No fortification Option
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:33 amI was thinking. We have a no cards option, what about a no fortification option. It would make much more strategic games. Just an idea.
Conquer Club
Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/
[GP/UI] No Fortifications / Reinforcements
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=471&t=126485
Page 1 of 11
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:33 amPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:37 amIt can't hurt anything, so I don't see why not.
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:16 amNot sure I'd play a game like this - but I like the idea... would definitely make it more strategic.
C.
C.
[GP/UI] No Fortifications / Reinforcements
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:00 amHow about adding a "No fortification" to the current options of "chained", "Adjacent" and "unlimited".? This way if this option is chosen during the game setup no players will be able to fortify any where. The games will be more challenging and require more skill to play.
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:33 amI say No to No fortification.
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:36 amI say yes, its a good option to have although i personally wouldnt use it that often.
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:18 pmthis all depends on how hard it is to add on to the site, I like the idea and I and other players would use the option sometimes, but if it's to difficult to add on the site, than forget it.
Re: No fortification option
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:57 pmJimari wrote:How about adding a "No fortification" to the current options of "chained", "Adjacent" and "unlimited".? This way if this option is chosen during the game setup no players will be able to fortify any where. The games will be more challenging and require more skill to play.
Might be interesting...okay as an option
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:03 pmBad Speler wrote:I say yes, its a good option to have although i personally wouldnt use it that often.
Same with me.
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:29 pmAries wrote:Bad Speler wrote:I say yes, its a good option to have although i personally wouldnt use it that often.
Same with me.
Likewise here. Although I hate chained games and I hate adjacent even more, I could see why some players might like this form of gameplay
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:46 pmit would be ok but i think there are more importent things lack can spend his time on
whats the point
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:12 pmI don't see the point. I hardly see any adjacent games started.
Re: whats the point
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:44 pmhobs09 wrote:I don't see the point. I hardly see any adjacent games started.
maybe you should open your eyes
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:16 amI say "YES" to an option for "No Fortifications" games. That makes you much more cautious than in games allowing fortifications.
Also, I love playing Adjacent Fortification games, so go start one so I can join.
Also, I love playing Adjacent Fortification games, so go start one so I can join.
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:18 amSo you would not be able to fortify at the beginning of every round, either???
That makes no sense... You'ld have three armies on every country and the last person to go would have the advantage.
That makes no sense... You'ld have three armies on every country and the last person to go would have the advantage.
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:26 amI think they mean the fortification at the end of each round, not the deployment of troops at the start of each round, genius.
Why I can still read your st00pid messages if you are in my ignore list???
Why I can still read your st00pid messages if you are in my ignore list???
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:28 amMExe wrote:I think they mean the fortification at the end of each round, not the deployment of troops at the start of each round, genius.
Why I can still read your st00pid messages if you are in my ignore list???
Hahahaha... It is only messages in the games, stud...
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:29 amMExe wrote:I think they mean the fortification at the end of each round, not the deployment of troops at the start of each round, genius.
Why I can still read your st00pid messages if you are in my ignore list???
Because, as you put it, you are st00pid. Ignore list is just for games. You can still read his posts and pm's that he sends you. Now, how bout you go read the rules okay.
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:44 amhecter wrote:MExe wrote:I think they mean the fortification at the end of each round, not the deployment of troops at the start of each round, genius.
Why I can still read your st00pid messages if you are in my ignore list???
Because, as you put it, you are st00pid. Ignore list is just for games. You can still read his posts and pm's that he sends you. Now, how bout you go read the rules okay.
hehe.
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:52 pmYou fortify at the end of your turn this is what I was talking about
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:06 pmhmmm, I was thinking about an idea, what about having another attack step after the fortification step, but after that attack step no more fortifying. So play would go: deploy - attack - fortify - attack - end
No Fortifications
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 11:09 amI'd like a no fortifications option.
That's really all there is to say.
That's really all there is to say.
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 11:23 amSounds painful - I like it 
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 11:35 amNo one's forcing you to fortify. 
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 11:36 amwicked wrote:No one's forcing you to fortify.
but he wnats a rule where you are forced not to