[GP/UI] No Fortifications / Reinforcements

[Timminz]

I don't want to see this idea fall from the first page.

I want some recognition, that this has even been looked at.

C'mon now.

At least acknowledge it.

[BaldAdonis]

Just get keiths to edit the title so that it says [To-do], then lack will just implement it automatically.

[Ditocoaf]

this seems so basic, it can't NOT be done! Do it already, why don't you?

[Herakilla]

at least say SOMETHING

[lackattack]

I merged the duplicate suggestions and put it on my to-do list

[Timminz]

I merged the duplicate suggestions and put it on my to-do list

Thanks Lack!!!

[amazzony]

Now this is cool

[Timminz]

Just bumping this again, since it doesn't seem to have been added to the stickied list yet.

[Optimus Prime]

Stickied list doesn't get updated nearly as often. If Lack tagged it as To-Do he definitely has it on his personal list though.

[hideaway]

Concise description:

• Allow No Fortifications as a Game Option when selecting Fortifications Type

Specifics:

• Instead of having the option of selecting merely Unlimited Fortifications or Chained or Adjacent, what if you could NOT fortify! That's right, where you attack and where you advance is WHERE YOU LEAVE EM! As soon as you click 'end attacks' YOUR TURN IS OVER! It would drastically alter deployment strategy and I believe mathematics would take on a whole new role as dice odds would be come paramount in terms of deployment strategy. It would also reduce continent bonuses and allow for a more interesting psychological game, in my opinion.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• it will give more options to select during game formation, and add a different aspect to deployment strategy

[lozzini]

yer, do it

[Night Strike]

Already on the To-Do list.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=18608

[hideaway]

Already on the To-Do list.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=18608

thanks, I see that the thread is marked "to-do" but when I click on the actual to-do list, I don't see this in the works anywhere.

[t-o-m]

I say yes, its a good option to have although i personally wouldnt use it that often.

same with me, i wouldnt really use it, it would be a good option for those who want it though, more variation

[MusicTrooper]

Am wondering if this has been discussed before and what are some opinions of
no reinforcements as a game option.

[obliterationX]

That sounds horrible.

I guess there's always someone who would want to play it, though.

[LFAW]

That would actually be awful...

[JoshyBoy]

There actually wouldn't be a point in playing.... imagine if you decided to have no spoils too! It would be pretty pointless... actually, no, it would be ridiculously pointless.

[Bones2484]

So when you get down to 1's on every territory do you just wait for someone to deadbeat?

[squishyg]

I'm playing no spoils adjacent and I want to poke my eyes out. I can't imagine no reinforcements. Why not just have some friends over and watch paint dry?

[hwhrhett]

So when you get down to 1's on every territory do you just wait for someone to deadbeat?

i think he means no fortification, not no reinforcements...

[Knight2254]

So when you get down to 1's on every territory do you just wait for someone to deadbeat?

i think he means no fortification, not no reinforcements...

Agreed. It'd make troop placement all the more important. Would be interesting...

[Timminz]

This has been suggested before (in the Suggs & Bugs forum, no less), and I believe it was placed on the "To-Do List" (AKA- the place where good ideas go to die).

[Bones2484]

So when you get down to 1's on every territory do you just wait for someone to deadbeat?

i think he means no fortification, not no reinforcements...

OOOH ok. That makes a ton more sense, thank you.

[SuicidalSnowman]

I'll play a test game (gentleman's rules) if people are up for it.