New "Restricted Reinforcement" Option

[Charles_IV]

Concise description:

• A new kind of movement/reinforcement
  by Charles_IV
  
  I have an idea for movement and reinforcement that I'm told will require a game program tweak. I checked this with lackattack who responded with this comment:
  
  

  Sounds interesting, Charles. You should post this suggestion in the Suggestions and Bug Reports forum for peer review

  
  
  Even in games with "adjacent" reinforcement where you can only move forces from one country to one adjacent country at the end of your turn, during the attack phase you can nonetheless move attacking forces from any number of countries to and through as many countries as they can defeat and occupy. This results in the possibility of, say, twelve country sweeps in a game that otherwise prohibits movements greater than one country.
  
  As an option, I propose that all territories in a game should have what I will call "TO" flags, boolean variables that are always OFF when a players turn begins. Whenever a force or forces move into a country for any reason (either invasion or maneuver), the "TO" flag is turned ON. No force may be moved from a country whose "TO" flag is ON. At the end of each players turn, all "TO" flags are reset to the OFF position.
  
  I don't know the particulars of the programming language for movements, but I think this would be functional with only a little modification. And I believe it can be introduced as a reinforcement option (although it would also affect attacks). I would recommend calling it "Restricted Reinforcement." It would allow reinforcement from any number of countries, but only for a distance of one country (only adjacent reinforcement).
  
  This is a much more realistic movement, except that forces already within a world into which additional forces are moved will also be locked in place by the "TO" flag although they haven't moved. It is possible to correct this, but I also see it as an interesting tactical condition that requires the player to move out the present forces before the new forces are moved in. I like that challenge.
  
  Charles_IV

Specifics:

• If you invade a territory, you will not be able to move forces out of that territory for the remainder of your turn. If you reinforce a territory, you will not be able to move forces out of that territory for the remainder of your turn. All movement will be limited to adjacency, for attacks, reinforcements, fortification, etc. Newly added forces at the beginning of a turn are not considered to have moved and will not trigger the movement limitation from the territory in which they are placed. For reinforcement as for attacks, you can move forces from any and all territories where the "TO" flag remains off (e.g., where no forces have entered during your turn). Thus, while reinforcement can only be made to an adjacent territory, it may be made from any number of unrestricted territories to adjacent territories. This kind of movement is much more realistic than some of the other options, but it should require little actual program modification to permit the option.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• As I just said, it will provide a movement option that is probably more realistic than other permitted options.
• It adds a tactical factor. If you want to move forces out of a territory, you must be sure to do so before you move other forces into the territory.

I would very much appreciate your consideration and comments about this movement option. Bear in mind that it is presented as an option that can be used or not in any individual game as a matter of choice.

[Ditocoaf]

Hell yeah, I was considering suggesting the exact same thing...

With one exception: I think this should only apply during the reinforcement phase. It'd be much easier to explain, and put on the option page, if it was just another option for reinforcements. This wouldn't damage the realism of your suggestion too much, and it would maintain the separation of the attack and reinforce phases. which I believe is important.

But yeah... the concept, "once you reinforce to a territory, you cannot reinforce from it" for each round, is amazingly concise and perfect. I vote YES.

(EDIT: holy shit... this was the name I was considering if I were ever to suggest this... get out of my head!)

[Charles_IV]

Thanks for the support, Ditocoaf, but the idea is to eliminate the massive attack sweep, especially in spoils games where a player can clean a map on a single sweep. This is a fun tactic and one that is central to play in such games, often supplanting any real effort to gain and hold significant territory. I do not condemn the massive attack sweep; I only find it highly unrealistic from any strategic point of view.

The idea of my proposal however is to provide an option that eliminates such sweeps when chosen by the players of a game. It will have the effect of allowing attacks and reinforcements only for a distance of one adjacent territory, while allowing any number of those even from a single territory. Advancement of forces will be gradual and must be distributed (deployed) cautiously and strategically to both attack and defend effectively. This creates an entirely different strategic challenge that players should appreciate, and it restricts movement of forces to a realistic speed limit.

I therefore think it essential that the restriction apply to both attack and reinforcement.

Charles_IV

[Ditocoaf]

Thanks for the support, Ditocoaf, but the idea is to eliminate the massive attack sweep, especially in spoils games where a player can clean a map on a single sweep. This is a fun tactic and one that is central to play in such games, often supplanting any real effort to gain and hold significant territory. I do not condemn the massive attack sweep; I only find it highly unrealistic from any strategic point of view.

The idea of my proposal however is to provide an option that eliminates such sweeps when chosen by the players of a game. It will have the effect of allowing attacks and reinforcements only for a distance of one adjacent territory, while allowing any number of those even from a single territory. Advancement of forces will be gradual and must be distributed (deployed) cautiously and strategically to both attack and defend effectively. This creates an entirely different strategic challenge that players should appreciate, and it restricts movement of forces to a realistic speed limit.

