Trench Warfare

[Gillipig]

I wonder if anyone has noticed that we just invented, for the first time in CC I think, a setting that allows 1 vs 1 stalemates to occur. Has anyone noticed as well, or is it just me?

Stalemates can be prevented with round limit. Might be a good idea to use round limit when you play trench. Even on 1v1.

[AndyDufresne]

Q.
Can New Recruits play trench games ?

New Recruits are blocked from Trench games.

I wonder if anyone has noticed that we just invented, for the first time in CC I think, a setting that allows 1 vs 1 stalemates to occur. Has anyone noticed as well, or is it just me?

Stalemates can be prevented with round limit. Might be a good idea to use round limit when you play trench. Even on 1v1.

Round Limits in general are handy, even if you only use the 50 or 100 to just save you from getting stuck in endless games.


--Andy

[Kaskavel]

never came across a stalemate there is always a way round it

You have a stack of 80, opponent has a stack of 78 and there is a single area in between. One of the players gets 32 troops per turn, the other one gets, lets say, 34 troops per turn. All the map has been conquered and there is this single "boarder". Or, you can imagine, 2-3 of those "boarders" around the board. Both players should conquer the boardering region(s) without advancing their stacks. At the end of time, one of the players will have 3400 troops, the other one 3200, but still, the stronger player cannot advance, because he will lose to the opponent's attacking advantage.

[Pirlo]

never came across a stalemate there is always a way round it

You have a stack of 80, opponent has a stack of 78 and there is a single area in between. One of the players gets 32 troops per turn, the other one gets, lets say, 34 troops per turn. All the map has been conquered and there is this single "boarder". Or, you can imagine, 2-3 of those "boarders" around the board. Both players should conquer the boardering region(s) without advancing their stacks. At the end of time, one of the players will have 3400 troops, the other one 3200, but still, the stronger player cannot advance, because he will lose to the opponent's attacking advantage.

I noticed this tactical problem.. even in dubs not only 1v1.. but I can imagine it's even worse in 1v1 as you dun have a partner to which you can pass troops when he gets in the right position to get the attacker's advantage!

[pmchugh]

never came across a stalemate there is always a way round it

You have a stack of 80, opponent has a stack of 78 and there is a single area in between. One of the players gets 32 troops per turn, the other one gets, lets say, 34 troops per turn. All the map has been conquered and there is this single "boarder". Or, you can imagine, 2-3 of those "boarders" around the board. Both players should conquer the boardering region(s) without advancing their stacks. At the end of time, one of the players will have 3400 troops, the other one 3200, but still, the stronger player cannot advance, because he will lose to the opponent's attacking advantage.

I noticed this tactical problem.. even in dubs not only 1v1.. but I can imagine it's even worse in 1v1 as you dun have a partner to which you can pass troops when he gets in the right position to get the attacker's advantage!

I noticed this pretty quickly, the stalemates broke up in no time because of other factors but the problem is there.

[Keredrex]

love this idea. gonna try it soon. ......
any possibility of unlimited Adjacent Fortifications... the ability to fortify troops from any one territ to an adjacent territ... but instead of just once... you can do it for any territory that has troops. each territ would only be able to move to one adjacent territ and both territs involved would be locked off, that way you can't leap frog troops as if it were chained. just a thought

[eddie2]

sorry i still do not see the thing with stalemates i can see it could be possible but to get yourself into that kind of situation means you have not played the best strategy for the setting.

[codierose]

or all your opponents are playing the best strategy happened to me many of times in a 3 player game or when theres 3 players left reason why i like round limits

[OliverFA]

sorry i still do not see the thing with stalemates i can see it could be possible but to get yourself into that kind of situation means you have not played the best strategy for the setting.

+1. We have been playing those games for years with the honour rules, and any deadlock we found was in fact a temporal one. If you see a "stalemate" its more likely because both players have trully similar skill levels.

And which map has only 1 border that divides two equally reinforced areas?

[Kaskavel]

you dont need one. Can happen with 2 or 3. I dont say trench is bad, I like it. I just say it adds a new senario.

[Extreme Ways]

I like CM when beginning last with AA or AoR3 with AA when spawning on Xi and Figye

Still a good feature.

[Roussallier]

Sweet, I'm going to have to try this! Awesome addition.

[Victor Sullivan]

Sweet, I'm going to have to try this! Awesome addition.

"Awesome" doesn't do it justice. We need a new word... Kerflafflinall. Yes, this is a kerflafflinall addition.

-Sully

[AndyDufresne]

I think Trench Warfare actually mimics the kind of gameplay I usually employ in my games anyways...haha.


--Andy

[Onagras]

awesome, so many new tactic options, but almost all games starts and ends in dice lucky of course before dice, you can loss your game due to not equal drop, but it is "nice" to imagine that new options can make this game more tactical lets continue draeaming more