Conquer Club

Adjacent Attacks

Suggestions that have been archived.

Moderator: Community Team

What do you think about Adjacent Attacks?

I would support this being an option
293
65%
I would oppose this being an option
117
26%
I don't care/I don't know yet
43
9%
 
Total votes : 453

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby n00blet on Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:48 pm

Ditocoaf wrote:
yeti_c wrote:
Ditocoaf wrote:Actually, I'm starting to like the restricted maps option. We're already not allowed to play certain maps if we're doing 8-player... Why not have certain maps be unplayable with AA? This way, we don't have to compromise the integrity and simplicity of the rule. Just have it behave like 7-players does if you try to play feudal.


I severly think - "not having a solution" - limits the chance of this option being implemented.

C.

I'd say that not allowing those maps is a solution. Incompatibility didn't stop them from implementing 8 player games, they simply solved the problem by eliminating the clash.

I think the harder it is to explain this rule to people, the less likely it is to pass judgment. And even if we do implement the "make an exception" option, people will still quite frequently say, "what about KN's" as if they've found something that breaks the rule, and we'll have to explain over and over, "well, the rule applies always, except for when it doesn't."


That is true....

But then I wouldn't be able to play it on Arms Race :cry:
User avatar
Captain n00blet
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:09 pm
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
General Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby yeti_c on Sun Dec 14, 2008 5:41 am

Ditocoaf wrote:I'd say that not allowing those maps is a solution. Incompatibility didn't stop them from implementing 8 player games, they simply solved the problem by eliminating the clash.


Completely different area though - this is something that is limited by the number of starting locations - not the possible existence of 1 tag in the XML neutralising a game type.

Ditocoaf wrote:I think the harder it is to explain this rule to people, the less likely it is to pass judgment. And even if we do implement the "make an exception" option, people will still quite frequently say, "what about KN's" as if they've found something that breaks the rule, and we'll have to explain over and over, "well, the rule applies always, except for when it doesn't."


I disagree - the idea of the Killer Neutrals in the maps that use it - is to mimic 1 way transportation of sorts - this fits perfectly with the theme of Adjacent Attacks - and would be much easier to explain than "The Game Builder is broken"

Also - your 'solution' "Limits" the feature - whereas the other solution touted expands it...

Ironically - you were for the "Drop and attack after kill" version - which allowed double/triple etc movement - yet you are against this solution?!

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9624
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby Ditocoaf on Sun Dec 14, 2008 3:24 pm

yeti_c wrote:
Ditocoaf wrote:I'd say that not allowing those maps is a solution. Incompatibility didn't stop them from implementing 8 player games, they simply solved the problem by eliminating the clash.


Completely different area though - this is something that is limited by the number of starting locations - not the possible existence of 1 tag in the XML neutralising a game type.

Ditocoaf wrote:I think the harder it is to explain this rule to people, the less likely it is to pass judgment. And even if we do implement the "make an exception" option, people will still quite frequently say, "what about KN's" as if they've found something that breaks the rule, and we'll have to explain over and over, "well, the rule applies always, except for when it doesn't."


I disagree - the idea of the Killer Neutrals in the maps that use it - is to mimic 1 way transportation of sorts - this fits perfectly with the theme of Adjacent Attacks - and would be much easier to explain than "The Game Builder is broken"

Also - your 'solution' "Limits" the feature - whereas the other solution touted expands it...

Ironically - you were for the "Drop and attack after kill" version - which allowed double/triple etc movement - yet you are against this solution?!

C.

No, I was against the attack-after-midturn-deploy idea, precisely because it created an exception unnecessarily.

This, imo, is even worse than that, though. Because it creates an exception and an additional rule that only applies to a few maps. This means that this extra rule will be explained unneccisarily when playing all maps (which will add to confusion), or it will usually be left out of an explanation, meaning that when people do play those maps, they'll not know how it's changed.
Image

>----------✪ Try to take down the champion in the continuous IPW/GIL tournament! ✪----------<

Note to self: THINK LESS LIVE MORE
Private 1st Class Ditocoaf
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes
Medals: 2
Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby n00blet on Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:41 pm

Ditocoaf wrote:No, I was against the attack-after-midturn-deploy idea, precisely because it created an exception unnecessarily.

This, imo, is even worse than that, though. Because it creates an exception and an additional rule that only applies to a few maps. This means that this extra rule will be explained unneccisarily when playing all maps (which will add to confusion), or it will usually be left out of an explanation, meaning that when people do play those maps, they'll not know how it's changed.


