[GP/UI] Paratroop Reinforcements

[PLAYER57832]

Hasn't paratroop reinforcements been suggested multiple times already?

Yes.

[greenoaks]

No, bad idea. Most of the reasons have already been given.

I'm not sure that your post does much to add to the discussion.

If this is added as a new setting, one where players can fortify "across" a map, it simulates what frequently happens in manual deploy games where players drop most (if not all) armies on one territory and bulldoze across the map. While I can see that such a strategy could become boring and predictable, I've enjoyed playing manual against players who employ this strategy. I like the idea of adding this as a new setting for a game for the aspect of changes in strategy that come with the new setting.

if you like this then click on the link in my sig and vote for it

[iamkoolerthanu]

No, bad idea. Most of the reasons have already been given.

I'm not sure that your post does much to add to the discussion.

Actually it does. It is saying she agrees with all the reasons other people have said earlier. One person thinking something isn't a very strong argument. But one person thinking something, and having a bunch of people agreeing with the; well now you are getting somewhere. Perhaps, in your eyes, it doesn't add to the discussion because she isn't speaking in your point of view? If that is that case, then maybe you should think outside the box and learn to view things from the other side of the window.

Now, I think that this is a good idea (though it seems many others do not agree). Even if there is no "real life" scenario that would support it.. well hell, I never said that I was commanding a real army. I was playing Conquer Club. And in Conquer Club, a GAME, I think that this would add a great dynamic game-play. Obviously, some would be a fan, and others would not. But then again; it would only be an option.

I really like this idea as an option. I'm guessing the suggestion is to have the following reinforcement game settings:

-chained connected
-chained disconnected
-adjacent
-unlimited connected
-unlimited disconnected

Edited in bold

[blakebowling]

Merged

[cheesefries25]

I think this should be a map-specific option...like the opposite of bombardment options on some maps. Instead of two unconnected territories being able to attack one another, they can reinforce one another.

But I think this option might already be in place?...

[natty dread]

I don't really like the idea of all these new game types. Sure, you don't have to play them if you don't want, but all new game type options give more headache to us mapmakers when we have to consider how a certain map would play on this or that game type...

For example, after nuclear spoils were implemented, we now have to consider nuclear games, where any territory is liable to be nuked... which is already causing some headache for mapmakers when they design maps with losing conditions.

What I'm saying is, implementing more game types makes it harder to design maps that function well with any settings. Thus, I personally am really reluctant to see much more game settings, unless they are the kind of settings that do not mess with the existing game dynamics too much.

Instead of new game settings, I'd much rather see new XML features. This way any features a map will have will be designed to work for that map.

For example, instead of this suggestion, we could get new XML tags related to reinforcements: borders that only allow reinforcements but not assaults. Borders that allow assaults but not reinforcements (but through which you can still advance after assault). Territories that automatically shift troops to other territories. Etc. etc. Those kinds of things could provide much more interesting and varied game dynamics than a simple new game option could.

[OliverFA]

I don't really like the idea of all these new game types. Sure, you don't have to play them if you don't want, but all new game type options give more headache to us mapmakers when we have to consider how a certain map would play on this or that game type...

For example, after nuclear spoils were implemented, we now have to consider nuclear games, where any territory is liable to be nuked... which is already causing some headache for mapmakers when they design maps with losing conditions.

What I'm saying is, implementing more game types makes it harder to design maps that function well with any settings. Thus, I personally am really reluctant to see much more game settings, unless they are the kind of settings that do not mess with the existing game dynamics too much.

Instead of new game settings, I'd much rather see new XML features. This way any features a map will have will be designed to work for that map.

For example, instead of this suggestion, we could get new XML tags related to reinforcements: borders that only allow reinforcements but not assaults. Borders that allow assaults but not reinforcements (but through which you can still advance after assault). Territories that automatically shift troops to other territories. Etc. etc. Those kinds of things could provide much more interesting and varied game dynamics than a simple new game option could.

I agree 90% with you. Just having new game typer for the sake of new game types doesn't mean much sense and spoils the work of dedicated mapmakers. The nuclear reinforcements for instance, they are nothing more than a lottery. They add a random element to the game without making it more interesting or more strategic.

