Conquer Club

[GP/UI] No Fortifications / Reinforcements

Suggestions that have been archived.

Moderator: Community Team

Re: __No Reinforcement as a game option.

Postby Joodoo on Thu Apr 16, 2009 1:41 am

saraith wrote:
SuicidalSnowman wrote:I'll play a test game (gentleman's rules) if people are up for it.

I'd like to give that a try, actually

I would also, as long as the map is Circus Maximus or Draknor :D
TheSaxlad wrote:The Dice suck a lot of the time.

And if they dont suck then they blow.

:D
User avatar
Lieutenant Joodoo
 
Posts: 1639
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:19 am
Location: Greater Toronto, Canada

Re: __No Reinforcement as a game option.

Postby saraith on Thu Apr 16, 2009 1:57 am

Joodoo wrote:
saraith wrote:
SuicidalSnowman wrote:I'll play a test game (gentleman's rules) if people are up for it.

I'd like to give that a try, actually

I would also, as long as the map is Circus Maximus or Draknor :D

That's 3... anymore takers?
To achieve balance, first you must grow.
To grow, first you must learn.
To learn, first you must listen.
To listen, first you must shut the hell up.
-Buddhist saying
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class saraith
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 4:13 am
Location: Cow-Town

Re: __No Reinforcement as a game option.

Postby Timminz on Thu Apr 16, 2009 7:24 pm

ManBungalow wrote:I wonder if this couldn't be coded into the next map XML upgrade - X can conquer Y, but X cannot reinforce to Y.

I don't think that would matter, as they could just skip the reinforcement phase of the turn. At least, not in regards to this suggestion. Maybe you were suggesting something different.
User avatar
Captain Timminz
 
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: At the store

Re: __No Reinforcement as a game option.

Postby Woodruff on Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:21 pm

sailorseal wrote:In theory good idea but bad idea in practice


Did you have...you know...an ACTUAL REASON why you feel this is a bad idea in practice, or did you just want to say something without any justification?
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: __No Reinforcement as a game option.

Postby JoshyBoy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:45 am

Look, I'd give it a shot if they wanted to test it out. That makes 4. :D

JB ;)
drunkmonkey wrote:I honestly wonder why anyone becomes a mod on this site. You're the whiniest bunch of players imaginable.

Ron Burgundy wrote:Why don't you go back to your home on Whore Island?
User avatar
Lieutenant JoshyBoy
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 6:04 pm
Location: In the gym. Yeah, still there.

Re: __No Reinforcement as a game option.

Postby Gozar on Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:12 am

Image
User avatar
Lieutenant Gozar
 
Posts: 2534
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:15 pm
Location: Nova Scotia (G1)

Re: __No Reinforcement as a game option.

Postby BaldAdonis on Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:50 am

SuicidalSnowman wrote:I'll play a test game (gentleman's rules) if people are up for it.
We've played a game like this, Game 1696286, it was fun. Works really well.
User avatar
Captain BaldAdonis
 
Posts: 2334
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:57 am
Location: Trapped in Pleasantville with Toby McGuire

Re: __No Reinforcement as a game option.

Postby ubersky on Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:12 pm

Agreed, this is a repeat, but still like it as an option.
User avatar
Lieutenant ubersky
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Surprise, AZ, USA

Suggestion to add a reinforcement game option

Postby Halmir on Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:22 pm

Concise description:
  • Add a "No Reinforcement" option alongside Chained, Adjacent, Unlimited as an option that the host chooses at the outset.

