Adjacent Attacks

Suggestions that have been archived.

Moderators: Global Moderators, Suggestions Team

What do you think about Adjacent Attacks?

I would support this being an option
293
65%
I would oppose this being an option
117
26%
I don't care/I don't know yet
43
9%
 
Total votes : 453

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby n00blet on Sat Dec 06, 2008 11:46 pm

OK....took long enough, but I finally got the thread started :lol:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=71701&start=0

Join up!
User avatar
Captain n00blet
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:09 pm
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
General Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby SuicidalSnowman on Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:07 pm

Another suggestion, perhaps you should set the groups so that there is someone who has played AA before in each one, might help with rule explanation and catching any cheating or mistakes earlier.
User avatar
Private SuicidalSnowman
 
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:40 am
Medals: 28
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby lancehoch on Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:00 pm

SuicidalSnowman wrote:Another suggestion, perhaps you should set the groups so that there is someone who has played AA before in each one, might help with rule explanation and catching any cheating or mistakes earlier.

That might stack the odds though. I think it would be more fair to the people who have never used the setting, if the groups are random.
Lieutenant lancehoch
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:13 pm
Medals: 11
Standard Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1)
Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (4)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby n00blet on Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:10 pm

lancehoch wrote:
SuicidalSnowman wrote:Another suggestion, perhaps you should set the groups so that there is someone who has played AA before in each one, might help with rule explanation and catching any cheating or mistakes earlier.

That might stack the odds though. I think it would be more fair to the people who have never used the setting, if the groups are random.

I agree with lance, but to hopefully avoid any problems, I'm planning on PM'ing everyone who gets signed up to get their personal guarantee that they have read and understood the rules (just to be safe) :)
User avatar
Captain n00blet
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:09 pm
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
General Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby yeti_c on Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:21 am

You cheeky little scamp - you made the Tourney thread without prior warning!!

Glad I made it in in time!

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 46
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby n00blet on Tue Dec 09, 2008 1:16 pm

yeti_c wrote:You cheeky little scamp - you made the Tourney thread without prior warning!!

Glad I made it in in time!

C.


lol sorry about that...There's still plenty of room though :D
User avatar
Captain n00blet
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:09 pm
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
General Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby yeti_c on Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:10 am

Discussion carried over from Tourney thread...

yeti_c wrote:
lancehoch wrote:
endar1077 wrote:Question: (and maybe this could be found in the attached thread, but I'm lazy and this is probably something everyone needs to hear anyway) How do bombardments work? Can a territory bombard more than once?
If not - I'll need to change maps - I think there's a good chance the game would be unfinishable in that case.

Well...yes, but that map might not work. Since you cannot bombard from a territory you just captured then the nukes would be useless and then you could get stuck in an endless game.


This is a very interesting point... perhaps "Killer Neutrals" should behave differently in Adjacent Attacks?

i.e. Any Killer Neutral territory is allowed to be attacked from in the same turn that it was conquered...

Will post this in the thread.

C.


Discuss...

Current maps with Killer Neutrals...

Arms Race
Citadel

Future maps...

Eastern Hemisphere
Trench Warfare
Maze Craze

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 46
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby Ditocoaf on Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:36 am

#-o
I knew there had to be a catch.

So yeah... killer neutral territs are useless with AA, unless we do something. I suppose making it so those specific territs are exempt from the rule, would fix the problem... It really adds some complications, but I suppose that it's necessary.
Image

>----------✪ Try to take down the champion in the continuous IPW/GIL tournament! ✪----------<

Note to self: THINK LESS LIVE MORE
Private 1st Class Ditocoaf
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes
Medals: 2
Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby lancehoch on Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:50 am

Well, I haven't played Citadel yet (or Arms Race for that matter, but I know more about the map). I know that Arms Race has the potential to end in a tie under the AA rules. I suggest just not using that map.
Lieutenant lancehoch
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:13 pm
Medals: 11
Standard Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1)
Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (4)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby yeti_c on Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:19 pm

I'd rather have any Killer Neutral territory be able to attack again...

If this is going to be implemented on the site - we can't just have "Don't play these maps"... we need a proper solution...

And the above doesn't take away from the idea on these maps - it will do more so in Maze Craze - but that's just the way it is... but Arms Race - Citadel etc - the idea is to take the territory - use it - then lose it - this works in the whole idea I think.

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 46
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby Ditocoaf on Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:18 pm

Actually, I'm starting to like the restricted maps option. We're already not allowed to play certain maps if we're doing 8-player... Why not have certain maps be unplayable with AA? This way, we don't have to compromise the integrity and simplicity of the rule. Just have it behave like 7-players does if you try to play feudal.
Image

>----------✪ Try to take down the champion in the continuous IPW/GIL tournament! ✪----------<

Note to self: THINK LESS LIVE MORE
Private 1st Class Ditocoaf
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes
Medals: 2
Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby yeti_c on Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:39 pm

Ditocoaf wrote:Actually, I'm starting to like the restricted maps option. We're already not allowed to play certain maps if we're doing 8-player... Why not have certain maps be unplayable with AA? This way, we don't have to compromise the integrity and simplicity of the rule. Just have it behave like 7-players does if you try to play feudal.