But updates like infected neutrals or adjacent attacks, they add a whole new dimension to the game. They make sense .

So, no more pointless game options please. Let's limit to really meaningful game options. And let's get them implemented a day not too far in future please.

[Queen_Herpes]

So, no more pointless game options please. Let's limit to really meaningful game options. And let's get them implemented a day not too far in future please.

Oliver, I agree that some of the suggestions are a little bit out there. However, lets not discourage members from posting here in suggestions. If they have an idea, perhaps it could be developed further and eventually might become one of those "Infected Neutrals" or "Poker Spoils" type of suggestions that garners a lot of support and commentary from other users.

"Bad" ideas tend to get little response from the community that supports the suggestion, whereas the ones with considerable support tend to get submitted for review...

[Woodruff]

So, no more pointless game options please. Let's limit to really meaningful game options. And let's get them implemented a day not too far in future please.

Oliver, I agree that some of the suggestions are a little bit out there. However, lets not discourage members from posting here in suggestions. If they have an idea, perhaps it could be developed further and eventually might become one of those "Infected Neutrals" or "Poker Spoils" type of suggestions that garners a lot of support and commentary from other users.

"Bad" ideas tend to get little response from the community that supports the suggestion, whereas the ones with considerable support tend to get submitted for review...

To die an ugly 4-year death in the submitted pile while NUCLEAR SPOILS gets implemented.

[OliverFA]

So, no more pointless game options please. Let's limit to really meaningful game options. And let's get them implemented a day not too far in future please.

Oliver, I agree that some of the suggestions are a little bit out there. However, lets not discourage members from posting here in suggestions. If they have an idea, perhaps it could be developed further and eventually might become one of those "Infected Neutrals" or "Poker Spoils" type of suggestions that garners a lot of support and commentary from other users.

"Bad" ideas tend to get little response from the community that supports the suggestion, whereas the ones with considerable support tend to get submitted for review...

To die an ugly 4-year death in the submitted pile while NUCLEAR SPOILS gets implemented.

+1

[OliverFA]

So, no more pointless game options please. Let's limit to really meaningful game options. And let's get them implemented a day not too far in future please.

Oliver, I agree that some of the suggestions are a little bit out there. However, lets not discourage members from posting here in suggestions. If they have an idea, perhaps it could be developed further and eventually might become one of those "Infected Neutrals" or "Poker Spoils" type of suggestions that garners a lot of support and commentary from other users.

"Bad" ideas tend to get little response from the community that supports the suggestion, whereas the ones with considerable support tend to get submitted for review...

In my opinion, the thing that discourages most from making new suggestions is seeing that none of them gets implemented. And that instead of that we get a feature that was available in clickable maps.

Is not that they are implemented one at a time. Is that they are not implemented at all. Infected Neutrals has been around for how many years?

[bobby538]

this is cool except cc would have to design a paratrooper medal and everybody would have to get it

[Woodruff]

this is cool except cc would have to design a paratrooper medal and everybody would have to get it

Why?

[natty dread]

Guys, just because a suggestion is "submitted", does not mean it has been approved for the site. It simply means it has been submitted for the consideration of lackattack, who ultimately makes the final decision whether or not to implement the suggestions. The suggestions simply provide him an idea of what kind of updates people would like to see. However, just because a lot of people support a certain suggestion, doesn't necessary make it a feasible idea for the whole site...

[Woodruff]

Guys, just because a suggestion is "submitted", does not mean it has been approved for the site. It simply means it has been submitted for the consideration of lackattack, who ultimately makes the final decision whether or not to implement the suggestions. The suggestions simply provide him an idea of what kind of updates people would like to see. However, just because a lot of people support a certain suggestion, doesn't necessary make it a feasible idea for the whole site...

Certainly. Which leads me to believe he needs to lay off the drugs.

[OliverFA]

It's my personal opinion that this actually detracts from strategy instead of adding.

