Game option: NO Deferred troops

[TeeGee]

Game option: NO Deferred troops





Add a game option of no deferred troops for people who like to play without having a surprise stack show up from someone who has missed 1 or 2 turns.
I want it to be optional as I know it isnt for everyone, but would be ideal for the hardcore players in this site

Specifics/Details:

• add game option: Deferred troops for missed turns, YES or NO

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• Will help retain valuable CC members who do not enjoy playing with members who miss turns
• Takes away the advantage (tactical or otherwise) that can be gained from missed turns

[Mageplunka69]

Oh please make this happen

[dollarsnosense]

Outstanding suggestion!!

[iAmCaffeine]

If they won't make this commonplace, what makes you think they'll make it optional?

[mrswdk]

Look forward to this being implemented in 2025 same as any other suggestion that receives support and approval.

[Razorvich]

Very nice, and totally agree with this one... should be the standard for all Clan/Tribe/Touney/Events

100% support

[iAmCaffeine]

If they're playing in a clan war then they shouldn't be missing turns.

[DirtyDishSoap]

Well, what would you suggest if they missed 1 or 2 turns?

Before the deferred troop thing was implemented, people would intentionally miss turns just so they can deploy and attack with that same stack, instead of deploying and not being able to use it for 1 turn.

If I have to improve upon it just a tad. Defer the troops for each missed turn.

Example: Missed two turns, bonus was broken on turn two. Say if the player in question held Oceana and missed one turn holding it, but was broken during the 2nd turn with a region count of 9.
Player has to take 2 turns instead of 1 to receive all of deferred troops;
Missed turn 1 would have a deferred troop count of 5. Deploys 3, defers 5 after turn taken.
Missed turn 2 would have a deferred troop count of 3. Deploys 3 (or 5 if he took back Oceana) and defers the 3 after turn taken.

Hopefully that gives people a better picture, and I think it might help with the stacking.

Anyways...
Are you suggesting that people outright miss the troops altogether if a miss turn occurs? Pretty damn harsh if you ask me. Folks have lives and emergencies occur. I know more competitive people would probably be pretty pissed off if it cost them a tourney game or a game that was "sealed" by a deployment but something came up.

I hate seeing it too, but for the most part, the system currently is way less punishing on the opposing player as it was before.

[shocked439]

Or make it a missed turns to loss feature. Default to three but allow the option of 1 or 2 as well.

[Donelladan]

This suggestion is based on a wrong assumption.
-> you don't gain an advantage by missing turn. you cannot have an advantage by missing turn.
Missing a turn ( then getting deferred troops) NEVER EVER give you an advantage over playing your turn.

Therefore I am against this suggestion. It should definitely NOT be the rule for clan tourney or whatever event.

People thinking that you get an advantage by getting the deferred troops are wrong.

show: NOTE

I am open to discuss it.
Actually I'd rather prove you by experimenting, let's play 100 games together, you are going to miss turn in purpose, I am not, let's see who wins !

I want it to be optional as I know it isnt for everyone, but would be ideal for the hardcore players in this site

Why would it be ideal for the hardcore players ? Because they don't miss turns ? ? If they don't miss turn they actually don't care isn't it ? I don't get it.

[Metsfanmax]

This suggestion is based on a wrong assumption.
-> you don't gain an advantage by missing turn. you cannot have an advantage by missing turn.
Missing a turn ( then getting deferred troops) NEVER EVER give you an advantage over playing your turn.

It is pretty absurd to argue that there is literally no circumstance in which missing your turn can be advantageous. Given the immense number of circumstances that can occur in multiplayer games, and the complexity of zombie/nuclear games, it seems impossible to know for certain that there is no such circumstance. And there are plenty of situations in which missing a turn ought not to gain you an advantage (given perfectly rational play and advance knowledge of the missed turns by all involved) but nevertheless could in practice, or (similarly) when players have to take a calculated risk given the uncertainty of whether you will miss more turns. For example, consider a three player standoff game on a small map where one person misses two turns in a row and one of the other two opts to battle the third player, lowering both of their troops to a low enough level that the returning player has a handy lead. You can make the argument that missing a turn is a disadvantage most of the time without resorting to the silly argument that it's just not possible to ever occur.

