Allow for a custom number of chained reinforcement movements

[ComposerNate]

I would def. play with "unlimited adjacent". Maybe the interface could look something like this:

Imagine I have all of Oceania on the classic map. 5 on Jakarta, 3 each on Port Moresby and Perth, 2 on Sydney.
The action panel displays the following:
Reinforce [menu] troops from Jakarta to [menu]
Reinforce [menu] troops from Perth to [menu]
Reinforce [menu] troops from Port Moresby to [menu]
Reinforce [menu] troops from Sydney to [menu]
[Go!]

The first menu includes numbers (0-4, 0-2, 0-2, 0-1 in this example) and the second menu contains territory names (for Jakarta it contains only Perth and Port Moresby, etc.). The button at the bottom says "Go" or "Reinforce" or something like that. You don't click it until you have all the menus adjusted. This should eliminate the possibility of doing a bunch of adjacent reinforcements to become the equivalent of one chained.

If we want to be able to reinforce different troops from one territory to other adjacent territories, then we would add a "split" button:

Reinforce [menu] troops from Jakarta to [menu] [split]
Reinforce [menu] troops from Perth to [menu] [split]
Reinforce [menu] troops from Port Moresby to [menu] [split]
Reinforce [menu] troops from Sydney to [menu]
[Go!]

If you click on split next to Jakarta, it would open up something like this:
Reinforce [menu] troops from Jakarta to Perth
Reinforce [menu] troops from Jakarta to Port Moresby

So that I could do 2 and 2 or 1 and 3. Note that there's no split by Sydney because in the example, I have 2 on Sydney so I can only reinforce one of them. There would also be no split button for a territory where I only had one adjacent territory. Like if I didn't have Perht, but had the other 3, no splits would be possible.

Sorry this is so lengthy, but I think it should be clear.

[ComposerNate]

FWIW, I also like the original idea of this thread, which is to have different numbers of chained or adjacent reinforcements without going to full-blown unlimited. Major Command allows 1, 3, and unlimited, and the "3" option is a nice middle ground setting. Combine it with chained and adjacent, and you get 6 possible reinforcement options. If we use more than just 1 and 3, we get even more. Just different ways to have to strategize, makes it interesting.

[agentcom]

Has unlimited adjacent been suggested before? You can move as much as you want, but only adjacently.

Haha, I thought this was sarcasm when I first read it. For the same reasons as TFO.

I'm really not sure how that could be coded. Say you are in Africa on Classic, You start with 3 on Johannesburg, 3 on Cape Town, and 3 on Lagos. You reinforce the 2 from Johan to Cape Town. Now you wanted to move those 2 that were originally on Cape Town to Lagos. How will the game engine know that you can only reinforce 2 out of there? Because technically you hadn't reinforced out of Cape Town yet.

Well, it seems this particular problem is solvable.

[chapcrap]

Has unlimited adjacent been suggested before? You can move as much as you want, but only adjacently.

Haha, I thought this was sarcasm when I first read it. For the same reasons as TFO.

I'm really not sure how that could be coded. Say you are in Africa on Classic, You start with 3 on Johannesburg, 3 on Cape Town, and 3 on Lagos. You reinforce the 2 from Johan to Cape Town. Now you wanted to move those 2 that were originally on Cape Town to Lagos. How will the game engine know that you can only reinforce 2 out of there? Because technically you hadn't reinforced out of Cape Town yet.

Well, it seems this particular problem is solvable.

That's right, it can be coded. BOOM goes the dynamite! Bring it on!

[DoomYoshi]

Yea, reinforcements should be split into 2 options:
reinforcements per turn (1,3, unlimited is the classic example)
reinforcement length (1, 2, chained, anywhere i recall seeing on another risk-site)

[Jippd]

Devils advocate...the computer may be able to know via programming but how will the player know?

A has five troops
B has 3 troops
C has 1 troops.

A touches B
B touches C
A does not touch C

A forts 4 to B with this unlimited fort option then B becomes a 7 stack.

B wants to fort to C now but how many can be forted and how many have to stay?

If player clicks region B how will it be differentiated between what troops can go where?

In this one situation it may be easier to figure out but think of a bigger map and where you have done a lot of forting and stack sizes are bigger and more numerous.

Not only that but consider forting some to one spot here or there but then wanting to remix the original fort.

You may end up with a territory that had forts made to it from all surrounding territories. Now say you want to fort those back where they came from...how do you distinguish what troop came from where? If I select the region it selects the whole stack. But the problem is now there are troops that can get forted only back to certain spots...how is the player to know what goes where and how will the user select and differentiate between the different troop groups to select which ones to move.

I can see a trial and error process maybe working, but it will be user end confusing IMO.

I hope what I'm trying to say is getting across I can't think of how to word the explanation of the problem that I forsee with this.

None the less it's a digression from the original subject anyway which is a max fort limit. That wouldn't work though unless it was anything but unlimited forts. I could see it being a nice feature in chained/adjacent but low priority overall

[trekwest]

All for this...(thread bump)

I think increasing the number of chained or adjacent reinforcements would be an outstanding variation - and easy to code (?)

