[GO] Unlimited Adjacent Fortification

[Spritzking]

Hecter is right, that is what i ment.

[RobinJ]

too confusing

Yep, it is too confusing. The idea is good but it would be hard to keep track of how many you have already moved. Say you fortify your 10 on A to your 10 on B. Then, it would be very confusing because you would only be able to fortify 10 from B into C. This would get worse if you were doing a lot of fortifications (which often happens near the beginning of the game) so I'm afraid this one gets the thumbs down from me

[Spritzking]

well in lux it does work... and at leat i understand

[chessplaya]

umm so basically whats the idea here ?

[AAFitz]

though written in another illegible language, it isnt a bad idea...it think its a variation ive played on the board to be honest...

I think its been suggested before too..I imagine we will see another fortification option eventually...and it will be something like this

[yeti_c]

If coded correctly then this wouldn't be too confusing...

Although you would get a load of illegal move messages sometimes!!

I like the premise - but changes in the UI might be necessary to stop whinging!!

C.

[Spritzking]

well i am not very good at explaining thing very clear in english...

yeti can you help me with it?

[lduke1990]

basically, each army can only cross one border. To do this right you would have to put a boolean flag on each army after the player clicks the "end attacks" button. To start fortification, each flag would be set to "no" as in that particular army hasn't moved yet. Then, when the army crosses a border, the flag changes to yes and then that army can no longer move that turn.

[yeti_c]

It's a bit trickier than that though...

You have to be able to display who can still move in the UI...

Something that isn't possible with the way it currently works.

For that to work I would change the Fortify Drop Downs around to be

"FROM" "#" "TO"

Then when you select a From territory it flows updates to the other 2 to only show what you can move from that territory to the next.

This would eliminate the confusion over how many you're still allowed to move for that territory.

C.

PS Remember of course there is a nuance here you may have missed...

On Classic say that you have 3 in Papua New Guinea (PNG), 3 in Eastern Australia. 1 in Indonesia and 1 in Siam.

As it stands...
You can move
2 from Eastern Australia to PNG.
2 from PNG to Indo.

However as soon as you move 2 from EA to PNG... that free up your 1 that had to stay behind... now you can move 3 to Indo...

Once they get there... your 1 from Indo can move to Siam... and of course your 1 from Siam could move to China (Or to indo if you really want!)

Essentially - you could chain 1 troop along to the ends of your countries by moving the guy that holds the territory.

C.

[Spritzking]

well maybe there could be implented that the first army is locked...

[Aleksei]

Just a thought. Not sure if it has been tossed around before. Would it be possible to make a fortifications set up where the creator could chose how many fortifications are allowed a turn. Like rather than unlimited or 1 you could have a max 3 a turn. This would help on games in World 2.1 where there are a lot of countries but you want more strategy involved (unlike games with unlimited fortifications).

Or make the adjacent set up that you can move as many armies as you want but only to the country next to it. Once an army is transfered over, it must stay there until the next turn. Might be a little harder to make in the games but its a thought.

[chessplaya]

it has been said not too long ago

and u havent even used the form

[BeakerWMA]

Sorry if this has been mentioned before.

Concise Idea:
How about a new fortification type: "Unlimited Adjacent".

Suggestion idea:
As long as the countries are adjacent you can move as many times as you want.

Specifics:
If you were in a war you would be able to move armies from more than one place at a time (making it different than adjacent), however mobilizing through more than one country would take too much time to accomplish (making it different from Chained and Unlimited) - hence Unlimited Adjacent.

The biggest problem IMO would be, for example, moving from Eastern Australia to New Guinea and then from New Guinea to Indonesia - I would suggest a blocker (of some sort in the script) that prevents fortifying from countries that have had armies previously forted to it (so if you did want armies from New Guinea to Indonesia you would have to do that move first than do Eastern Australia to New Guinea afterward).

Why it is needed:
Just a thought for a new type of game.

[BeakerWMA]

Thoughts, comments? I know you're out there I can hear your breathing!

[Risktaker17]

I like it a lot. I have thought about this idea a lot, I like it. I don't know how you could program the way to stop from moving throughout all your armies. But keep bugging people about it eventually you'll get some responses.

[DiM]

Sorry if this has been mentioned before.

Concise Idea:
How about a new fortification type: "Unlimited Adjacent".

Suggestion idea:
As long as the countries are adjacent you can move as many times as you want.

Specifics:
If you were in a war you would be able to move armies from more than one place at a time (making it different than adjacent), however mobilizing through more than one country would take too much time to accomplish (making it different from Chained and Unlimited) - hence Unlimited Adjacent.

The biggest problem IMO would be, for example, moving from Eastern Australia to New Guinea and then from New Guinea to Indonesia - I would suggest a blocker (of some sort in the script) that prevents fortifying from countries that have had armies previously forted to it (so if you did want armies from New Guinea to Indonesia you would have to do that move first than do Eastern Australia to New Guinea afterward).

Why it is needed:
Just a thought for a new type of game.

it's impossible because of the bolded part. and without that blocker it's useless

[BeakerWMA]

well, that sucks

[treefiddy]

This was previously suggested and rejected.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9330

[BeakerWMA]

Maybe programming has come far enough since it was first suggested to make it doable!

[Awesome]

This was the way I always played. Back when I played risk on a board.

I understand the difficulty of programming this, but it certainly would be great to have this option.

It makes the most sense of any of the fortification rules.

[killthejoe]

I'd like to know why this was rejected? Is it too difficult to code, or does the site operator simply not like this idea? I personally think this is by far the best way to play.

Think of it as military mobilization. If the US has troops in Northern Iraq, Southern Iraq, and Western Iraq, they can "fortify" each group of armies at the same time into Eastern Iraq.

I used to play this way on a Hasbro board with my friends and believe it to be the most realistic form of play.

Please reconsider this rejection.

Thank you.

[cena-rules]

I'd like to know why this was rejected? Is it too difficult to code, or does the site operator simply not like this idea? I personally think this is by far the best way to play.

Think of it as military mobilization. If the US has troops in Northern Iraq, Southern Iraq, and Western Iraq, they can "fortify" each group of armies at the same time into Eastern Iraq.

I used to play this way on a Hasbro board with my friends and believe it to be the most realistic form of play.

Please reconsider this rejection.

Thank you.

it was rejected because it would be too hard to program

see that turtle dude what he says goes

[Genghis Khan CA]

I'd like to know why this was rejected? Is it too difficult to code, or does the site operator simply not like this idea?

Too hard to program.

[john1099]

I'd like to know why this was rejected? Is it too difficult to code, or does the site operator simply not like this idea?

Too hard to program.

lol.

[James Julius]

Without a doubt unlimited adjacent fortification is the best option in terms of realistic strategic simulation. The existing options are weak by comparison. I came to the forum to suggest it myself, as I'm sure others will in the future. Those who oppose the idea of it are lacking in strategic understanding.

What a shame this is too difficult to program.