I severly think - "not having a solution" - limits the chance of this option being implemented.

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 46
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby maasman on Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:53 pm

I would love this addition :D This is actually the way I play at home ( along with some other modded rules ) and I would really like to see this implemented :D
Image
User avatar
Colonel maasman
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: River Falls, USA
Medals: 70
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (12) General Achievement (5)
Clan Achievement (13)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby n00blet on Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:27 pm

yeti_c wrote:
Ditocoaf wrote:Actually, I'm starting to like the restricted maps option. We're already not allowed to play certain maps if we're doing 8-player... Why not have certain maps be unplayable with AA? This way, we don't have to compromise the integrity and simplicity of the rule. Just have it behave like 7-players does if you try to play feudal.


I severly think - "not having a solution" - limits the chance of this option being implemented.

C.


I agree we should come up with a proper solution...Giving "killer neutral" territories the ability to attack after being conquered would seem to be the simplest (and probably best) solution, but I fear it might be difficult to implement.
Perhaps, in the coding of Adjacent Attacks, "killer neutral" territories could automatically be added to the list of territories that can be attack from. That way, if they are reached, they can be used, but if they aren't reached, the player would have no armies on it, so they wouldn't be able to attack from it.

For the time being of the tournament, I think it would be best to say that "killer neutral" territories can be attacked from on the same turn they are conquered on.

Thoughts?

(I'll probably update the tournament thread tonight....I'm about to go to work at present...)
User avatar
Captain n00blet
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:09 pm
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
General Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby Ditocoaf on Sat Dec 13, 2008 7:09 pm

yeti_c wrote:
Ditocoaf wrote:Actually, I'm starting to like the restricted maps option. We're already not allowed to play certain maps if we're doing 8-player... Why not have certain maps be unplayable with AA? This way, we don't have to compromise the integrity and simplicity of the rule. Just have it behave like 7-players does if you try to play feudal.


I severly think - "not having a solution" - limits the chance of this option being implemented.

C.

I'd say that not allowing those maps is a solution. Incompatibility didn't stop them from implementing 8 player games, they simply solved the problem by eliminating the clash.

I think the harder it is to explain this rule to people, the less likely it is to pass judgment. And even if we do implement the "make an exception" option, people will still quite frequently say, "what about KN's" as if they've found something that breaks the rule, and we'll have to explain over and over, "well, the rule applies always, except for when it doesn't."
Image

>----------✪ Try to take down the champion in the continuous IPW/GIL tournament! ✪----------<

Note to self: THINK LESS LIVE MORE
Private 1st Class Ditocoaf
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes
Medals: 2
Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby n00blet on Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:48 pm

Ditocoaf wrote:
yeti_c wrote:
Ditocoaf wrote:Actually, I'm starting to like the restricted maps option. We're already not allowed to play certain maps if we're doing 8-player... Why not have certain maps be unplayable with AA? This way, we don't have to compromise the integrity and simplicity of the rule. Just have it behave like 7-players does if you try to play feudal.


I severly think - "not having a solution" - limits the chance of this option being implemented.

C.

I'd say that not allowing those maps is a solution. Incompatibility didn't stop them from implementing 8 player games, they simply solved the problem by eliminating the clash.

I think the harder it is to explain this rule to people, the less likely it is to pass judgment. And even if we do implement the "make an exception" option, people will still quite frequently say, "what about KN's" as if they've found something that breaks the rule, and we'll have to explain over and over, "well, the rule applies always, except for when it doesn't."


That is true....

But then I wouldn't be able to play it on Arms Race :cry:
User avatar
Captain n00blet
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:09 pm
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
General Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby yeti_c on Sun Dec 14, 2008 5:41 am

Ditocoaf wrote:I'd say that not allowing those maps is a solution. Incompatibility didn't stop them from implementing 8 player games, they simply solved the problem by eliminating the clash.


Completely different area though - this is something that is limited by the number of starting locations - not the possible existence of 1 tag in the XML neutralising a game type.

Ditocoaf wrote:I think the harder it is to explain this rule to people, the less likely it is to pass judgment. And even if we do implement the "make an exception" option, people will still quite frequently say, "what about KN's" as if they've found something that breaks the rule, and we'll have to explain over and over, "well, the rule applies always, except for when it doesn't."


I disagree - the idea of the Killer Neutrals in the maps that use it - is to mimic 1 way transportation of sorts - this fits perfectly with the theme of Adjacent Attacks - and would be much easier to explain than "The Game Builder is broken"

Also - your 'solution' "Limits" the feature - whereas the other solution touted expands it...

Ironically - you were for the "Drop and attack after kill" version - which allowed double/triple etc movement - yet you are against this solution?!

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 46
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby Ditocoaf on Sun Dec 14, 2008 3:24 pm

yeti_c wrote:
Ditocoaf wrote:I'd say that not allowing those maps is a solution. Incompatibility didn't stop them from implementing 8 player games, they simply solved the problem by eliminating the clash.


Completely different area though - this is something that is limited by the number of starting locations - not the possible existence of 1 tag in the XML neutralising a game type.

