Forum

by **drunkmonkey** on Thu Oct 28, 2010 11:35 am

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.

by **Metsfanmax** on Thu Oct 28, 2010 10:10 pm

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

by **Victor Sullivan** on Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:29 pm

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

by **drunkmonkey** on Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:47 pm

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.

by **grifftron** on Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:06 pm

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

by **mibi** on Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:00 pm

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.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:02 pm

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?

by **greenoaks** on Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:22 pm

how much support does Paratroop spoils require to be stickied ?

by **TheForgivenOne** on Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:31 pm

Stickied as well

by **stahrgazer** on Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:01 am

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.

by **drunkmonkey** on Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:34 am

Stickied with 35% disapproval? Really?

by **TheForgivenOne** on Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:47 am

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.

by **rathmaskalion** on Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:23 am

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.

by **Donlarry** on Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:06 pm

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

by **Mr_Adams** on Sun Jan 30, 2011 6:04 pm

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.