New Game Mode?

[ringo182]

Concise description:

• A mode of play where the advance option after the attack is removed to prevent massive spoils allowing for players to sweep the entire board in one go

Specifics/Details:

• At the moment, with the escalating spoils mode, it is possible for a player to sweep the entire board in one go. This is in no way realistic and takes much of the skill and tactics out of the game and makes it more of a game of luck as players who can cash in spoils more often always win the game. I suggest a mode which disables the advance option so you can only attack into the territories next to you in one go. For example, if you attack Iceland from GB then you can't advance and go on to take the whole of North America in one go. You can still attack other countries from GB, and attack from other territories you already control. At the end of your attacks you can then reinforce as much as you want, but again only into adjacent territories.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• This is a style i usually play with friends and makes for a much more realistic and tactically dependant game. It means you have to think carefully where you put re-inforcements. not just "i've got 30 spoils so i'll just put them anywhere and sweep through the whole of Asia". It also leads to greater numbers of men on the board which can lead to mammoth battles for supremacy in certain areas which can take rounds to resolve. I think that this mode, along with the Fog Of War option could make for a great game that really would be a test of tactical awareness and planning

[ringo182]

sorry if it's a stupid idea or one thats already been mentioned. i'm quite new to the site and this is how i've always played the game at home. anyway, let me know what you think.

[phantomzero]

sorry if it's a stupid idea or one thats already been mentioned. i'm quite new to the site and this is how i've always played the game at home. anyway, let me know what you think.

Do you normally play unlimited adjacent forts? Or do you just fort 1 territ?

[wisemanpsemc]

You might try the no spoils or flat rate spoils options. These games tend to be much longer and have far less sweeping style attacks.

If you want to learn how to play escalating spoils successfully you can join the Society of Cooks to learn the basic strategy. Then you too can sweep the board without relying on the "luck" so much.

[ringo182]

yes, if that means that you can re-inforce as many men as you want was long as they only move into an adjacent territory. and obviously there always has to be at least one man in each territory, even during reinforcement.

to me, this mode i play and have suggested just makes the game more realistic. in real life an army can't just walk through a whole continent while the others just stand by and watch. also, an army can re-inforce as many of it's troops as it wants, in any direction it wants, as long as the territories are touching.

[ringo182]

You might try the no spoils or flat rate spoils options. These games tend to be much longer and have far less sweeping style attacks.

If you want to learn how to play escalating spoils successfully you can join the Society of Cooks to learn the basic strategy. Then you too can sweep the board without relying on the "luck" so much.

i've had a couple of games where i have swept the board. i just got no enjoyment from it at all as it took no skill or tactics. anyone can win if they get 25 troops given to them and can then sweep through a continent unnapossed. i find myself not playing with tactics, but just desperate to gain spoils because i know that with no spoils i stand no chance of winning.

thats what lead me to suggest this style. when i play we play with escalating spoils, but because you can't sweep through whole continents the strategic strongholds on the board turn into massive battles, with huge armies on both sides. where armies either have to dig in and pick off the opponents weak spots or they choose to fight, which could weaken themselves and allow another army to pick them of when they become weak.

to me, this mode involves more tactical awareness. it allows you to build up your army really take control of the board. it involves more decision making as you must decide whether to fight your opponent head on and risk weakening yourself, or building you army and waiting for the right moment to attack.

it might not be for everyone and might get rejected, but i still beleave that it is a very enjoyable and challenging way to play the game.

[Army of GOD]

Avoid using the word "realistic". This game is as far from realistic as it can get...

[ringo182]

Avoid using the word "realistic". This game is as far from realistic as it can get...

obviously the game is completely unrealistic in whatever way you play it.

what i mean is an army couldn't sweep across a whole continent unopposed and the way i pay it stops this from happening while still allowing escalating spoils to build large armies.

