Deploying Idea

Reed Jones · Post by **Reed Jones** » Thu May 31, 2007 4:12 pm

Suggestion Idea:I was thinking about the U.S. in WW11 in the Pacific about their "island hopping stratagey" and I thought too bad you could not do it here. Becuase if you took only stragegic points and ingored pointless ones, the openent would just deploy on the nonstragegic ones and would hurt you if you left all the ones you just took with 1 man on them. So I thought if you were really in control of an area you would not let the openent get men on thier territory. I mean it is just common sense. So why not not being able to deploy to a contry that has no other contries ajacent to it. I think it would add some interesting stragey.

Specifics:This idea would just be an option. Also the territory can still attack it just cannot get anymore men because it has no ajacent territories to supply the men!

Why it is needed: This option would add stragey and more interesting play.

Priority 3.5

ClessAlvein · Post by **ClessAlvein** » Thu May 31, 2007 4:28 pm

This "bombardment" idea has already been implemented in the latest update.

Reed Jones · Post by **Reed Jones** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:36 pm

I think you missunderstood. What I am saying is that you cannot deploy on a contry that is no connected to any of your contries. You can attack but you cannot deploy on it.

ClessAlvein · Post by **ClessAlvein** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:06 pm

Ah. That would change the game dynamics, then.

Reed Jones · Post by **Reed Jones** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:35 pm

Any comments, please comment. I want to know what people think of the idea. Please

ClessAlvein · Post by **ClessAlvein** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 10:05 am

Well, personally, I don't see how it would be too good of an idea on small-to-medium 4-6 player maps (and plenty of people play this, esp. 6-player Classic). What if every country was disconnected from its allies? The game would be in eternal limbo. Then you'd have to program all sorts of exceptions, and do tons of debugging to make it fair...

Reed Jones · Post by **Reed Jones** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:58 am

How about you can deploy if you have no 2 countries connected or it happens after a certain point in the game, when everybody has clearcut bases or continents.

Sparqs · Post by **Sparqs** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:33 pm

What if this were a map based feature? I believe there has been a suggestion of making it possible to designate a territory as non-deployable-upon. This would be especially useful if triggers get implemented.

Triggers being: You own (A and B) then B gets a territory bonus. In this case, you mark a territory non-deployable and then set the surrounding territories as triggers for deployability. You could model isolated territories like non-strategic islands or narrow mountain passes.

Reed Jones · Post by **Reed Jones** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:04 pm

I agree. It could be a map based feature and option when you start a game. Any mods opions anything.

freezie · Post by **freezie** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:45 pm

Not on current maps.

If you want to make a map with that...Go ahead. But no..not on current maps.

But your suggestion is flawed anyway. If only 2 countires are connected, but those 2 are surrounded..Why would they get armies anyway? I don't see any ways to supply them on 1 country surrounded, I fail to see how 2 countries would work.

Then expend that...I got ALL end borders of the map, surrounding ALL fo your territories which are all connected, but all in the middle. You're still surrounded.

So...I don't think this can really work..unless you place it at a specific point on a map ( like a country connected to a millitary base..)

Reed Jones · Post by **Reed Jones** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:59 pm

Well still even if it does not make sense it can still work. Though I will think everybody would have to rethink their stragey and that would add different play. Though thanks for the suggestion.

Though somebody should make map where you automaticly get a "base" and any territories that are not connected to it you cannot deploy on them.

sfhbballnut · Post by **sfhbballnut** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 2:51 pm

I like the idea, I've always wondered about how you could just put troop where ever, the inly issue is determining what you major force is

Reed Jones · Post by **Reed Jones** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:21 pm

By adding all comments together. I had another idea to help with the main problem how do you get a "base" or what happens if none of your territoties are touching another territory. I think I solved that problem why not at the beginning of the game. You choose 1 territory to be your base and only territories somehow chained to that territory can be deployed on. If that territory is taken you choose another. That is ONE option.

Option 2. This is the same as my regular idea you can only deploy on 2+territories and if you have none like that you can deploy on any territory you like UNTIL you get a 2+. (This option would only be good for 2, 3, 4, games. Imagine 6 people on a small map that would be a nightmare)

So any comments, questions, and conerns. I do wish more people who look at this would comment.

freezie · Post by **freezie** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:42 am

I will just be an annoyance to you ( sorry for that ) but they could get re-supplied by plane.