Specifics:
  • Deploy away as normal with bonus cards etc, attack to your heart's content - but be aware that you can't then move any army anywhere at the end of your turn! In effect this option disables that stage in everyone's turn

This will improve the following aspects of the site:
  • Stops all that unseemly and (quite frankly) implausible shuttling about of armies across maps, planets or even solar systems every turn. Where your attackers halt is where they camp until they fight again
  • Adds another tactical aspect - if your opponent leaves a hole in his line you can strike through with one bunch of guys, knowing that he can only follow you with one counterattacking force (unless you're clumsy enough to give him two routes). Also if your opponent drops all reinforcements into one territory he can't then spread them out after the attack. This basically encourages players to attack (and think defence) along a front rather than a spearhead - one big army group will cause havoc but can't hold a bonus zone so easily now.
Lieutenant Halmir
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:12 pm
Location: UK

Re: Suggestion to add a reinforcement game option

Postby Thezzaruz on Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:26 am

No. Don't like it at all. Would just unnecessary prolong games and reward lucky drops, neither is a good thing IMO. Learn to use your deployments (and counter your opponents) instead.


Halmir wrote:
  • Stops all that unseemly and (quite frankly) implausible shuttling about of armies across maps, planets or even solar systems every turn.

Having no supply lines would be the unrealistic option tbh.
User avatar
Lieutenant Thezzaruz
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:10 pm
Location: OTF most of the time.

Re: No Fortifications [To-do]

Postby Tisha on Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:56 pm

can we get this on the to-do list, that is never gonna get to- doed? [-o<
User avatar
Major Tisha
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:41 am

Re: No Fortifications [To-do]

Postby nippersean on Fri Oct 16, 2009 12:28 pm

What an awful idea - I think like another suggestion (Snowman's (?) - single ter attacks) - fine if you agree it with friends or a usergroup or something (like RT).
But would you really like it as a main option?

Great with friends that take their turn twice+ a day. The problem being that it could be so slow that with deadbeats and the like....

So a new player joins such a game inadvertently, and it goes on for a year or more.

New least favourite settings - Conquerman, flat rate (errr..edit no spoils), no forts....

Surely this is a little twist friends can play together on......just my opinion....


Nipper
Brigadier nippersean
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 7:47 am

No Reinforcements Option

Postby Falkomagno on Thu May 06, 2010 6:05 pm

No Reinforcements Option


Concise description:

Allows the option of NO, in the Reinforcements settings



This will improve the following aspects of the site:
  • Another strategical variance
  • It's fun
User avatar
Sergeant Falkomagno
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:49 pm
Location: Even in a rock or in a piece of wood. In sunsets often

Re: No Reinforcements Option

Postby JoshyBoy on Thu May 06, 2010 6:17 pm

I'm not so sure.... :-k
drunkmonkey wrote:I honestly wonder why anyone becomes a mod on this site. You're the whiniest bunch of players imaginable.

Ron Burgundy wrote:Why don't you go back to your home on Whore Island?
User avatar
Lieutenant JoshyBoy
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 6:04 pm
Location: In the gym. Yeah, still there.

Re: No Reinforcements Option

Postby Falkomagno on Thu May 06, 2010 9:41 pm

Another option its wellcome I think. Show some reasons agaisnt it.
User avatar
Sergeant Falkomagno
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:49 pm
Location: Even in a rock or in a piece of wood. In sunsets often

Re: No Reinforcements Option

Postby iamkoolerthanu on Thu May 06, 2010 10:57 pm

JoshyBoy wrote:I'm not so sure.... :-k

I'm skeptical as well.. Although it does sound interesting, it could have some downsides to it.. But then again, all gametypes has some sort of a downside to them.. I would try this if it were implemented though :)
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class iamkoolerthanu
 
Posts: 4119
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 6:56 pm
Location: looking at my highest score: 2715, #170

Re: No Reinforcements Option

Postby Metsfanmax on Thu May 06, 2010 11:25 pm

This site is based around variants of a particular board game... removing the reinforcements would basically make this a totally different game. New options are cool, but if we vary too much we'll start to lose focus.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: No Reinforcements Option

Postby dwilhelmi on Thu May 06, 2010 11:46 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:This site is based around variants of a particular board game... removing the reinforcements would basically make this a totally different game. New options are cool, but if we vary too much we'll start to lose focus.

I am fairly certain that after adding Nuclear spoils, having a No Reinforcement option does not take the game much further into left field.

