Sug: Team Chained Fortification

[Metsfanmax]

As you even admitted, US troops are NEVER, EVER "under the soverign control of another power". It is in fact illegal.

No, you just misinterpreted what I meant by that sovereign control. What I said was accurate - US citizens and soldiers in Germany must abide by German laws. That is the definition of sovereignty.

Now, you're STILL forgetting that communication in these situations is always taking place among the various commanders and levels. Any ally that would so strictly limit the movement of allied troops through their territory would essentially be "throwing the game", as it were. They would effectively be trying NOT to win the war.

I'm not forgetting anything, although I guess there's not much better (and more condescending) of a way to remind me than to repeat what you said in your last post. I don't understand your assumption that the ally would just heed the beck and call of your orders. This is not how it works in the real world - decisions are made cooperatively. Your paradigm makes the decision unilateral, pre-empting the need for true allies in the first place; the only communication occurring is you telling the "ally" that you're taking the liberty of moving through their sovereign territory without their consent. If you're attempting to make this more realistic, you're failing.

[PLAYER57832]

.......

You do realize you are debating with a military history and tactics instructor, right?

[Woodruff]

As you even admitted, US troops are NEVER, EVER "under the soverign control of another power". It is in fact illegal.

No, you just misinterpreted what I meant by that sovereign control. What I said was accurate - US citizens and soldiers in Germany must abide by German laws. That is the definition of sovereignty.

But it is not the definition of "sovereign control". There is a vast difference. Yes, we abide by their laws. No, they do not control where we go. The SOFA agreements as part of our being there state so. Otherwise, we would not be there - as it is literally illegal for our military to be under the control of a foreign nation. I know...I lived in Germany as a member of our Armed Forces for six years.

Now, you're STILL forgetting that communication in these situations is always taking place among the various commanders and levels. Any ally that would so strictly limit the movement of allied troops through their territory would essentially be "throwing the game", as it were. They would effectively be trying NOT to win the war.

I'm not forgetting anything, although I guess there's not much better (and more condescending) of a way to remind me than to repeat what you said in your last post. I don't understand your assumption that the ally would just heed the beck and call of your orders. This is not how it works in the real world - decisions are made cooperatively. Your paradigm makes the decision unilateral, pre-empting the need for true allies in the first place; the only communication occurring is you telling the "ally" that you're taking the liberty of moving through their sovereign territory without their consent. If you're attempting to make this more realistic, you're failing.

No, I'm certainly not doing what you are implying at all. What ally is going to stop you from supporting their own forces in a time of war? You believe they would turn them away saying "No, you cannot enter our territory, despite the fact that we need your support for our very survival and it was very observant of you to have noticed it!"?

The idea that an ally would refuse the needed support of their ally based on "you can't come into our territory" is thoroughly non-sensical.

.......

You do realize you are debating with a military history and tactics instructor, right?

Not a tactics instructor per se...we do cover military tactics some, of course. But I'm certainly not so well-versed as to call me a tactics instructor. Military history, yes.

[Metsfanmax]

But it is not the definition of "sovereign control". There is a vast difference. Yes, we abide by their laws. No, they do not control where we go. The SOFA agreements as part of our being there state so. Otherwise, we would not be there - as it is literally illegal for our military to be under the control of a foreign nation. I know...I lived in Germany as a member of our Armed Forces for six years.

We can disagree on the semantics of what I said all day long, but it doesn't really affect the nature of my statement, which is that German laws are sovereign in German territory. If the SOFA (SOFA agreement is a little redundant, don't you think?) allows for laws to apply differently or not at all to US soldiers, it is only because the German government willingly consented to this situation, which is obviously a necessary part of the process.

No, I'm certainly not doing what you are implying at all. What ally is going to stop you from supporting their own forces in a time of war? You believe they would turn them away saying "No, you cannot enter our territory, despite the fact that we need your support for our very survival and it was very observant of you to have noticed it!"?