[phantomzero]

yes, if that means that you can re-inforce as many men as you want was long as they only move into an adjacent territory. and obviously there always has to be at least one man in each territory, even during reinforcement.

to me, this mode i play and have suggested just makes the game more realistic. in real life an army can't just walk through a whole continent while the others just stand by and watch. also, an army can re-inforce as many of it's troops as it wants, in any direction it wants, as long as the territories are touching.

How long does a 4 player or 6 player game last with your friends?

[Army of GOD]

Well yea. That's why I stay away from escalating.

Like I said in the GD thread, I mostly play NS or nuclear. Much more tactical I think.

[ringo182]

yes, if that means that you can re-inforce as many men as you want was long as they only move into an adjacent territory. and obviously there always has to be at least one man in each territory, even during reinforcement.

to me, this mode i play and have suggested just makes the game more realistic. in real life an army can't just walk through a whole continent while the others just stand by and watch. also, an army can re-inforce as many of it's troops as it wants, in any direction it wants, as long as the territories are touching.

How long does a 4 player or 6 player game last with your friends?

thats the only drawback i see. the games can sometimes take quite a while because when each army has built up their own strong hold in certain areas it can be difficult to break them down. our games involve a lot of deals and working together in certain areas. but again, i see that as making the game a bit more realistic to what goes on in real life. it also makes it more fun as there is alot of broken deals and double crossing.

[MichelSableheart]

The "sweep" you are describing is an essential part of escalating strategy. If you don't like it, Flat Rate or No Spoils might be settings that interest you more.

I'm not a fan of this option to be honest. Flat Rate and No spoils multiplayer games already tend to go into stalemates if the players are reasonably matched. Removing the possibility to advance would stalemate such games even further.

For an extreme example, consider a No Spoils Adjacent 1v1 Hive game on this setting, where one player holds a 15 troop bonus zone, defended by neutrals around it, and the other player doesn't hold a similar sized bonus. The other player won't be able to break the zone, as he would have to go through neutrals, meaning that the first player probably has a gamewinning advantage. So how long would it take him to clear the board?

[NightWolf]

I stopped playing escalating games for this very reason. Also, escalating games are designed to be fast in this way. Slowing them down would make little sense and would only increase the risk of playing a stalemate game if the troop levels get too high and the difference of escalation troops becomes too irrelevant. I get so annoyed from bonus cards sometimes that I find myself making almost half of my games "no-spoils" now.

[greenoaks]

it also makes it more fun as there is alot of broken deals and double crossing.

that doesn't sound like fun to me

[stahrgazer]

Would make for an interesting option, perhaps call it the "Limited Assaults" option

[Blinkadyblink]

This sounds really similar to Adjacent Attacks. Check out that thread.

[natty dread]

Escalating games have more strategy than you think.

Placement of troops, planning ahead... escalating is a fun gamestyle. It also took me a while to learn to appreciate it, and a bigger while to learn how to play it reasonably well. But when you do, it's a very fun game.

If you think escalating is all about luck, then you don't know how to play escalating.

But yeah, stick to flat/no spoils if you can't appreciate the game style.

[thebest712]

hmm this is diff, I also play it diff, that if you conquer a territ, only 3 troops advance( 3rolls), and in the fort phase you only can move 7 army's, or 1 army over 7 territs, or a way between ( not sure how to explain this )

[rambeaupied]

I played that kind of "no advance option after the attack" on a board game. It sound great at first but the only thing that happens was that the game became sooooo slower. It works only if you are very stronger then your opponent.
If you are almost of the same strength, I become almost impossible to break an ennemi line. Because once you attacked him, on his next turn he just put all his reinforcements in front of you and will attack in return. And you do the same after, and again and again...

[OliverFA]

This sounds really similar to Adjacent Attacks. Check out that thread.

Right. I think this is Adjacent Attacks.

[TheForgivenOne]

This sounds really similar to Adjacent Attacks. Check out that thread.

Right. I think this is Adjacent Attacks.

A form of it? Maybe, but not quite.

From my knowledge - AA = Attack from X to Y and advance to Y if you won, and Y can't attack.

This suggestion = X attacks Y, but can't advance to Y during the attacking phase. Would have to reinforce there.