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).
DoomYoshi wrote: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.
spiesr wrote:The term used "officially" on the site is Reinforcements.Fazeem wrote:Interesting option but should it not be called no fortifications?
The Voice wrote:People who use the timing out to their benefit in games with spoils are no longer punished by not being able to fort.
chapcrap wrote:The Voice wrote:People who use the timing out to their benefit in games with spoils are no longer punished by not being able to fort.
This is the most relevant point to this not being implemened, as far as I can see.
I think before this is implemented (if it is), then the thread below also needs to be implemented to protect against the situation that The Voice is talking about.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users