond repair so I can't take a shot at making a map in the near future, but I was just thinking of the concept.

Do you think it could work? Gameplay would be tricky to balance, but I think it would make for a fun game on something like no spoils and adjacent.

[wcaclimbing]

You'd just have to make an automatic -3 bonus at the start. that would cancel out the standard 3 deployment.

[oaktown]

i seem to recall lack being opposed to maps with no per turn deployments, because it would allow somebody to create a stalemate map; eg. nobody holds any bonus regions, and nobody gets an automatic deployment, and every territory gets knocked down to one army and the game can't end. Thus the CC game engine requires that each player receive a standard deployment based on # of territories - though you can control what that deployment rate is.

I've been thinking for a while of a map with absolutely no deploy, only varying amounts of autodeploy on territories. The computer I had photoshop installed on has broken beyond repair so I can't take a shot at making a map in the near future, but I was just thinking of the concept.

Do you think it could work? Gameplay would be tricky to balance, but I think it would make for a fun game on something like no spoils and adjacent.

Clever, demonfork, but you completely missed my point. If the game engine allowed a map to be made with no per turn deployments, somebody could make a map that would lead to a stalemate. Yes, the Neon Peon would like to have autodeploy territories which would overcome the stalemate problem, but that does not change the fact that for good reason the CC game engine requires that each player receive a standard deployment based on # of territories.

(This, by the way, is the reason I'm retiring from making any future maps - idiots who think they know what they're talking about and make inane posts like this that ridicule people who actually DO know what they're talking about. Demonfork made one post in the Foundry in the past week, and it was an absolute waste of everybody's time. As I have done with others that are not worthy of my time around here, I've foe'd Demonfork, so he won't be wasting my time any more.)