(With adjacent, it could feasibly then become a type of chained as you could string your adjacents together with one group ... a "blitzkrieg", as it were. Or scatter your adjacent moves among your stacks.)

Not get crazy with it - max 3 fort moves.

Legitimate if think of this in a realistic way. Why couldn't armies in various areas make simultaneous advances/retreats.

Adds another level of movement between the adjacent/chained(1 time moves) and unlimited fortifications.

[Flavordice]

I'm new here, so maybe this has been brought up before. If so, I apologize profusely.

But I've been playing a lot of larger maps with some friends (and enemies) and I've kinda been wishing that there were some more reinforcement options. Currently there are just 3 (Adjacent, Chained, and Unlimited). I wish that instead of "Unlimited" there was a toggle of some sort that would let the game creator choose the number of troop moves per turn. On big maps, one move a turn is just not enough, but "Unlimited" completely changes the nature of the game. Depending on the size of the map, I would have liked the option of 2 or 3.

Another possible alternative would be to have an "Unlimited Adjacent" option. Since, the unlimited option that currently exists is really just Unlimited Chained. With unlimited adjacent reinforcements at the end of your turn, you could make your isolated background troops mobile, but not rush the front and throw off the strategy of the game. Unlimited Adjacent movements would be perfect in a trenches game too, since it would keep with the movement restricted play style.

these are just my thoughts. Have these options been considered before? If so, is there a reason I'm not noticing, either gameplay wise or programming wise that would hinder what I believe would be a simple addition that would give a lot more options to the game.

[chapcrap]

Here is a thread for unlimited adjacent: viewtopic.php?f=535&t=61323

Here is a thread for a custom number of chained reinforcements: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=155485

There are other threads as well, such as paratroop reinforcements: viewtopic.php?f=535&t=128729

And this one to improve adjacent reinforcements: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=181657



Who it be ok with you to pick one of those threads to merge your thread with?

[Col. Wm. Colvill]

I love the idea of having multiple reinforcements without going all the way to unlimited!

Adding a Chained-3 and/or a Chained-5 option seems like it would be a relatively simple programming change that could be implemented pretty quickly.

I understand the issues/concerns/confusion surrounding adding a multiple-move option to adjacent, and I think those things warrant further discussion, but I don't think those discussions should hold up the addition of some multiple Chained options.

[Flavordice]

I realize now that Unlimited Adjacent reinforcements would be hard to code. I don't see any issues with the Custom Number of Chained Reinforcements though.

I'll take my suggestion to that thread.

Thanks.

[Cosmical]

Concise description:

• Currently, there is one way to customize end of turn reinforcing. I suggest that, instead, a second line be added to the game making list that customizes the number of times you can do reinforcing at the end of your turn. The first line would contain adjacent, chained, parachute, and none. The second line would contain an entry spot for number of times you can do that type of reinforcing including unlimited.

Specifics/Details:

• In short, there should be a category that determines the type of reinforcing(adjacent, chained, parachute, or none), and a category that determines number of times that you can reinforce(1,2,3,...10,...unlimited)
• Currently, the only way to make a game that grants more than one reinforcement action is to play unlimited, and that limits us to only playing in a chained manner. I realize that playing an unlimited parachute game is slightly ridiculous, but I have a feeling other people will feel that way too and it will not be a game type that anyone will set up. However, I have an interest in playing a game in which I could have 2 parachute reinforcements at the end of my turn.
• Adjacent seems to me to be a very unpopular type of reinforcing. I think that adjacent could be a much more popular type if we were allowed to increase the number of actions. Being able to reinforce 4 adjacent times keeps the manner of reinforcing fairly restrictive as the type adjacent should do while opening it up to being more useful if desired.
• Chained style reinforcing would be improved as well by this change. At the moment, we have a choice between one chained reinforcement and unlimited chained. What about all the numbers in between 1 and infinity?

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

• I feel that this small change will make end of turn reinforcing much more specific to maps. A lot of maps are pretty large and require more than one reinforcement action at the end of your turn. Unlimited makes armies far too fluid however, and drastically changes the game. Allowing more specific customization of number of actions will drastically improve gameplay.

[ForWorldPeace]

+1
This is a good idea.

[Cosmical]

Bump. Nothing? No one has anything to say??

[owenshooter]

Bump. Nothing? No one has anything to say??

probably not, because it is a horrible idea... kind of takes away a lot of the strategy/gameplay that goes into these settings... multiple adjacent/chained settings? how about just learning how to deploy, move your troops popular and not over attack? i play chained and rarely move troops at the end of a turn, because i think through my moves... oh, i forgot, most people use add/ons and such and don't really get the nuances of this game anymore on this site... maybe you should just suggest making an add/on that tells you how to move your troops at the end of your turn for the best possible results/outcome... *eyes rolling*... sorry, just a bad idea... let's add more bells and whistles onto a site that already has TOO MANY...-el Jesus negro

[Cosmical]

Holy Moly dude. That attitude is why discussing things on the internet is so difficult. All of what you said could have been said much more nicely.

