Moderator: Community Team
Just to clarify. This suggestion is not meant to replace the current 1 v 1 setting. It would be another setting entirely.PLAYER57832 wrote:I like 2 player games the way they are, and don't agree with the complaints ... or rather, consider them part of why I LIKE 1v1.
That said, this would give an added dimension and could be a lot of fun.
max is gr8 wrote:What about a game where your opponent is real doubles yet you are 1 player acting as two armies.
Mr_Adams wrote:so you could have something like 4 players with 2 armies each, right?
superkarn wrote:max is gr8 wrote:What about a game where your opponent is real doubles yet you are 1 player acting as two armies.Mr_Adams wrote:so you could have something like 4 players with 2 armies each, right?
Concept wise, both are possible. But they largely depend on how this is implemented. But from the look of it, this suggestion is being ignored
AndyDufresne wrote:There's a lot of reading, sometimes not a lot of posting. We're working on making this forum a little more stream lined.
you will have to go back aways but I made suggestions that would give a thorough breakdown of how cards would/could be used if this were implemented.Mr_Adams wrote:how would this work with cards? would you be able to eliminate one of your armies for cards, or would both armies share cards?
Think of it like world war 2 multiple armies under different 1 banner teaming up against an opposing team of armies generally they all how centralized leadership with the axis forces it was Hitler with the Allied forces it bounced between Churchill and whomever was in charge at the time in the US...zimmah wrote:i think i like regular team games more, but it's still not a bad idea.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users