Adjacent Attacks

[Ditocoaf]

The amount I care about this is rapidly diminishing.

Not a very mature comment...

"I can't get my own way so I'm going to sulk in the corner"

C.

No, I meant it the opposite way... I realized that this change really has very little effect on the overall awesomeness of the suggestion itself. I figured that removing one voice from the mix will help the dust settle a little more quickly.

[yeti_c]

No, I meant it the opposite way... I realized that this change really has very little effect on the overall awesomeness of the suggestion itself. I figured that removing one voice from the mix will help the dust settle a little more quickly.

Massive apologies then... - I assumed (which was my mistake) that you meant the whole "Adjacent Attacks" thing - rather than just the KN thing!

Carry on - nothing to see here!

C.

[n00blet]

No, I meant it the opposite way... I realized that this change really has very little effect on the overall awesomeness of the suggestion itself. I figured that removing one voice from the mix will help the dust settle a little more quickly.

Massive apologies then... - I assumed (which was my mistake) that you meant the whole "Adjacent Attacks" thing - rather than just the KN thing!

Carry on - nothing to see here!

C.

Sooooo does that mean we can proceed with KN's being able to be attacked through? If this has a massive impact on the game is played during the tournament then it can be looked at again for revision...

[denominator]

No, I meant it the opposite way... I realized that this change really has very little effect on the overall awesomeness of the suggestion itself. I figured that removing one voice from the mix will help the dust settle a little more quickly.

Massive apologies then... - I assumed (which was my mistake) that you meant the whole "Adjacent Attacks" thing - rather than just the KN thing!

Carry on - nothing to see here!

C.

Sooooo does that mean we can proceed with KN's being able to be attacked through? If this has a massive impact on the game is played during the tournament then it can be looked at again for revision...

I think for the tournament we should not allow KN maps, and in the meantime, play some test games with different sets of rules to see what works.

[sully800]

Arm's race isn't necessarily broken with the most basic AA rule....it just CAN end in stalemate. So maybe you could program it so that KN's function like normal AA territories unless the people are trapped on one side and then you can attack from the KN?

Or maybe you code it so that the game ends in a tie if the people are trapped. That currently isn't an option anywhere on the site but the most elegant solution IMO. Also the least likely to happen because it would require an additional change to the game engine.

Or the simple solution that you can attack from KN's but I think it has to be to all possible territories that KN's can attack as you guys seem to have agreed. That is based on my familiarity with Arms Race as I haven't played any other KN maps.

Is maze craze slated to be quenched? That map is very different with all the KNs and may affect the gameplay as well.

[n00blet]

Arm's race isn't necessarily broken with the most basic AA rule....it just CAN end in stalemate. So maybe you could program it so that KN's function like normal AA territories unless the people are trapped on one side and then you can attack from the KN?

Or maybe you code it so that the game ends in a tie if the people are trapped. That currently isn't an option anywhere on the site but the most elegant solution IMO. Also the least likely to happen because it would require an additional change to the game engine.

Or the simple solution that you can attack from KN's but I think it has to be to all possible territories that KN's can attack as you guys seem to have agreed. That is based on my familiarity with Arms Race as I haven't played any other KN maps.

Is maze craze slated to be quenched? That map is very different with all the KNs and may affect the gameplay as well.

Oooh....I hadn't thought about Maze Craze...from the way it is, theoretically, if someone had enough armies, they could attack along a line KNs (the wall), conquering territories on either side. This would make the adjacent attack rule basically void in that situation....

One way to argue in favor of that would be that it would force the players to implement a very different strategy on the map, since all players would (hypothetically) know this is possible. normal movement between the walls would be restricted to one "step" at a time. If a player was able to gather enough armies to attack through the KNs in this manner, they would most likely be the winner anyways if they were able to use it successfully.

The argument against it is obvious....

So where to proceed from here? I don't think we can just ban one map because it breaks the KNs rule we pseudo-agreed on

[yeti_c]

Maze Craze isn't due til another XML update... there could be a tweak to the rule...

KN's can attack again to "normal" territories... (Of course this makes the rule that bit more complicated and harder to explain - and I think the new Das Schloss revisions have 2 chained KN's thus breaking the new tweak (2 KN's that you would need to be able to take in a row too))

Thus meaning you can only go through a KN wall in maze craze - instead of down the walls...

Of course - I don't think that someone could amass that many armies to be able to do N00b's tactic - and of course - like he said - that tactic would be known to the players - and you would have to counter against it... so I don't think that it is a deal breaker.

C.

[Ditocoaf]

Yeah, if KNs have to be an exception, it should be a simple exception. Maze Craze will just be a very interesting map with AA. You can't hold the walls, but you can attack the largest distances along the walls... which kind of makes sense, in a weird perverted way. I like it. I'd definitely play a game of that.