[Donelladan]

Metsfanmax, you are completely right, I was mainly thinking 2 player, or 2 teams only.
In a multiplayer games, missing turn can be an advantage.
Sorry, my mistake.

[Metsfanmax]

Metsfanmax, you are completely right, I was mainly thinking 2 player, or 2 teams only.
In a multiplayer games, missing turn can be an advantage.
Sorry, my mistake.

I agree with you in the case of one-on-one games.

[iAmCaffeine]

It's so nice when people put aside their differences and come together like that.

[Thorthoth]

NO deferred troops is the 'cleaner' option. Let's remove one more temptation from the grasp of the base-minded. Players of noble spirit would never intentionally miss a turn, nor would they be so infantile as to require a piece of deferred 'candy'.

[riskllama]

Game 17021178
i expect Bernie's on board.

[Metsfanmax]

At any rate, this is probably not going to happen. We've explained over and over that we are not going to add random options like this that just significantly increase the number of game types and make it harder to find games.

[riskllama]

what about medals for every setting? can we at least have those?

[Dukasaur]

This suggestion is based on a wrong assumption.
-> you don't gain an advantage by missing turn. you cannot have an advantage by missing turn.
Missing a turn ( then getting deferred troops) NEVER EVER give you an advantage over playing your turn.

It is pretty absurd to argue that there is literally no circumstance in which missing your turn can be advantageous. Given the immense number of circumstances that can occur in multiplayer games, and the complexity of zombie/nuclear games, it seems impossible to know for certain that there is no such circumstance. And there are plenty of situations in which missing a turn ought not to gain you an advantage (given perfectly rational play and advance knowledge of the missed turns by all involved) but nevertheless could in practice, or (similarly) when players have to take a calculated risk given the uncertainty of whether you will miss more turns. For example, consider a three player standoff game on a small map where one person misses two turns in a row and one of the other two opts to battle the third player, lowering both of their troops to a low enough level that the returning player has a handy lead. You can make the argument that missing a turn is a disadvantage most of the time without resorting to the silly argument that it's just not possible to ever occur.

While I can grant you that it is theoretically possible to imagine a scenario where this could give you and advantage, in actual fact I have never seen one. I've got something like 13,000 completed games, so you won't persuade me that this is an issue in any kind of statistically significant number of cases.

Fact, when you miss a turn you miss an opportunity to take a card. Fact, when you miss a turn you miss an opportunity to break your opponent's bonus. Fact, when you miss a turn you give your opponents an opportunity to break your bonus. Fact, when you miss a turn, the most troops you will get are the troops you would have gotten if you took your turn -- you might get less, but you certainly won't get more. Very difficult to see any of this as an advantage.

[Metsfanmax]

This suggestion is based on a wrong assumption.
-> you don't gain an advantage by missing turn. you cannot have an advantage by missing turn.
Missing a turn ( then getting deferred troops) NEVER EVER give you an advantage over playing your turn.

It is pretty absurd to argue that there is literally no circumstance in which missing your turn can be advantageous. Given the immense number of circumstances that can occur in multiplayer games, and the complexity of zombie/nuclear games, it seems impossible to know for certain that there is no such circumstance. And there are plenty of situations in which missing a turn ought not to gain you an advantage (given perfectly rational play and advance knowledge of the missed turns by all involved) but nevertheless could in practice, or (similarly) when players have to take a calculated risk given the uncertainty of whether you will miss more turns. For example, consider a three player standoff game on a small map where one person misses two turns in a row and one of the other two opts to battle the third player, lowering both of their troops to a low enough level that the returning player has a handy lead. You can make the argument that missing a turn is a disadvantage most of the time without resorting to the silly argument that it's just not possible to ever occur.

While I can grant you that it is theoretically possible to imagine a scenario where this could give you and advantage, in actual fact I have never seen one.

OK.

[Thorthoth]

I've seen situations in trench games where a player was able to skip turns without jeopardizing a bonus and then came back for an deferral-enhanced coup de grace.

