Page 4 of 7

Re: reinforce anywhere even if there not connected

PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 6:56 pm
by Woodruff
Mr_Adams wrote: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.


Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it also. One player gets a manual deployment and everyone else gets an automatic deployment.

Re: reinforce anywhere even if there not connected

PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:10 pm
by 40kguy
Woodruff wrote:
Mr_Adams wrote: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.


Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it also. One player gets a manual deployment and everyone else gets an automatic deployment.

well its just like doodle earth or city mogul you go first you win.

Re: reinforce anywhere even if there not connected

PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:42 pm
by Timminz
The last site trying to emulate a certain Risky game, that I tried, had this as an option. Overall I didn't find the site worthwhile, although a number of former "big names" from CC are there (or were when I saw it).

Re: reinforce anywhere even if there not connected

PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:36 am
by Woodruff
40kguy wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Mr_Adams wrote: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.


Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it also. One player gets a manual deployment and everyone else gets an automatic deployment.


well its just like doodle earth or city mogul you go first you win.


And you believe that's a strong argument in favor of it?

Re: reinforce anywhere even if there not connected

PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:19 am
by stahrgazer
40kguy wrote: well its just like doodle earth or city mogul you go first you win.


I don't doodle, but I've won going second on city mogul.

Reinforce without the regions in-between? No consistency to that in a rt war, unless one considers grabbing everyone by heli and paratrooping them into another place; but a heli would have limited space for the troops. So, perhaps, if there were a penalty, like, lose two to move one if they're not in chain, would work.

Re: reinforce anywhere even if there not connected

PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 2:12 am
by Donlarry
stahrgazer wrote:
40kguy wrote: well its just like doodle earth or city mogul you go first you win.


I don't doodle, but I've won going second on city mogul.

Reinforce without the regions in-between? No consistency to that in a rt war, unless one considers grabbing everyone by heli and paratrooping them into another place; but a heli would have limited space for the troops. So, perhaps, if there were a penalty, like, lose two to move one if they're not in chain, would work.






the marines have this thing where its an airplane that fly's really high like the top layer of the atmosphere like close to space and so it goes really fast and u can be anywhere u want thats where i thought of it...helicopter what is this the 80's

High-altitude aircraft offer the opportunity to experience other aspects of space than the weightless experiences provided by parabolic aircraft. Passengers in a flight to 60,000 feet and above would see the curvature of the earth below and the dark sky of space above. They would see expansive views of whatever region they were flying over, above most of the clouds.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1250fZuhUg

Re: reinforce anywhere even if there not connected

PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:05 pm
by Donlarry

Re: reinforce anywhere even if there not connected

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:33 am
by Queen_Herpes
I really like this idea as an option. I'm guessing the suggestion is to have the following reinforcement game settings:

-chained
-adjacent
-unlimited connected
-unlimited disconnected

Re: reinforce anywhere even if there not connected

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:40 am
by Metsfanmax
Hasn't paratroop reinforcements been suggested multiple times already?

Re: reinforce anywhere even if there not connected

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:43 am
by Queen_Herpes
I thought I found allt he paratroop suggs and tried to get them merged, but maybe I did that in my sleep.

Re: reinforce anywhere even if there not connected

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:45 am
by Metsfanmax
It's possible that you did, but no one really listens to you anymore so who knows...

Re: reinforce anywhere even if there not connected

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:52 pm
by greenoaks
refer below

Re: reinforce anywhere even if there not connected

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:06 pm
by drunkmonkey
You realize the SR-71 and U-2 are reconnaissance planes, and can hold 1-2 people max?

Re: reinforce anywhere even if there not connected

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:27 pm
by PLAYER57832
No, bad idea. Most of the reasons have already been given.

Re: reinforce anywhere even if there not connected

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:39 pm
by Queen_Herpes
PLAYER57832 wrote:No, bad idea. Most of the reasons have already been given.


I'm not sure that your post does much to add to the discussion.

If this is added as a new setting, one where players can fortify "across" a map, it simulates what frequently happens in manual deploy games where players drop most (if not all) armies on one territory and bulldoze across the map. While I can see that such a strategy could become boring and predictable, I've enjoyed playing manual against players who employ this strategy. I like the idea of adding this as a new setting for a game for the aspect of changes in strategy that come with the new setting.

Re: reinforce anywhere even if there not connected

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:24 pm
by PLAYER57832
Metsfanmax wrote:Hasn't paratroop reinforcements been suggested multiple times already?

Yes.

Re: reinforce anywhere even if there not connected

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:11 pm
by greenoaks
Queen_Herpes wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:No, bad idea. Most of the reasons have already been given.


I'm not sure that your post does much to add to the discussion.