Plus, with that sort of weird gameplay resulting form AA+KNs, already in Maze Craze... we'll avoid mapmakers saying, "oh, I shouldn't do that because it will break AA." The fact that we're perfectly okay with Maze Craze being radically different gameplay (theoretically), means that we're fine with anything the mapmaker does, which makes this a less limiting rule.

[xelabale]

I'm itching for the tourney to get started... if we allow arms race in the tourney and a problem crops up we can have a tourney rule that allows a draw only in that circumstance - the tourney won't be broken by it. Then we can discuss what to do about the problem. If the rule isn't needed we have good evidence that it's not a problem. Either way we'll know rather than hypothesising, which will put us in a better position. Let arms race in, choose a rule (I'm for allowing attacks through KNs), see what happens. What can possibly go wrong...

[captainwalrus]

I like this Idea a lot as it makes the game more realistic. An army can't attack across the world in one turn beacuse of supply lines and such. I think only adjacent territories might be a little much though. Perhaps you could only attack twice with one army in a turn.

[sully800]

One issue I haven't seen discussed much is fortifications. Adjacent Attacks has always seemed perfectly matched with adjacent forts, and that was the style used in all my test games.

However, it would be possible to play AA with unlimited attacks...not the ideal match in my opinion, but the game type is possible. Do you think this diminishes the fun of AA? Do you think it adds any new elements not seen in our AA test games? Perhaps having a few of these in our tournament would be useful, but I requested my games to be adjacent forts.

[denominator]

The unlimited forts with adjacent attacks is interesting - an exact opposite of escalating cards with adjacent forts, in my opinion. In the normal attacks version, you are forced to crawl your troops through your territories to your frontline, but blitz through an enemy's territory with a timely cash. In AA with unlimited, you are forced to crawl through enemy territory but are able to blitz your armies through your own territory.

It entirely changes the strategy because deployment is no longer so key - you can reposition your troops after your turn.

[n00blet]

Yeah, if KNs have to be an exception, it should be a simple exception. Maze Craze will just be a very interesting map with AA. You can't hold the walls, but you can attack the largest distances along the walls... which kind of makes sense, in a weird perverted way. I like it. I'd definitely play a game of that.

Plus, with that sort of weird gameplay resulting form AA+KNs, already in Maze Craze... we'll avoid mapmakers saying, "oh, I shouldn't do that because it will break AA." The fact that we're perfectly okay with Maze Craze being radically different gameplay (theoretically), means that we're fine with anything the mapmaker does, which makes this a less limiting rule.

Yay! I like that argument. KNs being able to attack freely has my unmitigated support now.


On the subject of other reinforcement methods, chained and unlimited reinforcements make more (real world) sense. It would be vastly easier to transfer troops between friendly countries than to march through a string of enemies. If you'd like to see it in action, there happens to be a Feudal War game going on with unlimited reinforcements: http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=3695712

Due to popular demand, I'm going to amend the rule to state that Killer Neutral territories are allowed to be attacked through, at the very least for the duration of the tournament, to see how well it goes.
First games should get made sometime soon then, depending on how quickly I get my TD powers

[n00blet]

Annnnddd that took less than 3 hours
First round underway!
Go cheer them on

[n00blet]

Let's have a bump

[sully800]

fun fun fun.

It's the only way to describe escalating adjacent attacks. That is probably the best game setting I have ever played on CC. It won't truly work until this is added to the site (because the rule continues to be broken, accidentally or otherwise) but I still love it. I would still like to try a high ranking escalating AA game. Or better yet, a bunch of foggy AA games. Unfortunately they will not work well until this is added as a feature.

Who would be interested in a flat rate or no cards game on CCman? I was skimming through the maps and realized that would be a very fun AA game because it is so linear. It may take a very long time because advancement will be slow which is why I would not like escalating on that map. Escalating might be impossible to finish logically, like a no cards Circus Maximus game.

PM me for the password.

[sully800]

3923328 and it is flat rate.

AA rules in effect of course!

[n00blet]

I want in!

[sully800]

Me and nooblet so far. Anyone else? Post here or PM for the pass

[denominator]

Count me in for any AA games.

[flatrick]

First and foremost, I would like to say that I was just about to make the exact same proposition to the game. In fact, I just bought this game and was bewildered that it did not already contain this option.
Whenever me and my friends play Risk, we always use this rule. There are several obvious gameplay reasons for this, but I am pretty sure they have all already been discussed here.

Nevertheless, I would like to add a set of rules to the suggestion you presented. Me and my friends use them as well and they form a natural continuity to your proposition.
I must admit that I did not have the courage to read through all of the 21 pages concerning this topic, so these modifications might already have been given. The essential idea behind both your rule and my additions is that the game takes place in a somewhat realistical environment; in other words, it takes an equal amount of (realistical) time for each unit to move or attack and therefore each unit can only move or attack once per round.

