[GP/UI] Paratroop Reinforcements

[greenoaks]

I think this defeats the purpose of trying to your connect regions. If the "Yes" vote wins, I will surely try it. But I don't think this will be a common game option that is played.

i thought that abot Nuke's

[kabuki.mono]

I can think of no reason to reject this setting as an optional configuration along side all the others currently offered. I don't think I would knowingly join a game using it and I think I would never set up a game using it, because it seems to me that it negates all the strategy and hard work a player or team puts into the first rounds of a game, but I may be wrong. "The proof of the pudding is in the eating," as the proverb goes. In other words, try it and see if it is appreciated. If it is tried and then not used any more, delete it. My only fear is that one might try it, decide never to use it, then find himself in a tourney or a random game where it is a setting. That would not be a calamity, since it would be a rare occurrence; it would be only a nuisance.

I agree with what's been said here.

[vodean]

couldn't it be an on/off option so that you could play it chained adjacent and unlimited?

[Dukasaur]

I like this suggestion. Remember, the idea is that you could only make ONE paradrop per turn, so all the doom and gloom opposition about how this would eliminate strategic planning is mistaken. I think making ONE paradrop is significantly more restrictive than the current Unlimited setting.

Real life history suggests that paratroopers result in more complex, not less complex, planning for the strategist. Think: Eindhoven.

This suggestion, if used, would also go a long way to preventing the natural tendency of some maps to deadlock.

[The Voice]

It would be interesting to see a map created with this type of forting in mind. Probably have to find some way to allow for paratrooper forting without every territory simply being able to attack one another, eh?

[jsnyder748]

yes it sounds cool, would be popular with qauds manual games that is for sure. and another medal !

[greenoaks]

yes it sounds cool, would be popular with qauds manual games that is for sure. and another medal !

there is currently no medal based on Reinforcements. every other category of game options has at least 1.

[MyTurnToWin]

You got my yes vote... I like the idea.

[TheForgivenOne]

Alright, I am going to move this to Submitted.

[greenoaks]

any word on this suggestion's progress?

[agentcom]

yes it sounds cool, would be popular with qauds manual games that is for sure. and another medal !

there is currently no medal based on Reinforcements. every other category of game options has at least 1.

And it's such an obvious and cool medal design, too: something with a parachute! Although, I'm not sure why you need a medal for reinforcement type. To me the difference between chained, unlimited and paratroop wouldn't be as much of a difference as between Game Types (standard, assassin, etc.), Nuke Spoils vs. other kinds. I would think that the first medals for reinforcement types should really go to adjacent. So I wouldn't support a medal for this.

But a medal is way past where this discussion is. On the question of should it be an option ... I say YES.

[Woodruff]

any word on this suggestion's progress?

Dude, we have accepted suggestions that are nearing the 5-year mark. You've gotta wait a while unless it's something stupid like nuclear spoils.

[greenoaks]

any word on this suggestion's progress?

Dude, we have accepted suggestions that are nearing the 5-year mark. You've gotta wait a while unless it's something stupid like nuclear spoils.

there is no harm in asking

[greenoaks]

yes it sounds cool, would be popular with qauds manual games that is for sure. and another medal !

there is currently no medal based on Reinforcements. every other category of game options has at least 1.

And it's such an obvious and cool medal design, too: something with a parachute!

hows this one ?

I would think that the first medals for reinforcement types should really go to adjacent. So I wouldn't support a medal for this.

But a medal is way past where this discussion is. On the question of should it be an option ... I say YES.

i don't think medals will be awarded for any setting that is similar to the boardgame Risk.

CC awards medals to encourage us to play settings that differ from that boardgame, allowing lack to claim we are something different altogether.

[Vlasov]

During the reinforcement phase, Airlift could be an option:

1) With Adjacent or Chained reinforcement, armies can be moved to ANY non-adjacent friendly territory in lieu of the standard reinforcement.
2) With Unlimited reinforcement, armies can be "airlifted" only once per turn, with all other reinforcements proceeding normally.

If this is too radical, perhaps a payment/loss of one or more armies could be included in the Airlift reinforcement.

Sorry, I didn't check to see if this topic has been suggested before.

It introduces a new strategic element, since a player holding separated map positions could transfer forces from a weak point to a strong point, and perhaps survive longer. I'm sure there would be many ramifications, especially when combined with other options (e.g. Assassin) and the more complex maps.

Vlasov