Moderator: Community Team
switchblade wrote:Adjacent Attacks would be awesome, but then what about Unlimited Attacks? Plus, in the end, it would take away from the Risk Experience.
I would suggest maybe MAP with Adjacent Attacks instead.
sully800 wrote:I'm sure there are new xml treats that I don't know about, but I'm pretty sure it would not be possible to create and adjacent attacks map. When you conquer a territory you inherit that territory's attack routes, so you can continue attacking across the board. I suppose this COULD be installed as an XML feature instead of a game option, but I think it makes much more sense as a game option. It would be fun on all maps, and the gameplay is very different from normal. It's at least as different as FOW, even though that may seem impossible at first.
sully800 wrote:A speed adjacent attacks game would be great....but I don't know if a test game would work well. There have already been 3 incidents of people accidentally breaking the rules, twice to break someone's continent. In a speed game, such "mistakes" would be even more unfair and more likely to happen. So I think I will sit out any speed AA unless it is actually a game option so people cannot break the rules.
sully800 wrote:I would like to see a high ranking adjacent attack game just to make sure it doesn't turn into a protective stale mate.
Geger wrote:I like the idea. With fog it will be a perfect combination : you can capture a region only, if you see it at the beginning of your turn !!
Thezzaruz wrote:sully800 wrote:I would like to see a high ranking adjacent attack game just to make sure it doesn't turn into a protective stale mate.
Don't they already do that more often than not???
OliverFA wrote:Geger wrote:I like the idea. With fog it will be a perfect combination : you can capture a region only, if you see it at the beginning of your turn !!
That is an alternative definition, and fits the suggestion!
OliverFA wrote:Geger wrote:I like the idea. With fog it will be a perfect combination : you can capture a region only, if you see it at the beginning of your turn !!
That is an alternative definition, and fits the suggestion!
lancehoch wrote:OliverFA wrote:Geger wrote:I like the idea. With fog it will be a perfect combination : you can capture a region only, if you see it at the beginning of your turn !!
That is an alternative definition, and fits the suggestion!
Not exactly...If I own Norway and Lower Canada on World 2.1 I can see both Greenland and Iceland. Does that mean that I can attack Greenland and then Iceland from Lower Canada, not under the current rules, but under the new suggestion it would be allowed.
lancehoch wrote:OliverFA wrote:Geger wrote:I like the idea. With fog it will be a perfect combination : you can capture a region only, if you see it at the beginning of your turn !!
That is an alternative definition, and fits the suggestion!
Not exactly...If I own Norway and Lower Canada on World 2.1 I can see both Greenland and Iceland. Does that mean that I can attack Greenland and then Iceland from Lower Canada, not under the current rules, but under the new suggestion it would be allowed.
Geger wrote:Agree!! Back to original description.
I just wanted to say, that a game with adjacent attack + fog can be an interesting game. You are right that we can't test it. Also we must wait 'til this suggestion will be implemented
lancehoch wrote:Geger wrote:Agree!! Back to original description.
I just wanted to say, that a game with adjacent attack + fog can be an interesting game. You are right that we can't test it. Also we must wait 'til this suggestion will be implemented
Why can it not be tested? Just ask someone to set it up. I am sure that Oliver and a few of the others would be more than willing to test out a few more options.
yeti_c wrote:Mainly cos it's a lot harder to ensure the game is following the rules...
However - I would be up for testing that anyways.
C.
lancehoch wrote:yeti_c wrote:Mainly cos it's a lot harder to ensure the game is following the rules...
However - I would be up for testing that anyways.
C.
Good point, I hadn't thought about that. Although, the two games I played (at least until I was eliminated) I did not see anyone make any mistakes. Also, hopefully people would not be intentionally taking advantage of the situation since it is an attempt to try out a new setting.
Return to Archived Suggestions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users