The idea that an ally would refuse the needed support of their ally based on "you can't come into our territory" is thoroughly non-sensical.

I'm not suggesting an ally would refuse that needed support. The current system allows for that - you put the troops in their territory, and they can use those troops for your defense. The problem is that in the system you're suggesting, you override the sovereignty of that nation by moving troops through their territory without their consent, thus making them no longer an ally but a pawn in your military operation. The existing system is the best way to respect national sovereignty while still being allowed to use your troops in the interests of your own defense. It's not perfect, but it's better than your idea.

[PLAYER57832]

[
I'm not suggesting an ally would refuse that needed support. The current system allows for that - you put the troops in their territory, and they can use those troops for your defense. The problem is that in the system you're suggesting, you override the sovereignty of that nation by moving troops through their territory without their consent, thus making them no longer an ally but a pawn in your military operation. The existing system is the best way to respect national sovereignty while still being allowed to use your troops in the interests of your own defense. It's not perfect, but it's better than your idea.

Even within CC teammates are allowed to communicate. So, just as in real life, a wise commander won't simply shift armies over to an allies territory without consult, so, too will wise CC players consult with their team members. In fact, there are MANY reasons why someone would want the extra armies. In particular, you generally don't have to defend against your teammate, so having the armies on your teammate's boundary makes far less sense than allowing your teammate to deploy/reinforce (but not otherwise move) armies.

[Metsfanmax]

[
I'm not suggesting an ally would refuse that needed support. The current system allows for that - you put the troops in their territory, and they can use those troops for your defense. The problem is that in the system you're suggesting, you override the sovereignty of that nation by moving troops through their territory without their consent, thus making them no longer an ally but a pawn in your military operation. The existing system is the best way to respect national sovereignty while still being allowed to use your troops in the interests of your own defense. It's not perfect, but it's better than your idea.

Even within CC teammates are allowed to communicate. So, just as in real life, a wise commander won't simply shift armies over to an allies territory without consult, so, too will wise CC players consult with their team members. In fact, there are MANY reasons why someone would want the extra armies. In particular, you generally don't have to defend against your teammate, so having the armies on your teammate's boundary makes far less sense than allowing your teammate to deploy/reinforce (but not otherwise move) armies.

You're correct, of course, which is why in an ideal system you could be given the option to move troops through your teammates' borders if they've previously checked off somehow in the system that this move is alright. Given time constraints, though, no one's going to want that system. The argument about not having armies on a teammate's boundary is not compelling, since you can give them to your teammate and then on their turn the troops can be moved to a more important boundary.

[Timminz]

In this game, as soon as the troops move to an ally's (teammate's) territory, they become that ally's troops. Hence, you cannot move them any further on your turn. It works well (in my opinion) because it forces more teamwork, in order for a team to be successful: better communication, and planning ahead.



but, please don't let that stop you guys from discussing the sovereignty of US troops in Germany.

[Metsfanmax]

In this game, as soon as the troops move to an ally's (teammate's) territory, they become that ally's troops. Hence, you cannot move them any further on your turn. It works well (in my opinion) because it forces more teamwork, in order for a team to be successful: better communication, and planning ahead.



but, please don't let that stop you guys from discussing the sovereignty of US troops in Germany.

Well, I'd like to point out that this is more or less the argument I was making in my posts.

[TheForgivenOne]

Couldn't technically one argue, if this were to be implemented, that if you were to drop your troops onto a 1 territory that is your ally, you could control that territory for that turn? Because you are technically under control of those troops, through your thinking anyways. That's how I see it.

[Metsfanmax]

Couldn't technically one argue, if this were to be implemented, that if you were to drop your troops onto a 1 territory that is your ally, you could control that territory for that turn? Because you are technically under control of those troops, through your thinking anyways. That's how I see it.

