Conquer Club

Suggestion Idea: Why not have it so when you create a game and you choose Chained or Adajcent you put a limit on h ow many forts you can do like. Example only 3 Chained forts. Example only 2 Adajacent forts.

Specifics: It would be an option when you start a game and it would only work for adajacent or chained. (duh!)

Why it is needed. I really hate it that you only get 1 Adajcent and chained fort. So why not choose how many forts per turn you can do. In Unlimited you get unlimited forts and you do not need to worry how your men work out, but in adajacent and chained you have like no forts. This way you can have a lot more forts but still have to decide which is a more important fort or how could I make sure all 3 borders are covered.

Priority 3.5

Does anybody have any thoughts on this?!?

well it would improve adjacent, chained I find you can work around if you plan it right

i think this is a pretty good idea but instead of making it a set amount of freemoving it could depend on how many territories you have like the reinforcements

For example: if you have 19 territories you would get 6 freemoves or if you have 6 territories you would only get 3

so the more palces you have the more freemoving you can do

Reed Jones wrote:Suggestion Idea: Why not have it so when you create a game and you choose Chained or Adajcent you put a limit on h ow many forts you can do like. Example only 3 Chained forts. Example only 2 Adajacent forts.

Specifics: It would be an option when you start a game and it would only work for adajacent or chained. (duh!)

Priority 3.5

I think that if you want multiple fortifications, you choose Unlimited. That is what it is for. The current set of options covers risk purists, middle ground, and extremists. I don't think more options are necessary.

Looks like some people like this idea while some do not...

masondixon wrote:

Reed Jones wrote:Suggestion Idea: Why not have it so when you create a game and you choose Chained or Adajcent you put a limit on h ow many forts you can do like. Example only 3 Chained forts. Example only 2 Adajacent forts.

Specifics: It would be an option when you start a game and it would only work for adajacent or chained. (duh!)

Priority 3.5

I think that if you want multiple fortifications, you choose Unlimited. That is what it is for. The current set of options covers risk purists, middle ground, and extremists. I don't think more options are necessary.

Well this way you are having more than 1 fortification but not unlimited.

Finny wrote:i think this is a pretty good idea but instead of making it a set amount of freemoving it could depend on how many territories you have like the reinforcements

For example: if you have 19 territories you would get 6 freemoves or if you have 6 territories you would only get 3

so the more palces you have the more freemoving you can do

That is a pretty good idea...I like it.

Finny wrote:i think this is a pretty good idea but instead of making it a set amount of freemoving it could depend on how many territories you have like the reinforcements

For example: if you have 19 territories you would get 6 freemoves or if you have 6 territories you would only get 3

so the more palces you have the more freemoving you can do

that would give a HUGE advantage to people with more countries and make it even harder to overcome them if anything it should be reversed such as with less than 12 you get unlimited, then for every extra army you get for countries, the less forts you get, if anything it would make the game more interesting...

multiple chained or adjacent forts is called unlimited.

People play Adajent and Chained?

BobHacket wrote:

Finny wrote:i think this is a pretty good idea but instead of making it a set amount of freemoving it could depend on how many territories you have like the reinforcements

For example: if you have 19 territories you would get 6 freemoves or if you have 6 territories you would only get 3

so the more palces you have the more freemoving you can do

that would give a HUGE advantage to people with more countries and make it even harder to overcome them if anything it should be reversed such as with less than 12 you get unlimited, then for every extra army you get for countries, the less forts you get, if anything it would make the game more interesting...

i see what BobHacket is saying but the less territories you have the less fortifying you would need to do so it wouldnt be that big of an advantage to the one whos winning

Finny wrote:
i see what BobHacket is saying but the less territories you have the less fortifying you would need to do so it wouldnt be that big of an advantage to the one whos winning

Well, if the number of fortifications is limited by position anyway, there's little difference from unlimited fortifications. The way I see it, if you want complex fortification options, why not allow 3 chained and 4 ajacent, or 2 chained OR 4 ajacent, or 3 chained if you have more than 5 countries in a string, otherwise the number of ajacent fortifications as the number of continents you have armies in .. it could get complicated.

One thing I would go for, though, is the option for unlimited ajacent fortifications, as there's already an option for unlimited chained fortifications.

Yonak wrote:

Finny wrote:
i see what BobHacket is saying but the less territories you have the less fortifying you would need to do so it wouldnt be that big of an advantage to the one whos winning

Well, if the number of fortifications is limited by position anyway, there's little difference from unlimited fortifications. The way I see it, if you want complex fortification options, why not allow 3 chained and 4 ajacent, or 2 chained OR 4 ajacent, or 3 chained if you have more than 5 countries in a string, otherwise the number of ajacent fortifications as the number of continents you have armies in .. it could get complicated.

One thing I would go for, though, is the option for unlimited ajacent fortifications, as there's already an option for unlimited chained fortifications.

Unlimited adjacent fortifications = unlimited chained fortifications, just longer.

One thing I would go for, though, is the option for unlimited ajacent fortifications, as there's already an option for unlimited chained fortifications.

Unlimited Adajent fortifications is pointless it would be the same thing as chained. See if you had territories A B C and you wanted to move 10 men from A to C. In unlimited you would just move them from A to C directly but in Unlimited Adajacent you would move from A to B and then B to C. It would be pointless and would take longer.

My original idea was that at game settings you could choose how many foritcations like 2 Chained or 3 Adajacent per each turn that way you have more than 1 more foritication but you are still restricted and still have to be careful.

Reed Jones wrote:One thing I would go for, though, is the option for unlimited ajacent fortifications, as there's already an option for unlimited chained fortifications.

Unlimited Adajent fortifications is pointless it would be the same thing as chained. See if you had territories A B C and you wanted to move 10 men from A to C. In unlimited you would just move them from A to C directly but in Unlimited Adajacent you would move from A to B and then B to C. It would be pointless and would take longer.

My original idea was that at game settings you could choose how many foritcations like 2 Chained or 3 Adajacent per each turn that way you have more than 1 more foritication but you are still restricted and still have to be careful.

This entire idea is stupid, either choose unlimited forts if you want as many forts possible, choose chained or adjacent. This is a pointless suggestion.

This entire idea is stupid, either choose unlimited forts if you want as many forts possible, choose chained or adjacent. This is a pointless suggestion.



Why? Why? With this idea you can have a more forts than 1 but still be restricted with forts.

Reed Jones wrote:This entire idea is stupid, either choose unlimited forts if you want as many forts possible, choose chained or adjacent. This is a pointless suggestion.



Why? Why? With this idea you can have a more forts than 1 but still be restricted with forts.

true, but i think it is better to either have unlimited or one, why make it something in between?

wicked wrote:multiple chained or adjacent forts is called unlimited.

yeah, but he wants multiple & limited. Looks good to me.

I don't really like it. The reason to choose either of those options, is to make the game last longer than with unlimited. You must strategize your conquering more without an unlimited number of forts.