Conquer Club

greenoaks wrote:

Darwins_Bane wrote:your right, not the same, but your suggestion has been suggested before.

your link is to a thread that discusses reinforcements being linked to (or limited by) the attacks made that round.

my suggestion is nothing of the sort. visualise this:

in Adjacent you can fort once to a neighbouring territory

in Chained you can fort once to any connected territory

in Paratroop you can fort once to any territory

For completeness it might make sense to include No reinforcements, although that would be more painful than anything I can imagine!

It would be nice to have an option to adjust the number of reinforcements you get; so that rather than being able to fort once, you could have the additional option of forting three times, or unlimited. Actually, this way unlimited forts would become a "quantity" setting rather than a "reinforcement-type" setting, so you would be able to select paratroop/unlimited if you desired (although we'd have to decide how this would work with "trapped" territories.) Hmm.... I wonder if "AIRLIFT" would be a better name than paratroop, as you'd be lifting the troops from one place and setting them down somewhere else....

Airlift is a great name but i initially decided on Paratroop because of its militaryness (did i just make up a word) as my other option was Parachute

MrBenn's idea is an interesting one and maybe it deserves its own thread. You could at least have a separate one for No Reinforcements (which I think would be hilarious! ). I much prefer the Paratroop name myself, though Airlift might make more sense.

"Paratroop" seems better, because "airlift" is more generic, referring to equipment as well as troops. We're not moving fuel, food, medical supplies or anything other than fighting troops.

I think this adds a whole new layer of strategy to assassin and foggy games.

ljex wrote:make a poll asking if people would like this as an option

also we could try to get unlimited paratrooper spoils as well

Then that would be practically the same as manual, only that the second player can see where the opponent put all the troops

darth emperor wrote:

ljex wrote:make a poll asking if people would like this as an option

also we could try to get unlimited paratrooper spoils as well

Then that would be practically the same as manual, only that the second player can see where the opponent put all the troops

being able to choose up to 3 paratroop moves would be good

greenoaks wrote:

darth emperor wrote:

ljex wrote:make a poll asking if people would like this as an option

also we could try to get unlimited paratrooper spoils as well

Then that would be practically the same as manual, only that the second player can see where the opponent put all the troops

being able to choose up to 3 paratroop moves would be good

I say take it one step at a time. Stick with the standard "from one territory to one other territory" form. I'd rather not have "up to 3" or "unlimited" paratroop reinforcements.

why has that other thread been merged into this one ?

what does forting all your troops, ie. Unlimited have to do with my suggestion ?

greenoaks wrote:why has that other thread been merged into this one ?

what does forting all your troops, ie. Unlimited have to do with my suggestion ?

It's in the essence the same, except so far you just want to fort once. Yours is just an expanded version, without unlimited. I'll edit the first post to reflect your idea, as yours makes more sense. (Also, it removes clutter... in a way)

I think this would be detrimental to strategy, especially in team games. Now, there are times you have to decide between making an attack (usually for a card), or defending a teammate. With this, you could do both easily. It takes away a lot of the tactical decisions that make the game interesting.

I also don't like the idea of being able to send your auto-deploy troops anywhere on the map. That's not what they were designed for. Again, team games would almost be ruined by this. Picture a feudal team game where the lead player is getting 8+ reinforcements from each teammate per turn.

Wonderful idea. I think games played on this setting would be interesting in their own unique way.

drunkmonkey wrote:I think this would be detrimental to strategy, especially in team games. Now, there are times you have to decide between making an attack (usually for a card), or defending a teammate. With this, you could do both easily. It takes away a lot of the tactical decisions that make the game interesting.

I also don't like the idea of being able to send your auto-deploy troops anywhere on the map. That's not what they were designed for. Again, team games would almost be ruined by this. Picture a feudal team game where the lead player is getting 8+ reinforcements from each teammate per turn.

I see your point, but this is easily fixed if you choose another setting. At the same time, this would present new and exciting gameplay to every map, including (and maybe especially) the auto-deploy ones you are referring to.

Metsfanmax wrote:Wonderful idea. I think games played on this setting would be interesting in their own unique way.

Metsfan seems to agree

Victor Sullivan wrote:I see your point, but this is easily fixed if you choose another setting.

You can't just list all the pros, and dismiss the cons with "it's only an option". You need to address the concerns if you're serious about this suggestion. Then wait three or four years for a chance at implementation.

Just go play MC if you wanna fort anywhere. Been there, done that.

Indeed, anywhere-unlimited is a very fun option. Basically what happens is that it feels like the game skips to round after a turn or two. People consolidate their troops in a bonus they are strong in. Its particulary interesting on escalating, because rarely are you able to be spread out all over the map. It's a good way to get to the meat of the game quickly, by passing the setup phase for the most part.

It should be implemented here.

mibi wrote:It should be implemented here.

I agree. At least two people have brought it up and we have three pages of comments, that has to count for something, right?

how much support does Paratroop spoils require to be stickied ?

Stickied as well

RundyMC wrote:Concise description:
You can reinforce one territory with the troops from another, regardless of if they are connected or not.

Specifics/Details:
This would be an alternative to the current Reinforcement options of Unlimited, Adjacent & Chained.

It would be similar to Adjacent and Chained in that you can only make the one reinforcement but you can Paratroop them to anywhere on the map.


How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
This will add a new element to the strategy of troop placement & movement. It would be particularly useful on maps that have an auto-deploy.

I wouldn't want to play this setting. The next suggestion will be unlimited anywheres.

Stickied with 35% disapproval? Really?

drunkmonkey wrote:Stickied with 35% disapproval? Really?

Well, some suggestions have been sticked with only 53% approval, even though I didn't agree with it.

I'm just stickying it to see if anything else happens with the thread.

I like the idea... As with any other suggestion about game modes, it just provides another option (which could be quite entertaining) Stuff like this doesn't ruin strategy, it changes it...and only as an option.

kinda like a space drop put it any where on the map if your connected or not

screw everybody over if they don't go first. first person to go round one forts everything into one good spot, then goes first round 2 and take a huge chunk of the map.