If this is added as a new setting, one where players can fortify "across" a map, it simulates what frequently happens in manual deploy games where players drop most (if not all) armies on one territory and bulldoze across the map. While I can see that such a strategy could become boring and predictable, I've enjoyed playing manual against players who employ this strategy. I like the idea of adding this as a new setting for a game for the aspect of changes in strategy that come with the new setting.

if you like this then click on the link in my sig and vote for it ;)

Re: reinforce anywhere even if there not connected

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:46 pm
by iamkoolerthanu
Queen_Herpes wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:No, bad idea. Most of the reasons have already been given.


I'm not sure that your post does much to add to the discussion.


Actually it does. It is saying she agrees with all the reasons other people have said earlier. One person thinking something isn't a very strong argument. But one person thinking something, and having a bunch of people agreeing with the; well now you are getting somewhere. Perhaps, in your eyes, it doesn't add to the discussion because she isn't speaking in your point of view? If that is that case, then maybe you should think outside the box and learn to view things from the other side of the window.

Now, I think that this is a good idea (though it seems many others do not agree). Even if there is no "real life" scenario that would support it.. well hell, I never said that I was commanding a real army. I was playing Conquer Club. And in Conquer Club, a GAME, I think that this would add a great dynamic game-play. Obviously, some would be a fan, and others would not. But then again; it would only be an option.

Queen_Herpes wrote:I really like this idea as an option. I'm guessing the suggestion is to have the following reinforcement game settings:

-chained connected
-chained disconnected

-adjacent
-unlimited connected
-unlimited disconnected


Edited in bold

Re: fortify anywhere

PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:26 pm
by blakebowling
Merged

Re: Paratroop Reinforcements

PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:23 am
by cheesefries25
I think this should be a map-specific option...like the opposite of bombardment options on some maps. Instead of two unconnected territories being able to attack one another, they can reinforce one another.

But I think this option might already be in place?...

Re: Paratroop Reinforcements

PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:15 pm
by natty dread
I don't really like the idea of all these new game types. Sure, you don't have to play them if you don't want, but all new game type options give more headache to us mapmakers when we have to consider how a certain map would play on this or that game type...

For example, after nuclear spoils were implemented, we now have to consider nuclear games, where any territory is liable to be nuked... which is already causing some headache for mapmakers when they design maps with losing conditions.

What I'm saying is, implementing more game types makes it harder to design maps that function well with any settings. Thus, I personally am really reluctant to see much more game settings, unless they are the kind of settings that do not mess with the existing game dynamics too much.

Instead of new game settings, I'd much rather see new XML features. This way any features a map will have will be designed to work for that map.

For example, instead of this suggestion, we could get new XML tags related to reinforcements: borders that only allow reinforcements but not assaults. Borders that allow assaults but not reinforcements (but through which you can still advance after assault). Territories that automatically shift troops to other territories. Etc. etc. Those kinds of things could provide much more interesting and varied game dynamics than a simple new game option could.

Re: Paratroop Reinforcements

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:19 am
by OliverFA
natty_dread wrote:I don't really like the idea of all these new game types. Sure, you don't have to play them if you don't want, but all new game type options give more headache to us mapmakers when we have to consider how a certain map would play on this or that game type...

For example, after nuclear spoils were implemented, we now have to consider nuclear games, where any territory is liable to be nuked... which is already causing some headache for mapmakers when they design maps with losing conditions.

What I'm saying is, implementing more game types makes it harder to design maps that function well with any settings. Thus, I personally am really reluctant to see much more game settings, unless they are the kind of settings that do not mess with the existing game dynamics too much.

Instead of new game settings, I'd much rather see new XML features. This way any features a map will have will be designed to work for that map.

For example, instead of this suggestion, we could get new XML tags related to reinforcements: borders that only allow reinforcements but not assaults. Borders that allow assaults but not reinforcements (but through which you can still advance after assault). Territories that automatically shift troops to other territories. Etc. etc. Those kinds of things could provide much more interesting and varied game dynamics than a simple new game option could.


I agree 90% with you. Just having new game typer for the sake of new game types doesn't mean much sense and spoils the work of dedicated mapmakers. The nuclear reinforcements for instance, they are nothing more than a lottery. They add a random element to the game without making it more interesting or more strategic.

But updates like infected neutrals or adjacent attacks, they add a whole new dimension to the game. They make sense .

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.

Re: Paratroop Reinforcements

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:08 pm
by Queen_Herpes
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...

Re: Paratroop Reinforcements

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:15 pm
by Woodruff
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...


To die an ugly 4-year death in the submitted pile while NUCLEAR SPOILS gets implemented.

Re: Paratroop Reinforcements

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 6:02 pm
by OliverFA
Woodruff wrote:
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...


To die an ugly 4-year death in the submitted pile while NUCLEAR SPOILS gets implemented.


+1