Max number of troops on each territory....

by **sinctheassasin** on Thu May 14, 2009 8:21 pm

will you people stop bumping this thread up, if you dont like it, dont post in it after it has been idle for a week!
:roll:

by **kcoenich** on Thu May 14, 2009 8:41 pm

IvoryCoast Ninja wrote:what if its adjacent forts and if you fort the armies the count will still be over the troops/territ

didnt fully understand.. but I think it would be like this: two options... 1) you can only move the armies to get to the limit and the rest of the armies stay in the original territory. 2) (I wouldn't like it) you cant move to that territory...

theres another option but its kinda another suggestion to be applied in the game... would be like this: when you reinforce, you can move armies from one territory to lots of other territories... but not reinforce from lots of territories to only one (with exception of unlimited reinforcements of course)

by **firsal901** on Sat May 16, 2009 3:45 am

this cannot happen because what if it's one members turn and he/she only has 1 territory and already has 20 troops in it where will the 3 troops go

by **kcoenich** on Sat May 16, 2009 9:00 pm

troops would be lost... simple as that. jaja
positive thing about that if you are the guy with only one territory, you can recover... (of course if you have only one territory maybe you deserve to loose) but the point is that you also get a chance of recovery, cause no one could have more armies than you in adjacent territories, only if they attack from several territories...

by **Artimis** on Sun May 17, 2009 4:10 am

I expect this has already been mentioned, but lets reiterate it just for your benefit kcoenich.

Limiting stack size to 20 per region would make attacking in a basic no thrills map problematic at best, you've done your attacking and conquered a region only to find another 20 stack or two behind it. You'll fortify your new region to a maximum of 20 and then your opponent will just take it back, it would go on like this back and forth, back and forth, until someone deadbeats. Games like this would stagnate like never before, it would not be fun and it would not add any new strategic element, it would just be a flipping nuisance!

No one wants to play a game that is not fun or starts punishing players that look after their troop count. This is a bad idea, enough players have come in here to voice their opposition, perhaps it's not just them kcoenich, maybe, just maybe your idea is not as good as you think it is.

by **waseemalim** on Sun May 17, 2009 4:36 am

Artimis wrote:I expect this has already been mentioned, but lets reiterate it just for your benefit kcoenich.

Limiting stack size to 20 per region would make attacking in a basic no thrills map problematic at best, you've done your attacking and conquered a region only to find another 20 stack or two behind it. You'll fortify your new region to a maximum of 20 and then your opponent will just take it back, it would go on like this back and forth, back and forth, until someone deadbeats. Games like this would stagnate like never before, it would not be fun and it would not add any new strategic element, it would just be a flipping nuisance!

No one wants to play a game that is not fun or starts punishing players that look after their troop count. This is a bad idea, enough players have come in here to voice their opposition, perhaps it's not just them kcoenich, maybe, just maybe your idea is not as good as you think it is.

there will always be games like that. in fact, many if not most high-level no cards games are like that. however, think of the implications of troop limits for escalating games. No more stalemates in escalating as a cash could actually give u more troops that whats available on the board.

by **kcoenich** on Sun May 17, 2009 3:45 pm

Artimis wrote:I expect this has already been mentioned, but lets reiterate it just for your benefit kcoenich.

Limiting stack size to 20 per region would make attacking in a basic no thrills map problematic at best, you've done your attacking and conquered a region only to find another 20 stack or two behind it. You'll fortify your new region to a maximum of 20 and then your opponent will just take it back, it would go on like this back and forth, back and forth, until someone deadbeats. Games like this would stagnate like never before, it would not be fun and it would not add any new strategic element, it would just be a flipping nuisance!

No one wants to play a game that is not fun or starts punishing players that look after their troop count. This is a bad idea, enough players have come in here to voice their opposition, perhaps it's not just them kcoenich, maybe, just maybe your idea is not as good as you think it is.

just to point out again.... the limit is not 20.. that was an example... limit is supposed to be determined by the creator of the game... or a random number between 20 and 50 (wich I think are numbers that keep the purpose of the option.)

when I play the board game we always set the maximum number to 12... and not only its really hard to get to that number but in all the games I've been (playing, say like 50 times per week for like 10 years...) I've never seen what you say (max out all the territories...)

by **Mr_Adams** on Tue May 19, 2009 12:00 pm

but in CC, you could easily cash a set for, say, 200 and end up with 20 on each of your, say, 12 territories. then what? this would also cripple big comebacks by cards.

by **kcoenich** on Tue May 19, 2009 6:10 pm

yeah, but its really weird to see that... usually when people start trading set for a large number... they win.

by **Mr_Adams** on Tue May 19, 2009 8:28 pm

not if the players are all careful.

by **the.killing.44** on Tue May 19, 2009 8:31 pm

And not if they can only drop 1/10 of that "big cash".