Are you advocating for this system and extending it, or are you giving a reason why it's a bad idea? Or are you just making a point? We can do whatever we want, obviously, as long we agree that it's a good thing for gameplay. We don't need a reason based in real life, I was just arguing with Woodruff's premise. If there's an argument to be made that it will improve strategic gameplay, then it should be seriously considered regardless.

[TheForgivenOne]

Couldn't technically one argue, if this were to be implemented, that if you were to drop your troops onto a 1 territory that is your ally, you could control that territory for that turn? Because you are technically under control of those troops, through your thinking anyways. That's how I see it.

Are you advocating for this system and extending it, or are you giving a reason why it's a bad idea? Or are you just making a point? We can do whatever we want, obviously, as long we agree that it's a good thing for gameplay. We don't need a reason based in real life, I was just arguing with Woodruff's premise. If there's an argument to be made that it will improve strategic gameplay, then it should be seriously considered regardless.

I just tend to look ahead of a suggestion into the future, if it were to be implemented. I could see users coming in here and putting up a suggestion based around what I said. Sometimes you have to look what your suggestion may bring in the future for other suggestions.

**Disclaimers note - Disregard any terrible grammar or spelling. I am going on about 4 hours sleep.

[Woodruff]

No, I'm certainly not doing what you are implying at all. What ally is going to stop you from supporting their own forces in a time of war? You believe they would turn them away saying "No, you cannot enter our territory, despite the fact that we need your support for our very survival and it was very observant of you to have noticed it!"?
The idea that an ally would refuse the needed support of their ally based on "you can't come into our territory" is thoroughly non-sensical.

I'm not suggesting an ally would refuse that needed support. The current system allows for that - you put the troops in their territory, and they can use those troops for your defense.

No, it absolutely does not. The current system is the equivalent of "you can move your troops WHICH ARE ALLIED WITH ME to the very edge of my territory and no further. Then, when I have time, I will move them to the location where I actually need them...hope it's not too late!"

[Woodruff]

Couldn't technically one argue, if this were to be implemented, that if you were to drop your troops onto a 1 territory that is your ally, you could control that territory for that turn? Because you are technically under control of those troops, through your thinking anyways. That's how I see it.

I'm not actually sure what you're trying to say here.

[PLAYER57832]

As I understand, you would be able to move your armies to another location anywhere within a team's connecting territories, just as you can within your own territory now. (either one move for chained or multiple for unlimited, adjacent would not change)?

The only question I have is whether you would allow multiple movements for unlimited. That is, right now, if I goof or change my mind, I can move armies again within my own territory, would you be able to move only your own armies in a teammate's territory the same way?

(to program, the territories would stay "yours" until the turn is over. Then they would become the teammate's).

This would not impact attacks or any such because you can already only move armies at the end of a turn. (except that possibly, you might be allowed an "oops, thought I could give my teammate all those territories I deployed initially in my turn, but I want them to go elsewhere now -- if that is the case it would have to be programmed in that you cannot attack, only move armies within the teammate's territory)

[Timminz]

No, I'm certainly not doing what you are implying at all. What ally is going to stop you from supporting their own forces in a time of war? You believe they would turn them away saying "No, you cannot enter our territory, despite the fact that we need your support for our very survival and it was very observant of you to have noticed it!"?
The idea that an ally would refuse the needed support of their ally based on "you can't come into our territory" is thoroughly non-sensical.

I'm not suggesting an ally would refuse that needed support. The current system allows for that - you put the troops in their territory, and they can use those troops for your defense.

No, it absolutely does not. The current system is the equivalent of "you can move your troops WHICH ARE ALLIED WITH ME to the very edge of my territory and no further. Then, when I have time, I will move them to the location where I actually need them...hope it's not too late!"

It sounds to me like you might enjoy playing on a well-coordinated freestyle team. There, you could work as a team, during reinforcements, to get those troops wherever they needed to be, immediately. Or perhaps 1v1 would be more your speed. They're the exact same basic concept as most team games, except that you don't need to wait for teammates to do stuff for you, or communicate/coordinate with them. Either one of these could have you avoiding what you see as a problem.


