a none reinforcement style!!! by caribbean soul

[caribbean soul]

[Delete Me]
PLACE THE NAME OF THE SUGGESTION IN THE SUBJECT LINE!

Things to remember when posting a new suggestion are that the dice are random, and that lots of analysis has been done on them both internally and public by community members. Also, please take time to search for previous similar suggestions and, if possible, to check current and archived threads before posting something "new". Delete the xxxxxxx, and substitute your text.

Any questions, contact one of the Suggestions Moderators.
[/Delete Me]


Concise description:
you must be very strategic in your deployment bc you CAN'T reinforce!!!

Details
this would be no reinforcing! it would be more strategic because you could NOT reinforce!!! so you must have a much more strategic deployement

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
it would benifit trophy wise, there would be a trophy for 400 non reinfocement style,
[*]xxxxxxx[/list]

[BGtheBrain]

I think what hes trying to say, is that he wants a game setting for No Reinforcements

[DoomYoshi]

I like it. It's kinky, but I can deal with some bondage.

[Metsfanmax]

This was an idea that had some merit a long time ago:

viewtopic.php?f=471&t=116801
viewtopic.php?f=471&t=83813

It never really had whole hearted support, so it didn't get off the ground. If people are more interested in it now, we can re-examine it.

[chapcrap]

I think this would be a good option.

[agentcom]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 71&t=83813

This thread that Mets linked to is awesome. There's some great smart-ass commentary and some people actually played a test game to see how it would work out. At some point, these identical suggestions should probably get merged together (and I'm sure there are more like them out there). There is some good stuff in these old threads.

Also, in the two threads linked to, I can't really find any reason for this being rejected. So maybe we should keep this one in the active suggestions forum and try to pull these threads together (especially given what the OP here looks like).

[Metsfanmax]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=471&t=83813

This thread that Mets linked to is awesome. There's some great smart-ass commentary and some people actually played a test game to see how it would work out. At some point, these identical suggestions should probably get merged together (and I'm sure there are more like them out there). There is some good stuff in these old threads.

Also, in the two threads linked to, I can't really find any reason for this being rejected. So maybe we should keep this one in the active suggestions forum and try to pull these threads together (especially given what the OP here looks like).

Go for it. I'm normally opposed to minor variants on existing gameplay, if the only real reason for doing it is just so that players have more options, but I think that no reinforcements is a different enough style of gameplay to warrant serious consideration.

[DoomYoshi]

Ok, I withdraw my support after thinking about it.

Consider a few ridiculous scenarios:

I attack a territory and I can advance troops, but if I advance 0 and end attacks, then I can't immediately place those troops there. This seems like a ridiculous and arbitrary choice. The same can be said about trench though (if you advance to a new terrritory you cant attack the same territory that you would have been able to attack) which is a setting I like, but in that case, the strategy element of it makes sense.

I start with territories in the middle of the dust bowl. Normally, I can save 1 troop. This way, I can save 0 troops.

1v1 becomes a total dice slog.

[chapcrap]

Ok, I withdraw my support after thinking about it.

Consider a few ridiculous scenarios:

I attack a territory and I can advance troops, but if I advance 0 and end attacks, then I can't immediately place those troops there. This seems like a ridiculous and arbitrary choice. The same can be said about trench though (if you advance to a new terrritory you cant attack the same territory that you would have been able to attack) which is a setting I like, but in that case, the strategy element of it makes sense.

I start with territories in the middle of the dust bowl. Normally, I can save 1 troop. This way, I can save 0 troops.

1v1 becomes a total dice slog.

First, move your troops correctly, that's your fault, not the settings' fault.

Second, not every setting is for every map. And, with Dust Bowl's new XML, that wouldn't matter anyway, because both players would be in the same boat.