[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]

Now that the Trench option has been enacted, how about an "opposite" of sorts? I apologize if this has been suggested before -- didn't have time to search it; didn't see it in the Suggestions listing.

Airlift would be a once-per-turn ability during the Reinforcement phase. It should not conflict with other reinforcement options, although the Player who uses it would obviously end his reinforcements at that point if using the Basic or Chained options.

Airlift would allow any number of Player's armies to be moved to any other owned territory, regardless of borders (without abandoning the source territory, of course). Airlift to partners in Team games would also be permitted.

How would this benefit ConquerClub? Yet another tactical/strategic option equals more fun -- not to mention realism on maps of 20th/21st century wars where airlift is a real military capability.

Sincerely submitted -- Vaslov, Premier of UFPNS

[greenoaks]

this is very similar to my suggested Paratroop reinforment option

[Vlasov]

Thanks, Greenoaks -- I figured a similar suggestion must have been made by someone before. Whether it's called Paratroops or Airlift or whatever, I hope it gets some attention!

[AndyDufresne]

Paratroop Reinforcement, for those curious about greenoak's post.


--Andy

[agentcom]

Merge?

[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

[greenoaks]

i suggested it back in 2010 and it is currently in Submitted Suggestions

Paratroop Reinforments

Airlift is mentioned as an alternative name for it.

[Vlasov]

Excellent.... thanks for your reply.

[Vlasov]

I like Greenoaks' suggestion, as described above. My own recent suggestion is to add "airlift"/paratroops as an auxiliary method of reinforcement which could be used instead of Adjacent or Chained, or be combined with Unlimited reinforcement (only once per turn).

[agentcom]

MERGED.

[Vlasov]

I agree with merging "airlift" under the name "Paratroop" -- my recent suggestion is very similar, but Greenoaks said it first, and his idea is more concise and easier to implement.