Forum

by **insomniacdude** on Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:06 pm

Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes.

by **Timminz** on Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:16 pm

keiths31 wrote:*for the record-this is Timminz idea*

For the record, I was not the first one to suggest this. I forget who was, but I remember a month or 2 ago I thought of it and before making a suggestion, I searched for it. There was another thread already started. I'm not sure who started it, or what happened to the idea. I re-thought of this the other day and started one. It's gonna be interesting.

by **Timminz** on Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:17 pm

Forza AZ wrote:Interesting idea. Team games will change a lot also with this as you would have to attack your partners armies to get a bonus. Think this will result in longer and more interesting team games.

But, they could attack away first, leaving only 1. In some situations.

by **Timminz** on Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:25 pm

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... ight=forts

It was actually a fellow Gen 1-er, Coleman, who suggested it, but he didn't use the form.

by **cicero** on Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:31 pm

keiths31 wrote:Suggestion Idea: No Fortification Option

Specifics: A fourth fortification option would be added to the Start A Game choices, but it would be for No Forts

Why it is needed: There's already an option for no cards, so why not?? It would add a heck of a lot more strategy.

---------------------------------------

*for the record-this is Timminz idea*

keiths31, Timminz, Coleman or ... whoever.
It doesn't change anything: Great idea!!

Like many great ideas - simple.
And as has already been noted, this would be simple to code.

My vote is in. And counted. (There was 1. And it was "yes".)

Cicero

by **Risktaker17** on Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:01 pm

I like the idea but I thought it has been rejected

by **Timminz** on Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:06 pm

Risktaker17 wrote:I like the idea but I thought it has been rejected

As far as I can find reference to, it hasn't been officially recognized yet, let alone rejected.

by **Risktaker17** on Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:16 pm

You might be right, but I thought it was rejected...

by **Timminz** on Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:10 pm

Risktaker17 wrote:You might be right, but I thought it was rejected...

references?

by **demon7896** on Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:57 pm

i can just imagine...

some random dude wrote:NO! NO! DAMMIT! WHY THE **** DID I ****** SEND ALL MY ARMIES THERE!!!

by **Risktaker17** on Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:58 pm

Timminz wrote:
Risktaker17 wrote:You might be right, but I thought it was rejected...
references?

I'm too lazy to look sorry bud.

by **Timminz** on Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:55 am

Risktaker17 wrote:
Timminz wrote:
Risktaker17 wrote:You might be right, but I thought it was rejected...
references?

I'm too lazy to look sorry bud.

Well then. Until someone official says otherwise, this is an open suggestion. And it appears that people like the idea, and it wouldn't take much to implement.

by **Jamie** on Sat Feb 02, 2008 4:28 am

Bad idea. You start out with 3 men on each country. Almost all those would stay trapped, cause you could never fort them. The only way they'd ever be useful is if your opponents conquered the countries around them. If you have a no forts game, you'd have to make it unlimited forting for round 1, than no forts after that. That might work

by **BaldAdonis** on Sat Feb 02, 2008 4:53 am

Jamie wrote: Almost all those would stay trapped, cause you could never fort them. The only way they'd ever be useful is if your opponents conquered the countries around them.

I think that's the point. Sort of like a standing army: the armies in one country won't fight unless the battle comes close enough to affect them.