Reed Jones · Post by **Reed Jones** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:21 am

BUT! If you owned the air routes round that territory which you would if you owned a territory. You would not let a suppy plane run through!

Reed Jones · Post by **Reed Jones** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 5:13 am

Any more comments and any mods opion. PLEASE!

Reed Jones · Post by **Reed Jones** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:58 pm

Ok is there ANYTHING you want to say please. I mean there must be something to say. Any ,comments ,concerns ,questions!

magneticgoop · Post by **magneticgoop** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 6:16 pm

ok this is not a logic "well i have ways to get planes there" debate because there are no planes in this game so stop that but i think the base idea is a good one just to change the strategy but the other would allow you to conquer way too easily by just cutting the enemy into small pieces for example in your standard classic map south america would be conquered by taking brazil and peru (assuming that ecuador was not "chained up with central america) that is way too easy for me

Reed Jones · Post by **Reed Jones** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:22 am

Well just think if they can chop up your own territories into small areas...you can too! Also if the enemy was doing that the you could just raid his territories to get them back and while doing that you would chop up his territories in your area!

Reed Jones · Post by **Reed Jones** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:53 pm

Anything to be said here. I am getting no respones.

Sparqs · Post by **Sparqs** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:34 pm

Reed Jones wrote:By adding all comments together. I had another idea to help with the main problem how do you get a "base" or what happens if none of your territoties are touching another territory. I think I solved that problem why not at the beginning of the game. You choose 1 territory to be your base and only territories somehow chained to that territory can be deployed on. If that territory is taken you choose another. That is ONE option.

I could see a game variant with user-chosen capitals. Tying deployment to the capital sounds like a fun option. Losing your capital should eliminate you, though.

This brings up further game delays, however. Now there's a round where no one can go, they just pick capitals. That might not be popular. I understand that there is a suggestion to allow players to determine initial deployment by having them submit everything in secret before round 1 - you could add capital choice to that phase if it gets implemented.

Option 2. This is the same as my regular idea you can only deploy on 2+territories and if you have none like that you can deploy on any territory you like UNTIL you get a 2+. (This option would only be good for 2, 3, 4, games. Imagine 6 people on a small map that would be a nightmare)

Can't say I'm a fan of this idea. I'm usually up for more variants and game options, but this one seems a bit arbitrary and confusing.

I definitely think that the XML should allow for non-deployable areas - especially if combined with triggers - so cartographers can model mountain passes and such. Personally, I wouldn't prioritize other deployment restrictions very highly - not that they wouldn't be fun, but I think there are other changes that are higher priority.

Reed Jones · Post by **Reed Jones** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:53 pm

Why not with the user choose capitals have a 2 day round to choose your capital and if you miss it you are out of the game. That would do 2 things get your capitals choose and knock out any possible deadbeats early. Also if everybody choose their capital before the end of the 2 day period the game would begin.

Reed Jones · Post by **Reed Jones** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:21 pm

Is there anybody's opion? I am kinda of disapionted that little people have commented and no officals are saying anything. So is there anything anybody would like to add?!?

Reed Jones · Post by **Reed Jones** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:17 pm

Sparqs wrote:What if this were a map based feature? I believe there has been a suggestion of making it possible to designate a territory as non-deployable-upon. This would be especially useful if triggers get implemented.

Triggers being: You own (A and B) then B gets a territory bonus. In this case, you mark a territory non-deployable and then set the surrounding territories as triggers for deployability. You could model isolated territories like non-strategic islands or narrow mountain passes.

This is option one now.

Reed Jones · Post by **Reed Jones** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:18 pm

Reed Jones wrote:Why not with the user choose capitals have a 2 day round to choose your capital and if you miss it you are out of the game. That would do 2 things get your capitals choose and knock out any possible deadbeats early. Also if everybody choose their capital before the end of the 2 day period the game would begin.

And this is option 2. Any comments...

Deploying Idea

Do you think this a good idea?

Deploying Idea