No to mention, in tight situations where attacjk priority becomes critical, a player who skipping turns may be interpreted as a low-priority deadbeat... when that is not actually the case.

[Symmetry]

I've seen situations in trench games where a player was able to skip turns without jeopardizing a bonus and then came back for an deferral-enhanced coup de grace.

No to mention, in tight situations where attacjk priority becomes critical, a player who skipping turns may be interpreted as a low-priority deadbeat... when that is not actually the case.

I've got to ask- would you make that kind of mistake?

[Metsfanmax]

I've seen situations in trench games where a player was able to skip turns without jeopardizing a bonus and then came back for an deferral-enhanced coup de grace.

No to mention, in tight situations where attacjk priority becomes critical, a player who skipping turns may be interpreted as a low-priority deadbeat... when that is not actually the case.

I've got to ask- would you make that kind of mistake?

It's not necessarily a mistake, there's game theory involved which can support it, which is what Thorthoth is talking about. Suppose you're on a three player Classic map standoff. Each player has about equal bonuses and troops, and cannot attack any other player for fear of letting the third win. Every player is just building slowly and not attacking. Suppose further that player C misses two turns, and that player A takes their turn and just drops and passes to player B. After player B's turn, they know that either player C will return, or player C will forfeit. If they do nothing and then player C forfeits, player A will immediately be able to attack player B, and since attacking troops have statistical advantage in this game, player A will likely win. So there is an incentive to attack A pre-emptively, so that if C does forfeit, they do not lose because of it. Obviously, if they do attack A pre-emptively and then C returns, then player B will probably lose. So there is a real dilemma there. And the dilemma also applies to player A after player C's second missed turn, who has to decide whether player B is the kind of person who would pre-emptively attack, and then decide whether to pre-pre-emptively attack to counteract that (again, based on player A's estimation of whether player C is likely to return). If you're player A or player B in this situation, it cannot really be judged a "mistake" to attack. You have to make your best judgment of the odds of the situation and then act.

So this is a real expected advantage to player C, assuming they plan to return, because at best one of the two players attacks the other, and at worst nothing happens and the game continues where it was before.

[Symmetry]

I've seen situations in trench games where a player was able to skip turns without jeopardizing a bonus and then came back for an deferral-enhanced coup de grace.

No to mention, in tight situations where attacjk priority becomes critical, a player who skipping turns may be interpreted as a low-priority deadbeat... when that is not actually the case.

I've got to ask- would you make that kind of mistake?

It's not necessarily a mistake, there's game theory involved which can support it, which is what Thorthoth is talking about. Suppose you're on a three player Classic map standoff. Each player has about equal bonuses and troops, and cannot attack any other player for fear of letting the third win. Every player is just building slowly and not attacking. Suppose further that player C misses two turns, and that player A takes their turn and just drops and passes to player B. After player B's turn, they know that either player C will return, or player C will forfeit. If they do nothing and then player C forfeits, player A will immediately be able to attack player B, and since attacking troops have statistical advantage in this game, player A will likely win. So there is an incentive to attack A pre-emptively, so that if C does forfeit, they do not lose because of it. Obviously, if they do attack A pre-emptively and then C returns, then player B will probably lose. So there is a real dilemma there. And the dilemma also applies to player A after player C's second missed turn, who has to decide whether player B is the kind of person who would pre-emptively attack, and then decide whether to pre-pre-emptively attack to counteract that (again, based on player A's estimation of whether player C is likely to return). If you're player A or player B in this situation, it cannot really be judged a "mistake" to attack. You have to make your best judgment of the odds of the situation and then act.

So this is a real expected advantage to player C, assuming they plan to return, because at best one of the two players attacks the other, and at worst nothing happens and the game continues where it was before.

I understand that, but that's been long part of the game- It seems like a part of the strategy of play (a risky (no-pun intended)) one.

I think that the suggestion will result in punishing more casual players of the game though.

You make a solid argument, but I'm still a bit sceptical. I think that this option, if implemented, would turn up in a lot of games set up by older players, that new players would join.

[Thorthoth]

Sym's ineffectual counter-argument has only strengthened my resolve and made me more adamant in declaring that troop deferral is wrong, WRONG!!!