Conquer Club

AndyDufresne wrote:

agentcom wrote:I'm all for new gameplay options and this seems to be a popular one

I think it is something I'd probably play a good 25% of the time as a change of pace. Hope to see it!


--Andy

Once I come back, if it were implemented, it's the type of thing I'd use at least half the time if I could find the games... it really is an amazing way to play Risk and adds sooooo much more strategy to the game.

And playing it without having to worry about potential rule breaking... would be legen... wait for it...

dary

It will be fantastic when this is brought in, its such a good style of play. One that will get used alot, maybe not by everyone but still used alot.

brilliant!
we got it!

congratulations to everybody who actively promoted AA games, both in this thread, in the tourneys we´ve had with the honor rule, and in the experimental gamers group! we made it thanks to all of you!

Well done!

-rd

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby OliverFA on Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:28 pm

OliverFA wrote:At this point I think I have just accepted this will never be a reality.

Since World 2.1 is by far my best map and this fits my playing style I am all in favor of it.

The big suggestion I've been sitting on for years because I never thought anyone would be interested is adjacent fortifications. I've always thought that troops moving around the world in one turn was unrealistic coming from war games. Maybe someday that will happen. Of course it would slow things down even more than adjacent attacks.

abel wrote:Since World 2.1 is by far my best map and this fits my playing style I am all in favor of it.

The big suggestion I've been sitting on for years because I never thought anyone would be interested is adjacent fortifications. I've always thought that troops moving around the world in one turn was unrealistic coming from war games. Maybe someday that will happen. Of course it would slow things down even more than adjacent attacks.

What are you talking about? Adjacent fortifications has been a part of this site since it started.

Night Strike wrote:

abel wrote:Since World 2.1 is by far my best map and this fits my playing style I am all in favor of it.

The big suggestion I've been sitting on for years because I never thought anyone would be interested is adjacent fortifications. I've always thought that troops moving around the world in one turn was unrealistic coming from war games. Maybe someday that will happen. Of course it would slow things down even more than adjacent attacks.

What are you talking about? Adjacent fortifications has been a part of this site since it started.

Maybe he means unlimited adjacent.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=165065
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=155485

No blitzkrieg in modern times?

I wont play games with this option.

Dukasaur wrote:Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby OliverFA on Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:28 pm

OliverFA wrote:At this point I think I have just accepted this will never be a reality.

Honestly, I really believed it when I wrote those words. I suppose it can be said that I had lost faith. And I am so happy to be wrong!

Congratulations to all the Adjacent Attacks... I mean... Trench Warfare lovers!

How about a nice 8p with a bunch of the people who were big on AA for a long time? Me, denom, Oliver, not sure who else would be interested?

Ace Rimmer wrote:How about a nice 8p with a bunch of the people who were big on AA for a long time? Me, denom, Oliver, not sure who else would be interested?

I think you can also count SuicidalSnowman, Victor Sullivan, eddie2, DoomYoshi, Catarah, fumandomuerte, Tanarri...

I am sure I am forgetting someone. My apologies

Hey hey now, this isn't Callouts If ya'll don't behave, sooooomebody gooonna get a hurtin'

Then allow me to misbehave...

-Sully

Congrats and well done guys. Nice to see a suggestion moving to the "Implemented" pile.

Well, this is the first that I have heard of this and as I understand it, it is a great idea. The fact that armies have to be centralized will create a different kind of strategy. Two opposing armies in the same zone can tear each other up without have to worry about another player stepping in and reaping the rewards of that battle. No more sweeper to come in at the end and clean every thing up. Just who ever wins that battle wins the zone. Perhaps a limit to the rolls could be a good idea as well. The attacker could only roll a maximum of 10 or 15 rolls and then decide to stand his ground or retreat.

This also makes for a tiny observation. The attacking army must close in first. So then the defending army has the option of assaulting the attacking army first and retreating, keeping his army in tact while losing the region but being able to come back in bigger numbers (according to the spoils) another day. This is much more realistic to the real thing because to date, I have never heard of an army sweeping around the world to take it all.

But Seriously; Even Hitler in his Blitzkrieg war had limitations. He did not continue his sweeps into all of Europe and Russia as he did in most of Central Europe. It just does not happen like that. Hitler had to make an alliance with Mussolini and was not able to take Great Britain. So in that effect, the AA setting would provide a more realistic aspect in which actual alliances could be formed that could not be formed in normal CC games because it would not make any sense to make an alliance, only to break it in the next round because it is to your advantage to break it then.

There is so much that I am looking forward to figuring out about this setting but I am all for it. It seems to me that this setting would do especially well in Team Games. Also I think that we may have to write a whole new book of strategy for this type of Adjacent Attacks setting. It even got me thinking; What if Cannons could be brought into play or missiles that while they could not invade the Adjacent Territory with the rest of the army (that is to say the regions that they were assaulting), could how ever be used on those regions after the Adjacent territories to bring them down to one if they have enough cannon balls or rockets?

Maybe I am going too far with this but it is an interesting thought none the less. A fortified cannon position would require a regular infusion of troops just to maintain it and the number of troops on the cannon position would not grow for the fortified cannon position. So anyone able to eliminate the cannon would first have to mount a superior force that would survive the cannon fire, then get close enough on the next turn to be in position, to then assault the cannons on the third turn. Cannon positions could be originally set up according to the spoils trade in, once it reaches a certain number of spoils to trade in. You would then have the option of so many troops or a cannon position? Like wise a rocket position that could take out the cannons once the spoils get high enough? These are just thoughts running through my head now. Something to think about perhaps?

OliverFA wrote:

Ace Rimmer wrote:How about a nice 8p with a bunch of the people who were big on AA for a long time? Me, denom, Oliver, not sure who else would be interested?

I think you can also count SuicidalSnowman, Victor Sullivan, eddie2, DoomYoshi, Catarah, fumandomuerte, Tanarri...

I am sure I am forgetting someone. My apologies

bah, and even with forgetting that is too much people already for one game

still, gone start up a game, and pm all of you, first come first get :p

Cat, you should post the game here and we can see who is the best at their suggested game type

This is NOT Callouts. If you want to post games, go to the Callouts forum.

TheForgivenOne wrote:This is NOT Callouts. If you want to post games, go to the Callouts forum.

Ahh, it's a 55 page thread. These guys finally got their suggestion implemented. Let them have their fun, TFO. It's a victory lap of sorts.

I agree with you in spirit though. I'm usually one of the ones trying to keep suggestion discussions narrow in scope.

This WAS a callouts thread until April 9

Ace Rimmer wrote:This WAS a callouts thread until April 9

This means we are going to get punished for years of missusing this thread? Despite I can say in our defence that those honour rule games were the way to keep the interest in the suggestion so it some day could get implemented.

Wooooo... This finally happened!!!

C.