sfhbballnut wrote:wow I can just see it massive army gets stuck, completly useless til someone decides to attack t, this would be a mess, but a lot of fun, i say it should be considered
If people no ahead of time that they cannot fortify, they will be much more careful about placing armies. They will be placing 3 here, 4 there, 2 over there and such. That way they can advance in more complicated fashions.
I see this idea as one that will REALLY prove who knows how to play strategically and who doesn't. Would LOVE to see it implemented.
It means quote for truth, so Herakilla agrees with the post he quoted.
Antway, i think no forts would be a awesome idea, and like optimus said it would increase stratergy used in games. Thumbs up from me to
Guys I am intentionally lurking. Discuss; Play mafia, it is good.
Oderint Dum Metuant says: Don't confuse the easily confused!
It means quote for truth, so Herakilla agrees with the post he quoted.
Antway, i think no forts would be a awesome idea, and like optimus said it would increase stratergy used in games. Thumbs up from me to
Interesting idea. Team games will change a lot also with this as you would have to attack your partners armies to get a bonus. Think this will result in longer and more interesting team games.
keiths31 wrote:*for the record-this is Timminz idea*
For the record, I was not the first one to suggest this. I forget who was, but I remember a month or 2 ago I thought of it and before making a suggestion, I searched for it. There was another thread already started. I'm not sure who started it, or what happened to the idea. I re-thought of this the other day and started one. It's gonna be interesting.
Forza AZ wrote:Interesting idea. Team games will change a lot also with this as you would have to attack your partners armies to get a bonus. Think this will result in longer and more interesting team games.
But, they could attack away first, leaving only 1. In some situations.
Risktaker17 wrote:You might be right, but I thought it was rejected...
references?
I'm too lazy to look sorry bud.
Well then. Until someone official says otherwise, this is an open suggestion. And it appears that people like the idea, and it wouldn't take much to implement.
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
Highest score to date: 2704 (June 25, 2008)
Highest on Scoreboard: 86 (June 25, 2008)
Highest Rank : Colonel (May 27, 2008)
Lowest Score to date : 776 (Nov 20, 2012)
Lowest Rank to date: Cook (Nov 20, 2012)
Shortest game won: 15 seconds - Game 12127866
Jamie wrote: 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.
I think that's the point. Sort of like a standing army: the armies in one country won't fight unless the battle comes close enough to affect them.
Jamie wrote: The only way they'd ever be useful is if your opponents conquered the countries around them
No kidding! In our test game, I dropped three territories in Australia. So now two behind my lines have 3 each.
Jamie wrote: 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.
I think that's the point. Sort of like a standing army: the armies in one country won't fight unless the battle comes close enough to affect them.
Jamie wrote: The only way they'd ever be useful is if your opponents conquered the countries around them
No kidding! In our test game, I dropped three territories in Australia. So now two behind my lines have 3 each.
It's like the national guard who stay to protect the homeland.