"kind of takes away a lot of the strategy/gameplay that goes into these settings"

It takes absolutely nothing away. It gives more options. If you don't like the options, here's a novel idea: don't play games with those settings! Increasing customization and choice is hardly ever a bad thing....

As for questioning my ability to plan accordingly, back the hell off. I am actually quite good at that.

[owenshooter]

It takes absolutely nothing away. It gives more options. If you don't like the options, here's a novel idea: don't play games with those settings! Increasing customization and choice is hardly ever a bad thing....

funny statement... most people around here think that the increase in options and gameplay have diluted the site and caused the membership to plummet from over 20K to under 10K this summer (9,740)... increasing the game options at this point in time does not seem at all wise for CC to do... aside from that, your idea is just a bad one at that...-el Jesus negro

[Cosmical]

Thank you for your civility.

I would be very surprised if increasing the options is actually the reason less people are members. Allowing more different gametypes does not eliminate the games that people used to like. I of course could not say what has decreased the membership of the site, you may be correct.

The main reason I want multiple reinforcements and NOT unlimited reinforcements, is maps like Feudal Epic and other maps with Autodeploy. I would like to make two reinforcements at the end of those turns so that I can more effectively move my troops to the front lines. Allowing for unlimited reinforcements completely eliminates the need to plan ahead and deploy smartly, which I agree with you should absolutely be an important part of a game. Unlimited reinforcing is for dummies.

[owenshooter]

i stand corrected.. at the 2:55 mark, they go over all the different types of fortifications possible... parachute, zombie, double adjacent, triple chained, zombie chutes, etc..



you are right... my bad... this wouldn't dilute the number of games like other changes have... this suggestion would make the site closer to RISK...-el Jesus negro

[Dukasaur]

It is an excellent idea. It's annoying that there is currently no middle ground between the extremes of Unlimited and the various single-fort option. Having something like a "fort 3X" option would create the possibility of some intermediate options.

[DoomYoshi]

Some other website started by CC members has had this since day 1.

[owenshooter]

It is an excellent idea. It's annoying that there is currently no middle ground between the extremes of Unlimited and the various single-fort option. Having something like a "fort 3X" option would create the possibility of some intermediate options.

you seem to have this mindset to keep adding and adding and adding... i don't see how you can't see that this waters down the true RISK aspect of the site and continues to lead to people just leaving... i don't think options like this are worth implementing and most of the new forts that have been seem to have helped lead people away in droves... hey, team CC knows best... let's keep watering down the RISK on the site, it might make RISK fanatics return in the numbers we once had (over 20K)... kind of funny how we had 22K members when we had fewer options and the game was closer to RISK... the more we add, the more we water down, the further we get from RISK, the fewer people remain... just a bad idea in my opinion...-eJn

[Cosmical]

I just don't understand the logic. You can still play the same way now as when there was 22k members. Create games that are the style you enjoy and foster a group of people that like that style.
What if they left because there were not enough options, or the options that people prefer were being offered on other RISK sites?
If this site offers the same gameplay options as every other site out there and delivers a quality site....shouldn't they all come back?
Being exclusionary and deciding that some gameplay options are not worthwhile certainly is not going to win anyone back.

[Dukasaur]

It is an excellent idea. It's annoying that there is currently no middle ground between the extremes of Unlimited and the various single-fort option. Having something like a "fort 3X" option would create the possibility of some intermediate options.

you seem to have this mindset to keep adding and adding and adding... i don't see how you can't see that this waters down the true RISK aspect of the site and continues to lead to people just leaving... i don't think options like this are worth implementing and most of the new forts that have been seem to have helped lead people away in droves... hey, team CC knows best... let's keep watering down the RISK on the site, it might make RISK fanatics return in the numbers we once had (over 20K)... kind of funny how we had 22K members when we had fewer options and the game was closer to RISK... the more we add, the more we water down, the further we get from RISK, the fewer people remain... just a bad idea in my opinion...-eJn

Yeah, we HAD 22K members, and they soon got bored and left, because at its core, RISK is a pretty dumb and simplistic game. If it was an interesting and absorbing game, they would still be here. The people who are still here are here because they found maps and settings that they found more interesting than the original game.

I just don't understand the logic. You can still play the same way now as when there was 22k members. Create games that are the style you enjoy and foster a group of people that like that style.
What if they left because there were not enough options, or the options that people prefer were being offered on other RISK sites?
If this site offers the same gameplay options as every other site out there and delivers a quality site....shouldn't they all come back?
Being exclusionary and deciding that some gameplay options are not worthwhile certainly is not going to win anyone back.

Well said! Anyone who wants to play a game on Classic with the original settings is welcome to do so. In fact, many such games are played. People who enjoy them are not in any way harmed by those who prefer something else.

When Baskin-Robbins adds Nutmeg-and-Cloves ice cream to its menu, it's not in any way hurting the little old ladies who still want vanilla.

[AndyDufresne]

I'd probably play a game with 'x' number of reinforcements. I like it.


--Andy