Ditocoaf wrote:I think the harder it is to explain this rule to people, the less likely it is to pass judgment. And even if we do implement the "make an exception" option, people will still quite frequently say, "what about KN's" as if they've found something that breaks the rule, and we'll have to explain over and over, "well, the rule applies always, except for when it doesn't."


I disagree - the idea of the Killer Neutrals in the maps that use it - is to mimic 1 way transportation of sorts - this fits perfectly with the theme of Adjacent Attacks - and would be much easier to explain than "The Game Builder is broken"

Also - your 'solution' "Limits" the feature - whereas the other solution touted expands it...

Ironically - you were for the "Drop and attack after kill" version - which allowed double/triple etc movement - yet you are against this solution?!

C.

No, I was against the attack-after-midturn-deploy idea, precisely because it created an exception unnecessarily.

This, imo, is even worse than that, though. Because it creates an exception and an additional rule that only applies to a few maps. This means that this extra rule will be explained unneccisarily when playing all maps (which will add to confusion), or it will usually be left out of an explanation, meaning that when people do play those maps, they'll not know how it's changed.
Image

>----------✪ Try to take down the champion in the continuous IPW/GIL tournament! ✪----------<

Note to self: THINK LESS LIVE MORE
Private 1st Class Ditocoaf
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes
Medals: 2
Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby n00blet on Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:41 pm

Ditocoaf wrote:No, I was against the attack-after-midturn-deploy idea, precisely because it created an exception unnecessarily.

This, imo, is even worse than that, though. Because it creates an exception and an additional rule that only applies to a few maps. This means that this extra rule will be explained unneccisarily when playing all maps (which will add to confusion), or it will usually be left out of an explanation, meaning that when people do play those maps, they'll not know how it's changed.


Would it be that hard to explain though? A simple line added to the rule explanation to the affect of:

The Adjacent Attacks Rulebook wrote:Territories that automatically lose all armies at the start of the next turn can be attacked through
User avatar
Captain n00blet
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:09 pm
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
General Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby King_Herpes on Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:22 pm

It would lead to build up games beyond imagination.
User avatar
Major King_Herpes
 
Posts: 1329
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:57 pm
Location: Red Light District
Medals: 76
Conqueror Achievement (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (4)
Terminator Achievement (4) Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (4) General Achievement (5)
Clan Achievement (5) General Contribution (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby n00blet on Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:13 am

King_Herpes wrote:It would lead to build up games beyond imagination.


Actually, if you look at all of the test games we have played with it so far, none have lapsed into a stalemate. Rather, in what would seem to be the setting most prone to stalemates, Escalating Spoils, it was a very decisive and thrilling battle, because defending others was so easy in the sort term.
User avatar
Captain n00blet
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:09 pm
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
General Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby xelabale on Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:49 am

I'm in the tourney so I have a vested interest. Use the tourney as an experiment. If we get a stalemate in it, so be it. If problems come up, so be it. How do we learn if we don't try it? Why not let those KN maps in and SEE how they behave rather than hypothesising. It will then be obvious after we've played an entire tourney what the solution is. It will then be much easier to argue a position to Lack et al.

Oh and by the way I mean that we should give them the power to attack from again - that's the whole point of them isn't it? If you don't give them that power then the whole map has been ruined. Just banning the maps from AA seems a backwards step to me. Try them!!
User avatar
Captain xelabale
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:12 am
Medals: 12
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)
Tournament Achievement (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby yeti_c on Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:37 am

Ditocoaf wrote:No, I was against the attack-after-midturn-deploy idea, precisely because it created an exception unnecessarily.


Apologies - I must've remembered it wrong.

Ditocoaf wrote:This, imo, is even worse than that, though. Because it creates an exception and an additional rule that only applies to a few maps. This means that this extra rule will be explained unneccisarily when playing all maps (which will add to confusion), or it will usually be left out of an explanation, meaning that when people do play those maps, they'll not know how it's changed.


n00blet wrote:Would it be that hard to explain though? A simple line added to the rule explanation to the affect of:

The Adjacent Attacks Rulebook wrote:Territories that automatically lose all armies at the start of the next turn can be attacked through


Agreed - As explained - it's the way those territories make sense in all of the maps.

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 46
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby SuicidalSnowman on Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:21 pm

What's the proposed rule change?
User avatar
Private SuicidalSnowman
 
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:40 am
Medals: 28
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby wmlawman on Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:15 pm

yeti_c wrote:
n00blet wrote:Would it be that hard to explain though? A simple line added to the rule explanation to the affect of:

The Adjacent Attacks Rulebook wrote:Territories that automatically lose all armies at the start of the next turn can be attacked through


Agreed - As explained - it's the way those territories make sense in all of the maps.

C.


I wonder, if maybe to make it more in the spirit of the original rule, that the KN territory may be attacked through, but only once.

Something like:

Territories that automatically lose all armies at the start of the next turn can make one attack in the turn they are conquered.
Corporal wmlawman
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:55 pm
Location: NYC
Medals: 13
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1)

PreviousNext

Return to Archived Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Login