Adjacent Attacks

by **OliverFA** on Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:25 am

nemrehs1 wrote:I have seen a lot of settings get passed that i don't care for, its time to have a setting that i would like, Adjacent Attacks would be a good asset for CC to have, they ever have tournaments already made for it!

I believe the same too. It's not just "another rule variation" that is different for the sake of being different. It creates a realistic, strategic and plausible way of playing. In my opinion, a lot more realistic and strategic than "going anywhere in the board" and includes a basic rule present in almost every major and not-so-major strategy game or wargame.

Plus... the rule is very simplified to make it easier to implement.

by **greenoaks** on Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:33 am

OliverFA wrote:
nemrehs1 wrote:I have seen a lot of settings get passed that i don't care for, its time to have a setting that i would like, Adjacent Attacks would be a good asset for CC to have, they ever have tournaments already made for it!

I believe the same too. It's not just "another rule variation" that is different for the sake of being different. It creates a realistic, strategic and plausible way of playing. In my opinion, a lot more realistic and strategic than "going anywhere in the board" and includes a basic rule present in almost every major and not-so-major strategy game or wargame.

Plus... the rule is very simplified to make it easier to implement.

perhaps the powers that be think this needs to be discussed somewhat before it can be implemented

by **gimli1990** on Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:30 pm

so what else can those of us who very like this idea do to get it impletented??

by **TheForgivenOne** on Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:39 pm

gimli1990 wrote:so what else can those of us who very like this idea do to get it impletented??

Nothing. lackattack has the final say when/if something gets implemented.

by **OliverFA** on Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:40 pm

gimli1990 wrote:so what else can those of us who very like this idea do to get it impletented??

At the moment the best answer I have found to that question is keeping the idea alive by supporting it and organizing tournaments that feature this type of gameplay. But I also wish that something more could be done.

by **SuicidalSnowman** on Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:16 am

TheForgivenOne wrote:
gimli1990 wrote:so what else can those of us who very like this idea do to get it impletented??

Nothing. lackattack has the final say when/if something gets implemented.

When this first started, I thought it would never happen, as the site updates were only minor things. Recently, however, we have seen major coding implementations of features such as clickable maps. This makes me hopeful that one day AA will be implemented.

by **OliverFA** on Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:08 am

I agree. Last updates have been big ones, and this brings hope.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Fri May 20, 2011 11:23 pm

I just thought of something: killer neutrals. Any map with killer neutrals won't be able to use the Adjacent Attacks setting

-Sully

by **greenoaks** on Sat May 21, 2011 12:13 am

Victor Sullivan wrote:I just thought of something: killer neutrals. Any map with killer neutrals won't be able to use the Adjacent Attacks setting

-Sully

i think the suggestion is that killer neutrals will be the only place you can advance from.

this might make coding a much bigger job than it would have been if this site did not have KN

by **OliverFA** on Sat May 21, 2011 5:07 am

greenoaks wrote:
Victor Sullivan wrote:I just thought of something: killer neutrals. Any map with killer neutrals won't be able to use the Adjacent Attacks setting

-Sully

i think the suggestion is that killer neutrals will be the only place you can advance from.

this might make coding a much bigger job than it would have been if this site did not have KN

Not so big. We already discussed it while redacting the original proposal. Right now, when the list of attacking territories is built, all the territories in the map are checked. Witg the proposal, at the begining of a player turn, a list of allowed attack territories would be built. Tgis list would contain all territories owned by the player at the begining of his turn plus all the killer neutral territories. From that poont the code would work exactly as it works now.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Sat May 21, 2011 8:54 pm

OliverFA wrote:
greenoaks wrote:
Victor Sullivan wrote:I just thought of something: killer neutrals. Any map with killer neutrals won't be able to use the Adjacent Attacks setting

-Sully

i think the suggestion is that killer neutrals will be the only place you can advance from.

this might make coding a much bigger job than it would have been if this site did not have KN

Not so big. We already discussed it while redacting the original proposal. Right now, when the list of attacking territories is built, all the territories in the map are checked. Witg the proposal, at the begining of a player turn, a list of allowed attack territories would be built. Tgis list would contain all territories owned by the player at the begining of his turn plus all the killer neutral territories. From that poont the code would work exactly as it works now.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

-Sully

by **OliverFA** on Tue Jun 21, 2011 3:46 am

Hey guys! There is a thread about which suggestion you would like to see implemented first. If you support Adjacent Attacks, please go to that thread and write a few words saying it. Thanks!

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 9&t=146989

by **firsal901** on Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:53 am

Question, if you attack from territory A to b then advance only 10 out of 35 to territory B,
can you still attack from territory A?

by **OliverFA** on Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:57 am

Elmo9199 wrote:Question, if you attack from territory A to b then advance only 10 out of 35 to territory B,
can you still attack from territory A?

Yes. With the 25 remaining armies that you have in territory A.

by **gimli1990** on Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:59 am

so anyone have a update on when this will get implemented as i do believe it was #1 on the community opinion on what should be implemented first????

by **TheForgivenOne** on Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:01 am

gimli1990 wrote:so anyone have a update on when this will get implemented as i do believe it was #1 on the community opinion on what should be implemented first????

Just because it's #1 on the community opinion, doesn't mean lack will do it first.

by **OliverFA** on Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:59 am

I think that what gimli means is that, as there is so much interest in the suggestion, all that interested people are curious to know if there are any news about it.

by **Sniper08** on Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:56 am

TheForgivenOne wrote:
gimli1990 wrote:so anyone have a update on when this will get implemented as i do believe it was #1 on the community opinion on what should be implemented first????

Just because it's #1 on the community opinion, doesn't mean lack will do it first.

yes but it has so much support that it would be high on his priority list.what was the idea behind the community poll if not to point out to lack what suggestion ppl most want to see implemented.

i figure we got another year before this is implemented

by **TheForgivenOne** on Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:57 pm

Sniper08 wrote:
TheForgivenOne wrote:
gimli1990 wrote:so anyone have a update on when this will get implemented as i do believe it was #1 on the community opinion on what should be implemented first????

Just because it's #1 on the community opinion, doesn't mean lack will do it first.

yes but it has so much support that it would be high on his priority list.what was the idea behind the community poll if not to point out to lack what suggestion ppl most want to see implemented.

i figure we got another year before this is implemented

It was to show him what the community DID support. He still has his own agenda that he had that he is working on.

by **OliverFA** on Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:24 pm

Of course. He has his own agenda. We just hope that our devoted support will convince him to increase the priority of AA in such agenda

by **eddie2** on Thu Jul 14, 2011 1:51 am

why has lackattack not came in here and explained what is going on. this is just ignorance this is a well backed sug.

by **TheForgivenOne** on Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:42 am

eddie2 wrote:why has lackattack not came in here and explained what is going on. this is just ignorance this is a well backed sug.

Because he happens to be a very busy guy?

by **OliverFA** on Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:14 am

My personal opinion is that it would be in CC benefit to implement this suggestion ASAP, because it opens a completely new field of playing that would atract (and/or retain) a whole sector of players that simply don't enjoy unlimited attacks.

But having said that, it's Lack's choice to decide what gets implemented and when. And if he has not implemented it yet, I suppose he has a reason for it. I just hope wathever keeps this suggestion from being implemented changes soon

by **-=- Tanarri -=-** on Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:16 pm

Hopefully it's all of Lack's hard work fixing the XML that is preventing him from implementing this and other suggestions. For the time being I'll just be happy when the XML is updated and R&C can finally be completed... not that I'll likely get to play a proper (4+ player) game on it anytime in the near future unless I magically dig up 4+ free hours one night for a speed game on it.