Additionnal set of rules:

Rule 1: when you attack from a Country A to a Country B, you can choose the number of units that will engage from Country A. These selected units can not be used a second time during the same round. However, you can use whatever other units are left in Country A to possibly attack Country C. For example, if Country A has 10 (+1 stationary) units, you can use 6 units to attack Country B and then use the remaining 4 units to attack Country C within the same round.
This way you can still attack multiple countries with a big army stationed in a single country, as long as there are multiple adjacent countries.

Rule 2: when you commit for example 6 units in Country A for an attack against Country B, the survivors of those 6 units are obliged to fortify/move into Country B.
This will force players to think wisely on how many units to commit on each attack.

Rule 3: units which have attacked a country and have inevitably been fortified/moved there obviously can not be fortified/moved elsewhere within the same round.

[n00blet]

First and foremost, I would like to say that I was just about to make the exact same proposition to the game. In fact, I just bought this game and was bewildered that it did not already contain this option.
Whenever me and my friends play Risk, we always use this rule. There are several obvious gameplay reasons for this, but I am pretty sure they have all already been discussed here.

Nevertheless, I would like to add a set of rules to the suggestion you presented. Me and my friends use them as well and they form a natural continuity to your proposition.
I must admit that I did not have the courage to read through all of the 21 pages concerning this topic, so these modifications might already have been given. The essential idea behind both your rule and my additions is that the game takes place in a somewhat realistical environment; in other words, it takes an equal amount of (realistical) time for each unit to move or attack and therefore each unit can only move or attack once per round.

Additionnal set of rules:

Rule 1: when you attack from a Country A to a Country B, you can choose the number of units that will engage from Country A. These selected units can not be used a second time during the same round. However, you can use whatever other units are left in Country A to possibly attack Country C. For example, if Country A has 10 (+1 stationary) units, you can use 6 units to attack Country B and then use the remaining 4 units to attack Country C within the same round.
This way you can still attack multiple countries with a big army stationed in a single country, as long as there are multiple adjacent countries.

Rule 2: when you commit for example 6 units in Country A for an attack against Country B, the survivors of those 6 units are obliged to fortify/move into Country B.
This will force players to think wisely on how many units to commit on each attack.

Rule 3: units which have attacked a country and have inevitably been fortified/moved there obviously can not be fortified/moved elsewhere within the same round.

Of course, if such restrictions could be easily explained (within the space of a few simple lines) and easily coded, it would be best. However, the problem is that adding tags to each individual army, or limiting the attacks so specifically would make both of those objectives near impossible...

[flatrick]

Of course, if such restrictions could be easily explained (within the space of a few simple lines) and easily coded, it would be best. However, the problem is that adding tags to each individual army, or limiting the attacks so specifically would make both of those objectives near impossible...

I do not see why you would think that? I mean "near impossible" is kind of extreme, don't you think? In my opinion it is really quite the opposite.

My explanations were not that lengthy at all and, in any case, they could surely be further condensed.

And, although I do not do coding, I can not fathom why it would be particularly hard to implement this into the game.

Also, I do not understand why tagging would be so difficult? I can come up with dozens of ideas how to resolve the problem : e.g. use a particular colour to those armies which you can not use anymore or put an X-mark next to the number of each used army.

[n00blet]

Of course, if such restrictions could be easily explained (within the space of a few simple lines) and easily coded, it would be best. However, the problem is that adding tags to each individual army, or limiting the attacks so specifically would make both of those objectives near impossible...

I do not see why you would think that? I mean "near impossible" is kind of extreme, don't you think? In my opinion it is really quite the opposite.

My explanations were not that lengthy at all and, in any case, they could surely be further condensed.

And, although I do not do coding, I can not fathom why it would be particularly hard to implement this into the game.

Also, I do not understand why tagging would be so difficult? I can come up with dozens of ideas how to resolve the problem : e.g. use a particular colour to those armies which you can not use anymore or put an X-mark next to the number of each used army.

I meant more as in adding a coded tag to the armies. Once you get up to 100s of armies per player, having a tag for every army would undoubtedly have adverse effects on the server

[flatrick]

I meant more as in adding a coded tag to the armies. Once you get up to 100s of armies per player, having a tag for every army would undoubtedly have adverse effects on the server

I am still not sure that I follow you, because I have a hard time figuring out why there would be an unbearable increase of work for the server.

If by "coded tag" you mean that the server has to keep trace of which armies a player has used or not during his round, I still do not see this as a problem. Of course, I might be completely wrong since I do not know crap about programming, but to me "coded tag" represents nothing more than the workload needed for the server to differenciate every player's army. In other words, when speaking strictly about the workload created by this "coded tag", the used armies of a player (which can not be moved anymore) are very much similar to an additional army.

Therefore, if the server can handle 2, 3...8, even 32 players I do not see why it could not handle 1 single additionnal army?