Page 5 of 11
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:12 pm
by Herakilla
Risktaker17 wrote:its just an option so that is ok.
that is never a reason to make option, there is such a thing as too many options but this idea is good enough that it merits being added
IMPLEMENT IMMEDIATLY! then ill go play 10 games with it
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:46 pm
by Timminz
BaldAdonis wrote:Risktaker17 wrote:Timminz wrote:Risktaker17 wrote:You might be right, but I thought it was rejected...
references?
They don't exist sorry bud.
Fix'd.
That doesn't say anything about being rejected.
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:57 pm
by Timminz
So, what does it take to get a suggestion officially recognized?
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:59 pm
by insomniacdude
Timminz wrote:So, what does it take to get a suggestion officially recognized?
I've been trying to find an answer to that for over a year and have yet to get a real answer.
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 6:24 pm
by cicero
Jamie wrote:Bad idea. You start out with 3 men on each country. Almost all those would stay trapped, cause you could never fort them. The only way they'd ever be useful is if your opponents conquered the countries around them. If you have a no forts game, you'd have to make it unlimited forting for round 1, than no forts after that. That might work
Are you sure?
The only armies which would be trapped would be those in territories which only bordered with your own. An initial deployment including such territories is, I would suggest, rare. [Maps like Feudal War with auto-deploys might prove awkward though

They'd need a switch in the XML debarring the selection of "no forts" I would think ...]
Even so, it would only require another player to attack one of the surrounding territories to give that territory a target.
I think the OP's suggestion is sound.
[I find in games of unlimited, adjacent or chained forts that often I don't actually use the forts. It would be an interesting challenge, in my view, to have to play that way all the time.]
Cicero
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 6:29 pm
by cicero
insomniacdude wrote:Timminz wrote:So, what does it take to get a suggestion officially recognized?
I've been trying to find an answer to that for over a year and have yet to get a real answer.
There is no formal method or (automatic) formal recognition.
However it is in the interests of the mods/site owners to review posts made here to see if the suggestions (or bug reports) can be used to improve the site. This they certainly do. [Hence the name of the sub-forum

.]
I think that threads which make a suggestion articulately and discuss it constructively, with the minimum of throwaway posts, is more likely to get attention and so get 'officially recognised' - in the sense that mods/site owners contribute to the thread or mark it as "[to do]", "[rejected]" etc.
It's in our own hands ...
Cicero
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 4:01 pm
by Gozar
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:27 pm
by Timminz
Gozar wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=41289
Thanks Gozar. That was exactly the answer I was looking for. Now, if we could just get them to weigh-in on this suggestion.
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:17 pm
by timmytuttut88
GREEN FORTIFIED EVERYONE
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:48 pm
by jennifermarie
This actually sounds pretty cool...I'd probably play it!
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:16 pm
by Timminz
timmytuttut88 wrote:GREEN FORTIFIED EVERYONE
that's exactly why this suggestion should be implemented. So that people playing no forts games, don't accidentally fortify.
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:25 pm
by timmytuttut88
Timminz wrote:timmytuttut88 wrote:GREEN FORTIFIED EVERYONE
that's exactly why this suggestion should be implemented. So that people playing no forts games, don't accidentally fortify.
how do we stop green's madness!
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:42 pm
by Gozar
timmytuttut88 wrote:
how do we stop green's madness!
It is too late, he is over the brink of insanity.
jennifermarie wrote:This actually sounds pretty cool...I'd probably play it!
So, is that an official word on this suggestion?
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:54 pm
by Coleman
I suggested this once, and I recall it was pointed out to me that this would be broken.
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:01 pm
by timmytuttut88
Coleman wrote:I suggested this once, and I recall it was pointed out to me that this would be broken.
so this has previously been rejected?
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:16 pm
by Timminz
timmytuttut88 wrote:Coleman wrote:I suggested this once, and I recall it was pointed out to me that this would be broken.
so this has previously been rejected?
As far as my research tells me, it wasn't even officially recognized.
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:17 pm
by BeakerWMA
I posted it a couple months ago...hope you have better luck than I did

Re: No fortification option?
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:23 pm
by Gozar
I won that game. So is this being considered or no?
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:38 pm
by Herakilla
cmon lack, andy, twill! give us an answer! this is such a good idea!
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:38 pm
by keiths31
I took part in this game and it was quite fun actually. Made you really think when taking your turns. Probably the most strategic way to play a game.
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:03 pm
by Risktaker17
Options are good, good idea
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:15 pm
by sfhbballnut
*to-do* ???? anybody? lol
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 6:37 pm
by Gozar
*cough*
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:15 pm
by Timminz
Does anyone official even read this forum?
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:24 pm
by keiths31
*cough cough*