This whole suggestion, to me, seems like it would just be a dumbing-down of team games, and I don't like that idea.

[PLAYER57832]

Why "dumbing down".

This doesn't allow attacking with teammates troops, only fortifying? How is that "dumbing down?" There are more than a few instances where its just not sensical to move things to the adjacent territory. Unless, of courser, you are playing adjacent fortifications anyway.

[Timminz]

Why "dumbing down".

It would reduce the amount of communication, coordination, and forward-thinking required. To me, those are the most crucial parts of being a good team player at CC.

[PLAYER57832]

Why "dumbing down".

It would reduce the amount of communication, coordination, and forward-thinking required. To me, those are the most crucial parts of being a good team player at CC.

Why? To me, it would increase all of those things.

[squishyg]

Woody's suggestion and the pro & con arguments make for some fascinating reading. I think additional fortification choices in team games would be a worthy addition to the game.

As for this particular idea, I think it could work. I'm no military historian, but can't a country send it's troops into any of it's ally's countries where they need back up?

[Timminz]

Why "dumbing down".

It would reduce the amount of communication, coordination, and forward-thinking required. To me, those are the most crucial parts of being a good team player at CC.

Why? To me, it would increase all of those things.

How does that work?

What you are saying here, is similar to someone saying that unlimited fortification requires more strategy than adjacent.

I absolutely oppose this suggestion, but I would support an option for so-called paratrooper reinforcements, which would make what this thread is suggesting possible without removing more strategic options, for those of us who enjoy that kind of thing.

[Army of GOD]

I agree that it's nonsensical when considering what can be done in real life (and in the game Axis and Allies, as well) but RISK! or Conquer Club, which is in no way associated with RISK!, does not follow real life very closely at all.

[Woodruff]

The only question I have is whether you would allow multiple movements for unlimited. That is, right now, if I goof or change my mind, I can move armies again within my own territory, would you be able to move only your own armies in a teammate's territory the same way?

That was not my intention, no. My intention is that once you "place" them onto the teammates territory, they are then immediately theirs.

[Woodruff]

This whole suggestion, to me, seems like it would just be a dumbing-down of team games, and I don't like that idea.

First of all, many team games are already about as dumbed-down as you could possibly get. Except with the established teams, team games amount to one person on the team directing/driving the entire team's moves. This change couldn't possibly dumb that down any further.

Secondly, I really don't see how this dumbs-down anything.

It would reduce the amount of communication, coordination, and forward-thinking required. To me, those are the most crucial parts of being a good team player at CC.

Perhaps you could explain why it reduces the amount of communication, coordination and forward-thinking. In my view, it increases these things because as the opposing team, you must be prepared for those moves. Therefore, the communication, coordination and especially forward-thinking must be in place to avoid having yourself be impacted dangerously by them. See, you're looking at it only from the perspective of the "team on offense" and not at all from the perspective of the defending team.

I absolutely oppose this suggestion, but I would support an option for so-called paratrooper reinforcements, which would make what this thread is suggesting possible without removing more strategic options, for those of us who enjoy that kind of thing.

If you believe that this suggestion IN ANY WAY relates to the so-called paratrooper reinforcements, you clearly are not understanding this suggestion. Seriously misunderstanding it, even.

[Metsfanmax]

First of all, many team games are already about as dumbed-down as you could possibly get. Except with the established teams, team games amount to one person on the team directing/driving the entire team's moves. This change couldn't possibly dumb that down any further.

Actually, wouldn't this make it easier for that one person to drive the whole team's moves?

[Woodruff]

First of all, many team games are already about as dumbed-down as you could possibly get. Except with the established teams, team games amount to one person on the team directing/driving the entire team's moves. This change couldn't possibly dumb that down any further.

Actually, wouldn't this make it easier for that one person to drive the whole team's moves?

Since that is happening anyway, does that matter for those games? Again, you're looking at it only from the offensive perspective.