Conquer Club

Queen_Herpes wrote:

OliverFA wrote: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?

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

bobby538 wrote:this is cool except cc would have to design a paratrooper medal and everybody would have to get it

Why?

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...

natty_dread wrote: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.

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.

OliverFA wrote: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

owenshooter wrote:

OliverFA wrote: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

greenoaks wrote:

owenshooter wrote:

OliverFA wrote: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 )

I really like this suggestion.

Sticky.

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.

Fewnix wrote: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 ?

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?

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.

I think fortifications in general should have more options. Options being the key word.

no fortifications
single adjacent (what we call "adjacent" now)
single chained (what we call "chained" now)
unlimited chained (what we call "unlimited" now)
single paratroop (only one fort of this kind)
unlimited paratroop (as many forts of this kind as are wanted)

that pretty much covers all possibilities.

what about if paratroop fortifications came at a cost? for example, to be able to make such a fortification, you lose an army or some percentage of the armies being moved?

What about unlimited chained, with one paratroop? it may be unbalanced though, now that I think about it.

Yes I think it's a good idea! It fills a hole in the system really!

I kind of agree with try it and see how it effects strategy...

Maybe it would work well with some maps? WWII Poland..?

I always like options in life...

I think this defeats the purpose of trying to your connect regions. If the "Yes" vote wins, I will surely try it. But I don't think this will be a common game option that is played.

dawg1 wrote:I think this defeats the purpose of trying to your connect regions. If the "Yes" vote wins, I will surely try it. But I don't think this will be a common game option that is played.

i thought that abot Nuke's

General Brewsie wrote:I can think of no reason to reject this setting as an optional configuration along side all the others currently offered. I don't think I would knowingly join a game using it and I think I would never set up a game using it, because it seems to me that it negates all the strategy and hard work a player or team puts into the first rounds of a game, but I may be wrong. "The proof of the pudding is in the eating," as the proverb goes. In other words, try it and see if it is appreciated. If it is tried and then not used any more, delete it. My only fear is that one might try it, decide never to use it, then find himself in a tourney or a random game where it is a setting. That would not be a calamity, since it would be a rare occurrence; it would be only a nuisance.

I agree with what's been said here.

couldn't it be an on/off option so that you could play it chained adjacent and unlimited?

I like this suggestion. Remember, the idea is that you could only make ONE paradrop per turn, so all the doom and gloom opposition about how this would eliminate strategic planning is mistaken. I think making ONE paradrop is significantly more restrictive than the current Unlimited setting.

Real life history suggests that paratroopers result in more complex, not less complex, planning for the strategist. Think: Eindhoven.

This suggestion, if used, would also go a long way to preventing the natural tendency of some maps to deadlock.

It would be interesting to see a map created with this type of forting in mind. Probably have to find some way to allow for paratrooper forting without every territory simply being able to attack one another, eh?