Would it be that hard to explain though? A simple line added to the rule explanation to the affect of:

The Adjacent Attacks Rulebook wrote:Territories that automatically lose all armies at the start of the next turn can be attacked through
User avatar
Captain n00blet
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:09 pm
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
General Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby King_Herpes on Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:22 pm

It would lead to build up games beyond imagination.
User avatar
Major King_Herpes
 
Posts: 1628
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:57 pm
Location: Red Light District
Medals: 89
Conqueror Achievement (1) Most Improved Bronze (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4)
Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (4) Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4)
Polymorphic Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (4)
Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (4) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (2) Bot Achievement (4)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (5) Clan Achievement (5) Challenge Achievement (1)
General Contribution (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby n00blet on Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:13 am

King_Herpes wrote:It would lead to build up games beyond imagination.


Actually, if you look at all of the test games we have played with it so far, none have lapsed into a stalemate. Rather, in what would seem to be the setting most prone to stalemates, Escalating Spoils, it was a very decisive and thrilling battle, because defending others was so easy in the sort term.
User avatar
Captain n00blet
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:09 pm
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
General Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby xelabale on Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:49 am

I'm in the tourney so I have a vested interest. Use the tourney as an experiment. If we get a stalemate in it, so be it. If problems come up, so be it. How do we learn if we don't try it? Why not let those KN maps in and SEE how they behave rather than hypothesising. It will then be obvious after we've played an entire tourney what the solution is. It will then be much easier to argue a position to Lack et al.

Oh and by the way I mean that we should give them the power to attack from again - that's the whole point of them isn't it? If you don't give them that power then the whole map has been ruined. Just banning the maps from AA seems a backwards step to me. Try them!!
User avatar
Captain xelabale
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:12 am
Medals: 12
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)
Tournament Achievement (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby yeti_c on Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:37 am

Ditocoaf wrote:No, I was against the attack-after-midturn-deploy idea, precisely because it created an exception unnecessarily.


Apologies - I must've remembered it wrong.

Ditocoaf wrote:This, imo, is even worse than that, though. Because it creates an exception and an additional rule that only applies to a few maps. This means that this extra rule will be explained unneccisarily when playing all maps (which will add to confusion), or it will usually be left out of an explanation, meaning that when people do play those maps, they'll not know how it's changed.


n00blet wrote:Would it be that hard to explain though? A simple line added to the rule explanation to the affect of:

The Adjacent Attacks Rulebook wrote:Territories that automatically lose all armies at the start of the next turn can be attacked through


Agreed - As explained - it's the way those territories make sense in all of the maps.

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9624
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby SuicidalSnowman on Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:21 pm

What's the proposed rule change?
User avatar
Private SuicidalSnowman
 
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:40 am
Medals: 28
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby wmlawman on Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:15 pm

yeti_c wrote:
n00blet wrote:Would it be that hard to explain though? A simple line added to the rule explanation to the affect of:

The Adjacent Attacks Rulebook wrote:Territories that automatically lose all armies at the start of the next turn can be attacked through


Agreed - As explained - it's the way those territories make sense in all of the maps.

C.


I wonder, if maybe to make it more in the spirit of the original rule, that the KN territory may be attacked through, but only once.

Something like:

Territories that automatically lose all armies at the start of the next turn can make one attack in the turn they are conquered.
Private wmlawman
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:55 pm
Location: NYC
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby Blinkadyblink on Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:18 pm

wmlawman wrote:I wonder, if maybe to make it more in the spirit of the original rule, that the KN territory may be attacked through, but only once.

Something like:

Territories that automatically lose all armies at the start of the next turn can make one attack in the turn they are conquered.


In Arms Race, the goal is to get one of the missile launches so that you can annihilate the other side in one turn. If you could only attack one territory from it, it would be almost impossible to win.
User avatar
Major Blinkadyblink
 
Posts: 488
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:19 pm
Location: The Local Group
Medals: 57
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (14) General Achievement (5)
Clan Achievement (5) Challenge Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (2)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby wmlawman on Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:39 pm

Blinkadyblink wrote:
wmlawman wrote:I wonder, if maybe to make it more in the spirit of the original rule, that the KN territory may be attacked through, but only once.

Something like:

Territories that automatically lose all armies at the start of the next turn can make one attack in the turn they are conquered.


In Arms Race, the goal is to get one of the missile launches so that you can annihilate the other side in one turn. If you could only attack one territory from it, it would be almost impossible to win.


Good point. I, for some reason, was thinking that it was more like the Citadel where you just are using it to get to the other side. I don't play Arms Race much.
Private wmlawman
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:55 pm
Location: NYC
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby n00blet on Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:46 pm

wmlawman wrote:
Blinkadyblink wrote:
wmlawman wrote:I wonder, if maybe to make it more in the spirit of the original rule, that the KN territory may be attacked through, but only once.

Something like:

Territories that automatically lose all armies at the start of the next turn can make one attack in the turn they are conquered.


In Arms Race, the goal is to get one of the missile launches so that you can annihilate the other side in one turn. If you could only attack one territory from it, it would be almost impossible to win.


