How is strategy enhanced by limiting the number of choices you have?
kcoenich wrote:how often does a change for a 1000 troops happen?? or a 100? I dont know... I'm sure its pretty rare...
kcoenich wrote:Well... the way I see it is that 20 vs 20 (or max number vs max number) is much more exciting than say 54 vs 19... plus it would be an option, not an absolute rule...
Plus, Strategy is the best part of the game, so the more strategy you put on the game, the better it gets... believe me, you feel a looot better when you win a 20 vs 20 battle than winning a battle of 65 vs 30, that outcome is absolutely obvious.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
Craig25 wrote:As it says, some rule versions in one of the older games gave this as an option in the rules. I suggest an option in the set up as it makes games more strategic.
der sniffter wrote:hi,
Although your suggestion is a nice idea, I am doubtfull about it; Game 1000001, I understand this game is unique. but it points out that games like those are "threated badly" by this option. In other words, how would you make difference between a player that has a balance between attacking/defending and a "stacking" player?
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?
joshyboy, i think the idea is how to limit that others cannot stack...
still the idea has inherent flaws, slightly appealing to me, but flawed. So it needs work before it can be considered functional.
e.g. how to deal with large/ small maps.
escalating cards ect ect
Users browsing this forum: No registered users