[GP/UI] Paratroop Reinforcements

[PLAYER57832]

Hasn't paratroop reinforcements been suggested multiple times already?

Yes.

[greenoaks]

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

[iamkoolerthanu]

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.

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

[blakebowling]

Merged

[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?...

[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.

[OliverFA]

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.

[Queen_Herpes]

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...

[Woodruff]

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.

[OliverFA]

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

[OliverFA]

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...

In my opinion, the thing that discourages most from making new suggestions is seeing that none of them gets implemented. And that instead of that we get a feature that was available in clickable maps.

Is not that they are implemented one at a time. Is that they are not implemented at all. Infected Neutrals has been around for how many years?

[bobby538]

this is cool except cc would have to design a paratrooper medal and everybody would have to get it

[Woodruff]

this is cool except cc would have to design a paratrooper medal and everybody would have to get it

Why?

[natty dread]

Guys, just because a suggestion is "submitted", does not mean it has been approved for the site. It simply means it has been submitted for the consideration of lackattack, who ultimately makes the final decision whether or not to implement the suggestions. The suggestions simply provide him an idea of what kind of updates people would like to see. However, just because a lot of people support a certain suggestion, doesn't necessary make it a feasible idea for the whole site...

[Woodruff]

Guys, just because a suggestion is "submitted", does not mean it has been approved for the site. It simply means it has been submitted for the consideration of lackattack, who ultimately makes the final decision whether or not to implement the suggestions. The suggestions simply provide him an idea of what kind of updates people would like to see. However, just because a lot of people support a certain suggestion, doesn't necessary make it a feasible idea for the whole site...

Certainly. Which leads me to believe he needs to lay off the drugs.