Good point. I, for some reason, was thinking that it was more like the Citadel where you just are using it to get to the other side.


I think limiting it to one attack would definitely break some maps. To keep it easier to implement and easier to understand, I think KNs should be allowed to attack as any normal starting territory would.

wmlawman wrote: I don't play Arms Race much.

Where have you been? Not to advertise, but that is one fine map 8-)
User avatar
Captain n00blet
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:09 pm
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
General Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby wmlawman on Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:49 pm

n00blet wrote:
wmlawman wrote: I don't play Arms Race much.

Where have you been? Not to advertise, but that is one fine map 8-)


The few times I've played, I've never gotten far. So I don't play it often.
Private wmlawman
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:55 pm
Location: NYC
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby n00blet on Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:52 pm

wmlawman wrote:
n00blet wrote:
wmlawman wrote: I don't play Arms Race much.

Where have you been? Not to advertise, but that is one fine map 8-)


The few times I've played, I've never gotten far. So I don't play it often.

You're missing out :cry:


On another note, what's up with 16 people saying they would oppose this as an option, but only one person saying why?

If you have a legitimate reason to not like the addition, please say so so it can be discussed. If you have posted once, but not come back to follow up on your objections, please do so at this time.
Of course, feel free to change your vote if you're completely won over :D
User avatar
Captain n00blet
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:09 pm
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
General Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby yeti_c on Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:16 am

n00blet wrote:
wmlawman wrote:
Blinkadyblink wrote:
wmlawman wrote:I wonder, if maybe to make it more in the spirit of the original rule, that the KN territory may be attacked through, but only once.

Something like:

Territories that automatically lose all armies at the start of the next turn can make one attack in the turn they are conquered.


In Arms Race, the goal is to get one of the missile launches so that you can annihilate the other side in one turn. If you could only attack one territory from it, it would be almost impossible to win.


Good point. I, for some reason, was thinking that it was more like the Citadel where you just are using it to get to the other side.


I think limiting it to one attack would definitely break some maps. To keep it easier to implement and easier to understand, I think KNs should be allowed to attack as any normal starting territory would.


Also - what is "one attack"?
1 roll of the dice?
1 successful territory conquer?

If the first one - then that would make for a very very slow game!
If the latter - what's stopping someone attacking each territory they can attack down to 1/2 until they then decide to kill the one they are after? - I guess some validation could be written in to force the attack to only the 1 territory... however - I think that this would cause a lot of problems for new comers - especially when they don't advance their troops and then lose them next turn. (Not to mention N00b's points above)

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9624
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby lancehoch on Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:47 pm

yeti_c wrote:Also - what is "one attack"?
1 roll of the dice?
1 successful territory conquer?

If the first one - then that would make for a very very slow game!
If the latter - what's stopping someone attacking each territory they can attack down to 1/2 until they then decide to kill the one they are after? - I guess some validation could be written in to force the attack to only the 1 territory... however - I think that this would cause a lot of problems for new comers - especially when they don't advance their troops and then lose them next turn. (Not to mention N00b's points above)

C.

Questions like this are why I think that we should just have the rule be "You can only attack from territories you owned at the beginning of your turn". We can go through maps where this would cause problems (Arms Race, Das Schloss) and have hard coding that does not allow these maps to be played with this option, just like the AORs cannot be played with 8 players. Also, saying a KN territory can attack when conquered will allow people to say (at least until it is coded into the site), well that territory over there I was allowed, so why not this territory. The easiest way to explain the rule is the one sentence I typed above, there are no exceptions, there are no clauses. It is easier to have one person deal with the exceptions and say it would break the game, this setting is not allowed than it is to have people guessing at what the hard and fast rule is that was coded in. Citadel would still be a valid map, just the central territory would be useless.
List of maps that would not work, given the rule above:
1) Arms Race

I will add to this list as maps are put forward that do not work, but for now, that is the only one.
Sergeant lancehoch
 
Posts: 4183
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:13 pm
Medals: 12
Standard Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (4)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby denominator on Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:58 pm

I agree with lancehoch. Just like with mid-turn cashes, there shouldn't be any exceptions to the rules.

Only the territories that you own at the beginning of your turn can be attacked from.

I don't have much experience with either Citadel or Arms Race, but my understanding is that you can still win without conquering the killer neutrals. I believe it is also the same with Oasis.

The simplest way I see to solve this is that all maps are eligible for the tournament, but you put a round limit on it. Any games going over X rounds will be considered a tie. This means that these maps can be used but you run a high risk of hitting a stalemate on them.
Image
User avatar
Cadet denominator
 
Posts: 1772
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 9:41 am
Location: Calgary
Medals: 79
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (12) General Achievement (8)
Clan Achievement (8) Challenge Achievement (2)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby yeti_c on Tue Dec 16, 2008 1:20 pm

denominator wrote:I don't have much experience with either Citadel or Arms Race, but my understanding is that you can still win without conquering the killer neutrals. I believe it is also the same with Oasis.