.44

by **kcoenich** on Tue May 19, 2009 11:57 pm

the.killing.44 wrote:And not if they can only drop 1/10 of that "big cash".

exactly... so, in escalating games, if someone changes a big set it doesn't mean he's won the game and thats it (can be annoying that this person would only have one territory left or so... and after the change he wins...), unless he has enough territories to deploy all of the troops or most of them... now, if you have enough territories to do so, you've got to be playing well with a good strategy, and luck of course, so you deserve to win. and if you don't have the territories, well you still get the chance to recover or get competitive with, lets say the "leaders" of the game....

by **firsal901** on Sat May 23, 2009 3:51 am

the troops will be lost !!

that means
no more putting a cash in of 1000 troops in territory to win a game
no more turning of tides from the sergant to the cook due to big cashes
no more masive comebacks from big cashes
no more 69vs38 that could win games for newbies that haven't won a game

this rule CANNOT HAPPEN!!!!!!

sorry i posted late just saw kcoenich's post a few day ago

by **kcoenich** on Sat May 23, 2009 2:11 pm

how often does a change for a 1000 troops happen?? or a 100? I dont know... I'm sure its pretty rare... and you can make comebacks, they actually turn much better...imagine a comeback made from 3 territories to win a continent and screw the ones dominating adjacent continets... setting the conditions that wont allow anyone else to win but you...

you can win any game... dice are random. so in theory you can win any attack, and if you want to make a 40 or 70 troop attack, you can do so, attacking from more than one territory, and yeah... troops will be lost only if you cant put them in your territs... that of course makes you want to hold enough territs, and become more dinamic on games.

welcome to the post by the way... thanks for giving your opinion.

by **kcoenich** on Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:41 pm

Would like the opinion of more people about this option...

by **firsal901** on Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:22 am

well,

not many people look at forums anymore but anyway ...................

typing 100 in my last post here was an exaguration

and sorry for the mistake

by **kcoenich** on Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:26 pm

jajaj a, guess you're right... jaja

sucks that no one looks anything....

usually happens... one more zero wont change the point.. jaja

by **zodiak** on Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:27 pm

Concise description:This would be based on the old "Advance" rules of Risk.A limit of twelve armies on any territory.

Specifics:According to the old rules no more than twelve armies may be present on a territory at any one time.To compensate for the obvious advantage of the defender the attacker may turn their lowest rolled die to a six once during their turn.They may also re-roll their lowest die if they possess the card of the territory they are attacking from or to.Also adjacent re-enforcement could not be used,chained is best but unlimited could also be used.Flat rate or no spoils is also best,escalating matches could not be used.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:This would add a more strategic option to the already great list.Players would have to build reserves behind their front lines in order to back up an attack.They would also have to attack at a certain point or lose re-enforcements because of a lack of space.There would also be no really bad place to begin because you can sit on a match and build up for attacks.Decisions could not be made lightly making this strategic option more appealing to better players and limiting the damage a "newbie" can cause.

Respectfully

zodiak

by **haggispittjr** on Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:38 pm

i like the site the way it is, and im sure the majoraty agree's with me.

by **Thezzaruz** on Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:15 pm

zodiak wrote:To compensate for the obvious advantage of the defender the attacker may turn their lowest rolled die to a six once during their turn.They may also re-roll their lowest die if they possess the card of the territory they are attacking from or to.

Quite sure that neither of those will be implemented any time soon (thankfully).

Was a thread a while ago about a similar suggestion. I thought is was a crap idea then just as now but here you go -> clicky here to find it.

haggispittjr wrote:i like the site the way it is, and im sure the majoraty agree's with me.

Actually I'm quite sure that the majority have some detail they want changed.

But I agree, don't think thee are many that want this to be the detail changed.

by **40kguy** on Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:33 pm

like the site the way it is

by **jefjef** on Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:50 pm

No thank you.

by **zodiak** on Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:44 pm

lol...first of all this was not a suggestion to change the game at all,just suggesting an option to play a rules variation based on Advance rules of risk.Sorry i didn't make it clearer.

by **haggispittjr** on Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:37 pm

so were going to add a "max 12 armies" option? i just realy think the site is better off.

by **Little Witt** on Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:46 pm

that wouldn't work for some maps like City Mogul AoR 1 2 & 3 and some more maps, And the game would last for ever if this made it threw and made a update and what would happen if some on was playing a esc game and they turned in a set and the troop number was at 65 they had 12 on all of there territory's what could they do with there troops they had to deploy?

Little Witt :ugeek: