Adjacent Attacks

[n00blet]

Actually, I'm starting to like the restricted maps option. We're already not allowed to play certain maps if we're doing 8-player... Why not have certain maps be unplayable with AA? This way, we don't have to compromise the integrity and simplicity of the rule. Just have it behave like 7-players does if you try to play feudal.

I severly think - "not having a solution" - limits the chance of this option being implemented.

C.

I'd say that not allowing those maps is a solution. Incompatibility didn't stop them from implementing 8 player games, they simply solved the problem by eliminating the clash.

I think the harder it is to explain this rule to people, the less likely it is to pass judgment. And even if we do implement the "make an exception" option, people will still quite frequently say, "what about KN's" as if they've found something that breaks the rule, and we'll have to explain over and over, "well, the rule applies always, except for when it doesn't."

That is true....

But then I wouldn't be able to play it on Arms Race

[yeti_c]

I'd say that not allowing those maps is a solution. Incompatibility didn't stop them from implementing 8 player games, they simply solved the problem by eliminating the clash.

Completely different area though - this is something that is limited by the number of starting locations - not the possible existence of 1 tag in the XML neutralising a game type.

I think the harder it is to explain this rule to people, the less likely it is to pass judgment. And even if we do implement the "make an exception" option, people will still quite frequently say, "what about KN's" as if they've found something that breaks the rule, and we'll have to explain over and over, "well, the rule applies always, except for when it doesn't."

I disagree - the idea of the Killer Neutrals in the maps that use it - is to mimic 1 way transportation of sorts - this fits perfectly with the theme of Adjacent Attacks - and would be much easier to explain than "The Game Builder is broken"

Also - your 'solution' "Limits" the feature - whereas the other solution touted expands it...

Ironically - you were for the "Drop and attack after kill" version - which allowed double/triple etc movement - yet you are against this solution?!

C.

[Ditocoaf]

I'd say that not allowing those maps is a solution. Incompatibility didn't stop them from implementing 8 player games, they simply solved the problem by eliminating the clash.

Completely different area though - this is something that is limited by the number of starting locations - not the possible existence of 1 tag in the XML neutralising a game type.

I think the harder it is to explain this rule to people, the less likely it is to pass judgment. And even if we do implement the "make an exception" option, people will still quite frequently say, "what about KN's" as if they've found something that breaks the rule, and we'll have to explain over and over, "well, the rule applies always, except for when it doesn't."

I disagree - the idea of the Killer Neutrals in the maps that use it - is to mimic 1 way transportation of sorts - this fits perfectly with the theme of Adjacent Attacks - and would be much easier to explain than "The Game Builder is broken"

Also - your 'solution' "Limits" the feature - whereas the other solution touted expands it...

Ironically - you were for the "Drop and attack after kill" version - which allowed double/triple etc movement - yet you are against this solution?!

C.

No, I was against the attack-after-midturn-deploy idea, precisely because it created an exception unnecessarily.

This, imo, is even worse than that, though. Because it creates an exception and an additional rule that only applies to a few maps. This means that this extra rule will be explained unneccisarily when playing all maps (which will add to confusion), or it will usually be left out of an explanation, meaning that when people do play those maps, they'll not know how it's changed.

[n00blet]

No, I was against the attack-after-midturn-deploy idea, precisely because it created an exception unnecessarily.

This, imo, is even worse than that, though. Because it creates an exception and an additional rule that only applies to a few maps. This means that this extra rule will be explained unneccisarily when playing all maps (which will add to confusion), or it will usually be left out of an explanation, meaning that when people do play those maps, they'll not know how it's changed.

Would it be that hard to explain though? A simple line added to the rule explanation to the affect of:

Territories that automatically lose all armies at the start of the next turn can be attacked through

[King_Herpes]

It would lead to build up games beyond imagination.

[n00blet]

It would lead to build up games beyond imagination.

Actually, if you look at all of the test games we have played with it so far, none have lapsed into a stalemate. Rather, in what would seem to be the setting most prone to stalemates, Escalating Spoils, it was a very decisive and thrilling battle, because defending others was so easy in the sort term.

[xelabale]

I'm in the tourney so I have a vested interest. Use the tourney as an experiment. If we get a stalemate in it, so be it. If problems come up, so be it. How do we learn if we don't try it? Why not let those KN maps in and SEE how they behave rather than hypothesising. It will then be obvious after we've played an entire tourney what the solution is. It will then be much easier to argue a position to Lack et al.

Oh and by the way I mean that we should give them the power to attack from again - that's the whole point of them isn't it? If you don't give them that power then the whole map has been ruined. Just banning the maps from AA seems a backwards step to me. Try them!!

[yeti_c]

No, I was against the attack-after-midturn-deploy idea, precisely because it created an exception unnecessarily.

Apologies - I must've remembered it wrong.

This, imo, is even worse than that, though. Because it creates an exception and an additional rule that only applies to a few maps. This means that this extra rule will be explained unneccisarily when playing all maps (which will add to confusion), or it will usually be left out of an explanation, meaning that when people do play those maps, they'll not know how it's changed.

Would it be that hard to explain though? A simple line added to the rule explanation to the affect of:

Territories that automatically lose all armies at the start of the next turn can be attacked through

Agreed - As explained - it's the way those territories make sense in all of the maps.

C.

[SuicidalSnowman]

What's the proposed rule change?

[wmlawman]

Would it be that hard to explain though? A simple line added to the rule explanation to the affect of:

Territories that automatically lose all armies at the start of the next turn can be attacked through

Agreed - As explained - it's the way those territories make sense in all of the maps.

C.

I wonder, if maybe to make it more in the spirit of the original rule, that the KN territory may be attacked through, but only once.

Something like:

Territories that automatically lose all armies at the start of the next turn can make one attack in the turn they are conquered.

[Blinkadyblink]

I wonder, if maybe to make it more in the spirit of the original rule, that the KN territory may be attacked through, but only once.

Something like:

Territories that automatically lose all armies at the start of the next turn can make one attack in the turn they are conquered.

In Arms Race, the goal is to get one of the missile launches so that you can annihilate the other side in one turn. If you could only attack one territory from it, it would be almost impossible to win.

[wmlawman]

I wonder, if maybe to make it more in the spirit of the original rule, that the KN territory may be attacked through, but only once.

Something like:

Territories that automatically lose all armies at the start of the next turn can make one attack in the turn they are conquered.

In Arms Race, the goal is to get one of the missile launches so that you can annihilate the other side in one turn. If you could only attack one territory from it, it would be almost impossible to win.

Good point. I, for some reason, was thinking that it was more like the Citadel where you just are using it to get to the other side. I don't play Arms Race much.

[n00blet]

I wonder, if maybe to make it more in the spirit of the original rule, that the KN territory may be attacked through, but only once.

Something like:

Territories that automatically lose all armies at the start of the next turn can make one attack in the turn they are conquered.

In Arms Race, the goal is to get one of the missile launches so that you can annihilate the other side in one turn. If you could only attack one territory from it, it would be almost impossible to win.

Good point. I, for some reason, was thinking that it was more like the Citadel where you just are using it to get to the other side.

I think limiting it to one attack would definitely break some maps. To keep it easier to implement and easier to understand, I think KNs should be allowed to attack as any normal starting territory would.

I don't play Arms Race much.

Where have you been? Not to advertise, but that is one fine map

[wmlawman]

I don't play Arms Race much.

Where have you been? Not to advertise, but that is one fine map

The few times I've played, I've never gotten far. So I don't play it often.

[n00blet]

I don't play Arms Race much.

Where have you been? Not to advertise, but that is one fine map

The few times I've played, I've never gotten far. So I don't play it often.

You're missing out


On another note, what's up with 16 people saying they would oppose this as an option, but only one person saying why?

If you have a legitimate reason to not like the addition, please say so so it can be discussed. If you have posted once, but not come back to follow up on your objections, please do so at this time.
Of course, feel free to change your vote if you're completely won over

[yeti_c]

I wonder, if maybe to make it more in the spirit of the original rule, that the KN territory may be attacked through, but only once.

Something like:

Territories that automatically lose all armies at the start of the next turn can make one attack in the turn they are conquered.

In Arms Race, the goal is to get one of the missile launches so that you can annihilate the other side in one turn. If you could only attack one territory from it, it would be almost impossible to win.

Good point. I, for some reason, was thinking that it was more like the Citadel where you just are using it to get to the other side.

I think limiting it to one attack would definitely break some maps. To keep it easier to implement and easier to understand, I think KNs should be allowed to attack as any normal starting territory would.

Also - what is "one attack"?
1 roll of the dice?
1 successful territory conquer?

If the first one - then that would make for a very very slow game!
If the latter - what's stopping someone attacking each territory they can attack down to 1/2 until they then decide to kill the one they are after? - I guess some validation could be written in to force the attack to only the 1 territory... however - I think that this would cause a lot of problems for new comers - especially when they don't advance their troops and then lose them next turn. (Not to mention N00b's points above)

C.

[lancehoch]

Also - what is "one attack"?
1 roll of the dice?
1 successful territory conquer?

If the first one - then that would make for a very very slow game!
If the latter - what's stopping someone attacking each territory they can attack down to 1/2 until they then decide to kill the one they are after? - I guess some validation could be written in to force the attack to only the 1 territory... however - I think that this would cause a lot of problems for new comers - especially when they don't advance their troops and then lose them next turn. (Not to mention N00b's points above)

C.

Questions like this are why I think that we should just have the rule be "You can only attack from territories you owned at the beginning of your turn". We can go through maps where this would cause problems (Arms Race, Das Schloss) and have hard coding that does not allow these maps to be played with this option, just like the AORs cannot be played with 8 players. Also, saying a KN territory can attack when conquered will allow people to say (at least until it is coded into the site), well that territory over there I was allowed, so why not this territory. The easiest way to explain the rule is the one sentence I typed above, there are no exceptions, there are no clauses. It is easier to have one person deal with the exceptions and say it would break the game, this setting is not allowed than it is to have people guessing at what the hard and fast rule is that was coded in. Citadel would still be a valid map, just the central territory would be useless.

List of maps that would not work, given the rule above:
1) Arms Race

I will add to this list as maps are put forward that do not work, but for now, that is the only one.

[denominator]

I agree with lancehoch. Just like with mid-turn cashes, there shouldn't be any exceptions to the rules.

Only the territories that you own at the beginning of your turn can be attacked from.

I don't have much experience with either Citadel or Arms Race, but my understanding is that you can still win without conquering the killer neutrals. I believe it is also the same with Oasis.

The simplest way I see to solve this is that all maps are eligible for the tournament, but you put a round limit on it. Any games going over X rounds will be considered a tie. This means that these maps can be used but you run a high risk of hitting a stalemate on them.

[yeti_c]

I don't have much experience with either Citadel or Arms Race, but my understanding is that you can still win without conquering the killer neutrals. I believe it is also the same with Oasis.

Arms Race may cause stalemates as the only way of attacking your enemy is - via the Killer Neutral.

Oasis doesn't have any killer neutrals.

C.

[yeti_c]

Also - what is "one attack"?
1 roll of the dice?
1 successful territory conquer?

If the first one - then that would make for a very very slow game!
If the latter - what's stopping someone attacking each territory they can attack down to 1/2 until they then decide to kill the one they are after? - I guess some validation could be written in to force the attack to only the 1 territory... however - I think that this would cause a lot of problems for new comers - especially when they don't advance their troops and then lose them next turn. (Not to mention N00b's points above)

C.

Questions like this are why I think that we should just have the rule be "You can only attack from territories you owned at the beginning of your turn". We can go through maps where this would cause problems (Arms Race, Das Schloss) and have hard coding that does not allow these maps to be played with this option, just like the AORs cannot be played with 8 players. Also, saying a KN territory can attack when conquered will allow people to say (at least until it is coded into the site), well that territory over there I was allowed, so why not this territory. The easiest way to explain the rule is the one sentence I typed above, there are no exceptions, there are no clauses. It is easier to have one person deal with the exceptions and say it would break the game, this setting is not allowed than it is to have people guessing at what the hard and fast rule is that was coded in. Citadel would still be a valid map, just the central territory would be useless.

The above response was in relation to a further addition to the previous rule - therefore your post is essentially Moot as we'd poopooed the modification.

C.

[lancehoch]

The above response was in relation to a further addition to the previous rule - therefore your post is essentially Moot as we'd poopooed the modification.

C.

Did we? Oops, I must have missed that.

[yeti_c]

The above response was in relation to a further addition to the previous rule - therefore your post is essentially Moot as we'd poopooed the modification.

C.

Did we? Oops, I must have missed that.

We poopooed the modification - i.e. the what about only 1 attack after killing a KH...

I'm still in the "KH's can attack again" camp as otherwise any maps with those in - just don't "work" as they're designed...

C.

[wmlawman]

Also - what is "one attack"?
1 roll of the dice?
1 successful territory conquer?

If the first one - then that would make for a very very slow game!
If the latter - what's stopping someone attacking each territory they can attack down to 1/2 until they then decide to kill the one they are after? - I guess some validation could be written in to force the attack to only the 1 territory... however - I think that this would cause a lot of problems for new comers - especially when they don't advance their troops and then lose them next turn. (Not to mention N00b's points above)

C.

Questions like this are why I think that we should just have the rule be "You can only attack from territories you owned at the beginning of your turn". We can go through maps where this would cause problems (Arms Race, Das Schloss) and have hard coding that does not allow these maps to be played with this option, just like the AORs cannot be played with 8 players. Also, saying a KN territory can attack when conquered will allow people to say (at least until it is coded into the site), well that territory over there I was allowed, so why not this territory. The easiest way to explain the rule is the one sentence I typed above, there are no exceptions, there are no clauses. It is easier to have one person deal with the exceptions and say it would break the game, this setting is not allowed than it is to have people guessing at what the hard and fast rule is that was coded in. Citadel would still be a valid map, just the central territory would be useless.

List of maps that would not work, given the rule above:
1) Arms Race

I will add to this list as maps are put forward that do not work, but for now, that is the only one.

I would agree. Either it is the rule, or it isn't. If it makes Arms Race unplayable with this option, then so be it.

[Ditocoaf]

The amount I care about this is rapidly diminishing.

[yeti_c]

The amount I care about this is rapidly diminishing.

Not a very mature comment...

"I can't get my own way so I'm going to sulk in the corner"

C.