Arms Race may cause stalemates as the only way of attacking your enemy is - via the Killer Neutral.

Oasis doesn't have any killer neutrals.

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9624
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby yeti_c on Tue Dec 16, 2008 1:22 pm

lancehoch wrote:
yeti_c wrote:Also - what is "one attack"?
1 roll of the dice?
1 successful territory conquer?

If the first one - then that would make for a very very slow game!
If the latter - what's stopping someone attacking each territory they can attack down to 1/2 until they then decide to kill the one they are after? - I guess some validation could be written in to force the attack to only the 1 territory... however - I think that this would cause a lot of problems for new comers - especially when they don't advance their troops and then lose them next turn. (Not to mention N00b's points above)

C.

Questions like this are why I think that we should just have the rule be "You can only attack from territories you owned at the beginning of your turn". We can go through maps where this would cause problems (Arms Race, Das Schloss) and have hard coding that does not allow these maps to be played with this option, just like the AORs cannot be played with 8 players. Also, saying a KN territory can attack when conquered will allow people to say (at least until it is coded into the site), well that territory over there I was allowed, so why not this territory. The easiest way to explain the rule is the one sentence I typed above, there are no exceptions, there are no clauses. It is easier to have one person deal with the exceptions and say it would break the game, this setting is not allowed than it is to have people guessing at what the hard and fast rule is that was coded in. Citadel would still be a valid map, just the central territory would be useless.


The above response was in relation to a further addition to the previous rule - therefore your post is essentially Moot as we'd poopooed the modification.

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9624
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby lancehoch on Tue Dec 16, 2008 1:34 pm

yeti_c wrote:The above response was in relation to a further addition to the previous rule - therefore your post is essentially Moot as we'd poopooed the modification.

C.

Did we? Oops, I must have missed that.
Sergeant lancehoch
 
Posts: 4183
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:13 pm
Medals: 12
Standard Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (4)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby yeti_c on Tue Dec 16, 2008 2:37 pm

lancehoch wrote:
yeti_c wrote:The above response was in relation to a further addition to the previous rule - therefore your post is essentially Moot as we'd poopooed the modification.

C.

Did we? Oops, I must have missed that.


We poopooed the modification - i.e. the what about only 1 attack after killing a KH...

I'm still in the "KH's can attack again" camp as otherwise any maps with those in - just don't "work" as they're designed...

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9624
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby wmlawman on Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:32 pm

lancehoch wrote:
yeti_c wrote:Also - what is "one attack"?
1 roll of the dice?
1 successful territory conquer?

If the first one - then that would make for a very very slow game!
If the latter - what's stopping someone attacking each territory they can attack down to 1/2 until they then decide to kill the one they are after? - I guess some validation could be written in to force the attack to only the 1 territory... however - I think that this would cause a lot of problems for new comers - especially when they don't advance their troops and then lose them next turn. (Not to mention N00b's points above)

C.

Questions like this are why I think that we should just have the rule be "You can only attack from territories you owned at the beginning of your turn". We can go through maps where this would cause problems (Arms Race, Das Schloss) and have hard coding that does not allow these maps to be played with this option, just like the AORs cannot be played with 8 players. Also, saying a KN territory can attack when conquered will allow people to say (at least until it is coded into the site), well that territory over there I was allowed, so why not this territory. The easiest way to explain the rule is the one sentence I typed above, there are no exceptions, there are no clauses. It is easier to have one person deal with the exceptions and say it would break the game, this setting is not allowed than it is to have people guessing at what the hard and fast rule is that was coded in. Citadel would still be a valid map, just the central territory would be useless.
List of maps that would not work, given the rule above:
1) Arms Race

I will add to this list as maps are put forward that do not work, but for now, that is the only one.


I would agree. Either it is the rule, or it isn't. If it makes Arms Race unplayable with this option, then so be it.
Private wmlawman
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:55 pm
Location: NYC
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby Ditocoaf on Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:54 am

The amount I care about this is rapidly diminishing.
Image

>----------✪ Try to take down the champion in the continuous IPW/GIL tournament! ✪----------<

Note to self: THINK LESS LIVE MORE
Private 1st Class Ditocoaf
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes
Medals: 2
Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1)

Re: Adjacent Attacks

Postby yeti_c on Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:23 am

Ditocoaf wrote:The amount I care about this is rapidly diminishing.


Not a very mature comment...

"I can't get my own way so I'm going to sulk in the corner"

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9624
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

PreviousNext

Return to Archived Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users