Adjacent Attacks

[lancehoch]

I like the idea. With fog it will be a perfect combination : you can capture a region only, if you see it at the beginning of your turn !!

That is an alternative definition, and fits the suggestion!

Not exactly...If I own Norway and Lower Canada on World 2.1 I can see both Greenland and Iceland. Does that mean that I can attack Greenland and then Iceland from Lower Canada, not under the current rules, but under the new suggestion it would be allowed.

[Ditocoaf]

I like the idea. With fog it will be a perfect combination : you can capture a region only, if you see it at the beginning of your turn !!

That is an alternative definition, and fits the suggestion!

Not exactly...If I own Norway and Lower Canada on World 2.1 I can see both Greenland and Iceland. Does that mean that I can attack Greenland and then Iceland from Lower Canada, not under the current rules, but under the new suggestion it would be allowed.

True... but his description is close, and makes sense. In fact, if you were playing Fog of War, the only territs you could attack would be those that you can see at the beginning of your turn. He doesn't say that you can always attack them, just that they're the only ones you can attack.

[OliverFA]

I like the idea. With fog it will be a perfect combination : you can capture a region only, if you see it at the beginning of your turn !!

That is an alternative definition, and fits the suggestion!

Not exactly...If I own Norway and Lower Canada on World 2.1 I can see both Greenland and Iceland. Does that mean that I can attack Greenland and then Iceland from Lower Canada, not under the current rules, but under the new suggestion it would be allowed.

You are right Lancehoch. The FoW description misses an important part of the proposal. The one that says that a player cannot attack from newly conquered territories. Then better to come back to the original description.

[Geger]

Agree!! Back to original description.

I just wanted to say, that a game with adjacent attack + fog can be an interesting game. You are right that we can't test it. Also we must wait 'til this suggestion will be implemented

[lancehoch]

Agree!! Back to original description.

I just wanted to say, that a game with adjacent attack + fog can be an interesting game. You are right that we can't test it. Also we must wait 'til this suggestion will be implemented

Why can it not be tested? Just ask someone to set it up. I am sure that Oliver and a few of the others would be more than willing to test out a few more options.

[yeti_c]

Agree!! Back to original description.

I just wanted to say, that a game with adjacent attack + fog can be an interesting game. You are right that we can't test it. Also we must wait 'til this suggestion will be implemented

Why can it not be tested? Just ask someone to set it up. I am sure that Oliver and a few of the others would be more than willing to test out a few more options.

Mainly cos it's a lot harder to ensure the game is following the rules...

However - I would be up for testing that anyways.

C.

[lancehoch]

Mainly cos it's a lot harder to ensure the game is following the rules...

However - I would be up for testing that anyways.

C.

Good point, I hadn't thought about that. Although, the two games I played (at least until I was eliminated) I did not see anyone make any mistakes. Also, hopefully people would not be intentionally taking advantage of the situation since it is an attempt to try out a new setting.

[Ditocoaf]

Mainly cos it's a lot harder to ensure the game is following the rules...

However - I would be up for testing that anyways.

C.

Good point, I hadn't thought about that. Although, the two games I played (at least until I was eliminated) I did not see anyone make any mistakes. Also, hopefully people would not be intentionally taking advantage of the situation since it is an attempt to try out a new setting.

Yeah, you'd have to be quite the douchebag to see this test as just an opportunity to earn some easy(er) points.

[yeti_c]

Agreed!!

C.

[denominator]

I really like this concept. I got the privilege of playing in one of the test games for these, and so far I've really enjoyed it.

What I like is that you really need to watch everyone else's moves closely and plan out your deployments and advancements very carefully. It's really easy to get your armies spread out and be unable to defend yourself.

I would be interested to see this on a map with no "free" bonuses. The classic map has the Oceania bonus, which, if you get it in an AA game, is a great stronghold, and you can build out into Asia really easily (yes, I know that's not actually the "continent" names anymore, but I haven't bothered to learn the new ones and everybody knows what I'm talking about). Something like Germany, where there are no small bonuses to grab early and dominate from.

Plus, I think this would work better with the No Cards option. That burst of troops at the right time from cards is way more of a momentum swing in this than in regular games.

[Ditocoaf]

Plus, I think this would work better with the No Cards option. That burst of troops at the right time from cards is way more of a momentum swing in this than in regular games.

Definitely. The escalating game we played turned out to be a lot of fun, but Sully went from last place to first in a single cash... because he had a few key territories in the center of asia, from which he could conquer most of the continent in a turn.

So the number of borders a territ has becomes really important: if it has a lot, then you can expand much more quickly. If it has only a few, then it's easier to defend. This sounds like it should be natural, but it doesn't really work like that with unlimited attacks.

[sully800]

Plus, I think this would work better with the No Cards option. That burst of troops at the right time from cards is way more of a momentum swing in this than in regular games.

Definitely. The escalating game we played turned out to be a lot of fun, but Sully went from last place to first in a single cash... because he had a few key territories in the center of asia, from which he could conquer most of the continent in a turn.

So the number of borders a territ has becomes really important: if it has a lot, then you can expand much more quickly. If it has only a few, then it's easier to defend. This sounds like it should be natural, but it doesn't really work like that with unlimited attacks.

I was possibly in last place, its hard to say because the armies fluctuated so much every three rounds. But the reason I went into first place was because I killed someone else. I don't remember the details without looking, but someone killed a few of pink's territories and essentially hung him for me. Then I end up with a double cash and lots of territories which is hard to defeat.

So its the same as any escalating game: Multiple cash ins can be very important. However unlike most escalating games its very easy to protect other players and realize when someone is in danger.

[n00blet]

Plus, I think this would work better with the No Cards option. That burst of troops at the right time from cards is way more of a momentum swing in this than in regular games.

Definitely. The escalating game we played turned out to be a lot of fun, but Sully went from last place to first in a single cash... because he had a few key territories in the center of asia, from which he could conquer most of the continent in a turn.

So the number of borders a territ has becomes really important: if it has a lot, then you can expand much more quickly. If it has only a few, then it's easier to defend. This sounds like it should be natural, but it doesn't really work like that with unlimited attacks.

I was possibly in last place, its hard to say because the armies fluctuated so much every three rounds. But the reason I went into first place was because I killed someone else. I don't remember the details without looking, but someone killed a few of pink's territories and essentially hung him for me. Then I end up with a double cash and lots of territories which is hard to defeat.

So its the same as any escalating game: Multiple cash ins can be very important. However unlike most escalating games its very easy to protect other players and realize when someone is in danger.

I know I would play a lot more escalating games (with AA) if it was implemented, to be sure. It was definitely the most interesting of the games we've played with AA so far.

[Ditocoaf]

Would anybody be interested in trying this out on another one of the very popular maps? I'm thinking it'd be nice to experiment with feudal war this way. I personally predict it'll be a lot of fun...

I'm thinking sunny/flatrate. I'd also like to try out something other than adjacent reinforcements, just for the hell of it... would unlimited be okay?

[n00blet]

Yeah...I was thinking of going into the other maps/fortification settings to see what would happen. Feudal would be perfect.

Annnnnddddd.....it's up: Game 3695712.

Join up!


(as always, if you haven't played any AA games before, please pm me and I will send you the password for these type of games)