Part of the strategy is being able to split an opponent territory in two, with the major consequence that reinforcements can not pass from one half to the other. With this option, players can do what they want where they want. No need to tink in advance. No need to plan, and actually, less strategy.

[owenshooter]

It's my personal opinion that this actually detracts from strategy instead of adding.

Part of the strategy is being able to split an opponent territory in two, with the major consequence that reinforcements can not pass from one half to the other. With this option, players can do what they want where they want. No need to tink in advance. No need to plan, and actually, less strategy.

i was just about to post this exact thing... but with bigger words... agree 100 percent...-the black jesus

[greenoaks]

It's my personal opinion that this actually detracts from strategy instead of adding.

Part of the strategy is being able to split an opponent territory in two, with the major consequence that reinforcements can not pass from one half to the other. With this option, players can do what they want where they want. No need to tink in advance. No need to plan, and actually, less strategy.

i was just about to post this exact thing... but with bigger words... agree 100 percent...-the black jesus

absolutely, there is no strategy involved to counter such a move

it is preposterous to think we should be able to fort to anywhere on a map even though we can deploy to any terit

[OliverFA]

It's my personal opinion that this actually detracts from strategy instead of adding.

Part of the strategy is being able to split an opponent territory in two, with the major consequence that reinforcements can not pass from one half to the other. With this option, players can do what they want where they want. No need to tink in advance. No need to plan, and actually, less strategy.

i was just about to post this exact thing... but with bigger words... agree 100 percent...-the black jesus

absolutely, there is no strategy involved to counter such a move

it is preposterous to think we should be able to fort to anywhere on a map even though we can deploy to any terit

Oh well. In fact, we should not be able to deploy to any territory. But this is a change so complicated to the site that I have renounced to propose it. (I am trying to be realistic )

[JoshyBoy]

I really like this suggestion.

[blakebowling]

Sticky.

[Fewnix]

I respectfully suggest it is wrong to say there is no successful defensive option available when an opposing player can "paratroop"- fort to any tert he or she owns. To use the Classical example, one player holds Oceania and thinks an opposing player can threaten that bonus by forting a big stack to Bangkok. for the "paratroop" option to be a threat the opposing player would have to a) hold Bangkok and b) be able to fort a large stack to Bangok and C) wait until the next turn to use that forted army on Bangkok. We could probbabhly throw in a D> for the opposing player not deploying whatever armies she or he might get from bonuses and to Bangkok and attacking Oceania that turn. I think we could deal with that potential threat in a game where it was the option and it might add an extra spice.

[greenoaks]

I respectfully suggest it is wrong to say there is no successful defensive option available when an opposing player can "paratroop"- fort to any tert he or she owns. To use the Classical example, one player holds Oceania and thinks an opposing player can threaten that bonus by forting a big stack to Bangkok. for the "paratroop" option to be a threat the opposing player would have to a) hold Bangkok and b) be able to fort a large stack to Bangok and C) wait until the next turn to use that forted army on Bangkok. We could probbabhly throw in a D> for the opposing player not deploying whatever armies she or he might get from bonuses and to Bangkok and attacking Oceania that turn. I think we could deal with that potential threat in a game where it was the option and it might add an extra spice.

i also think anticipating troops arriving from elsewhere in the world would not leave you defenseless.

ps. did you vote ?

[Funkyterrance]

Seems like there would be 2 possible scenarios that I can think of so far.

Scenario 1:
Armies clash fast and furious in the beginning.
Players are left with nothing to attack with so would be like starting over and over and over again.

Scenario 2:
One player is able to hold a bonus early on after the initial clash of armies.
That player dominates the rest of the game.

Escalating would alter this but only further skeletonize the game.
Sound like fun?

[steak]

I like the idea of paradrops, but maybe not implemented as a reinforcement option. On new maps with a modern or WW2 concept, you could make autodeploy territs called paratroop dropzones, or connect 'airfield' territories to 'paradrop' territories that are distant from each other (and make them one way attacks only if you like) or something else map-related.

Imagine using this option with a map like peloponnesian war... suddenly the byzantine autodeploy zone can drop to the other side of greece... I'm pretty sure the map designer did not have this in mind, it is...silly.