Falkomagno wrote:Another option its wellcome I think. Show some reasons agaisnt it.

As to this, I can think of one potential reason against it - not enough people interested to justify the development time required to implement it. It does not necessarily sound like a bad option, per say, so long as there is enough interest in it. I'd play it, but would not be terribly disappointed if it was never implemented.
User avatar
Brigadier dwilhelmi
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:05 am

Re: No Reinforcements Option

Postby Aalmeida17 on Sat May 08, 2010 6:19 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:This site is based around variants of a particular board game... removing the reinforcements would basically make this a totally different game. New options are cool, but if we vary too much we'll start to lose focus.

i agree , but we have a lot of (not risk)in CC like nuclear spoils freestyle ways , fog of war , maps , manual start is diferent from the original manual i mean in risk too, why not try this ?!
User avatar
Cook Aalmeida17
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:05 pm
Location: Queens NY, NY

Re: No Reinforcements Option

Postby Falkomagno on Sat May 08, 2010 10:20 pm

I agree. i can see this even in the direction of that group of players who wnat a game style were you can onluy advance once after the attack. I think that it's the logical option left behind when it's talking about reinceforcement. I think that can be a good add to the site. And so far, I can not see a valuable reason against it, but the work nvolve to programming it, which is a very weak reason against it.
User avatar
Sergeant Falkomagno
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:49 pm
Location: Even in a rock or in a piece of wood. In sunsets often

Re: No Fortifications [To-do]

Postby Tisha on Fri Jun 25, 2010 11:10 pm

do this.

I said so.

lackattack

O:) O:)
User avatar
Major Tisha
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:41 am

Re: No Fortifications [To-do]

Postby Queen_Herpes on Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:03 pm

Tisha wrote:do this.

I said so.

lackattack

O:) O:)


Is this really on the to-do list? I'm in full support of it and think it would provide a really interesting twist to the game. While some of the previous posters had mentioned that it might create eternally long games, so what? I like playing games that last forever and I was directed to one game that includes AAFitz that looks like it has been going on for more than one year.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=102006

This link is the best way to make new players feel welcome...

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=102006
User avatar
Lieutenant Queen_Herpes
 
Posts: 1337
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:50 pm
Location: Right Here. Look into my eyes.

Re: No Fortifications [To-do]

Postby TheForgivenOne on Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:57 pm

Remember guys, the To-Do list is no longer here. If you want something on the To-Do list, bring it to our attention
Image
Game 1675072
2018-08-09 16:02:06 - Mageplunka69: its jamaica map and TFO that keep me on this site
User avatar
Major TheForgivenOne
 
Posts: 5994
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 8:27 pm
Location: Lost somewhere in the snow. HELP ME

Re: No Fortifications [To-do]

Postby Tisha on Mon Jun 28, 2010 7:48 pm

bumping it did bring it to your attention. ;)

I said do it, not put it on the To-do list..
User avatar
Major Tisha
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:41 am

Re: No Fortifications [To-do]

Postby trapyoung on Mon Jun 28, 2010 8:38 pm

Quite frankly no forts sounds pretty dumb to me. I get the whole "if you don't like it, don't play it" thing but if that's the real argument then no suggestion would get rejected. Someone gets Australia in a drop or something or eventually nabs it and takes Bangkok to a 1 and leaves it at that. Game over. You can put your 3 there each turn, maybe even not attack and force him to self deploy some for a trim but w/o forts there's really no way to recover. And imagine the stalemates there will be if people have huge stacks stuck behind 1's and people just continue to build to keep the other from unleashing their stack. Aren't there already games going on years? It seems absolutely pointless and turns the game into more of a luck factor. You advance 8 to take out a 2, 1 and sometimes you'll have 6 left over and others you'll not get past the 2. It's just luck and w/o a forting option everyone's stuck and it'll turn on who gets lucky enough dice.
User avatar
Colonel trapyoung
 
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:25 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Archived Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users