I therefore think it essential that the restriction apply to both attack and reinforcement.

Charles_IV

Well, there is already an idea to create an attack option that would eliminate massive attack sweeps, and it works largely the same way. You've already commented in the "adjacent attacks" thread, and I think the two options would work very well together. But I think it would be nice to keep them separate; again to preserve the distinction between the attack and reinforcement phases, and also to keep the options as simple as possible. Playing with the "adjacent attacks" and reinforcement-phase-only "restricted reinforcement" options would create exactly the effect you describe. AA already has a lot of support built up, and I doubt that they'd implement two suggestions with the same effect.

[Charles_IV]

Ditocoaf, I think one consideration is which plan is easier to program. Only the game programmers can tell us that.

Another consideration that I like is that "restricted reinforcement" would actually limit the range of both, attacks and reinforcements, to one territory's distance while allowing an indefinite number of such attacks and reinforcements from territories that were not flagged to stop movement from them. The game phases reserved for attack and reinforcement remain distinct. Only motion in the game is restricted by this option.

C4

[n00blet]

Ditocoaf, I think one consideration is which plan is easier to program. Only the game programmers can tell us that.

Another consideration that I like is that "restricted reinforcement" would actually limit the range of both, attacks and reinforcements, to one territory's distance while allowing an indefinite number of such attacks and reinforcements from territories that were not flagged to stop movement from them. The game phases reserved for attack and reinforcement remain distinct. Only motion in the game is restricted by this option.

C4

Hmm....I agree with Dito. Although the concept is not specific to the reinforcement or adjacent phase, but moreover a general fix to the movement system, it would have an effect on both attacks and reinforcements. I think people would prefer not to have those two phases affected by one option. I would support this idea if it were restricted only to the reinforcement phase, because then people could mix and match this with adjacent attacks (if either of these gets passed).
Although, you brought up a valid point; it would be better to implement whichever would be more efficient for the programmers.

[Charles_IV]

The point however, n00blet, is that in the real world motion, movement, maneuver IS restricted by the limitations of the force, not only in reinforcement but also in attack/invasion. "Adjacent reinforcement" already allows players to limit reinforcement to one force movement of one territory distance. But then, players on attack in such games can sweep across ten or twenty territories during a massive attack. Is that real?

I assume that our proposals are identical with respect to the effect on the attack phase. That is: Whenever a territory is invaded by an attacker, no further movement from that territory is possible during that players active turn. (I think it would be possible to attack from the territory, but its forces could not move to occupy another territory, so it could only wipe out enemy forces and replace them with a neutral force as with bombardment. Or do you think that all further attack from the invaded territory should be prohibited?)

Your proposal does not affect reinforcement, and as you say there are other available options to restrict such movement as desired. But I have two problems there. One is that unlimited movement of reinforcements is not realistic either. In fact, it eliminates one of the general's most important tactical considerations of where to deploy reinforcements so they can be moved where they are needed when they are needed. "Chained reinforcement" allows movement over any distance just like "unlimited reinforcement" but it limits it to a single movement of forces from A to B. This leads me to problem two. It is not realistic to limit reinforcement to a single action like "adjacent" and "chained" reinforcements do. What are the other available forces supposed to be encumbered by that they cannot also be moved to a place of greater need?

Reinforcement should be limited in range to about the same distance as attack, but the number of reinforcement actions should not be limited. However, without control, a player wanting to move a long distance like A -> Z can move A -> B, B -> C, C -> D, ...Y -> Z (one space at a time). There must be some control to avoid this cheat. The flagging method I have suggested is one such method. Whenever, in the above example, the player moves A -> B, the territory B is flagged and no further movement from B is permitted during the player's active turn.

An alternative to flagging territories into which forces are moved, by invasion or reinforcement, is to limit the movement of forces them selves. For example every force can have a counter allowing it to move across say six(6) territories each turn. And whenever the force participates in an attack, its counter can be depleted of further moves (because attacks take time). I do not know if this option is as programmable as the flagged territory option.

Mind you, massive sweeps and unlimited reinforcements are fair and fun if everyone plays by the same rules and knows it in advance. The restriction of movement must be only one option for playing the game. It would present different strategic challenges.

[Nikolai]

I'm gonna go with "no" on the restriction of movement in any way during the attack phase. Why? That'd change the balance of the game vastly in favor of the guy on top. It frees up way too many armies from defense. The game would be a long, slow slaughter of anyone who didn't get a country right quick, or get very lucky on cards... Nah. No thanks.

[Ditocoaf]

I assume that our proposals are identical with respect to the effect on the attack phase. That is: Whenever a territory is invaded by an attacker, no further movement from that territory is possible during that players active turn. (I think it would be possible to attack from the territory, but its forces could not move to occupy another territory, so it could only wipe out enemy forces and replace them with a neutral force as with bombardment. Or do you think that all further attack from the invaded territory should be prohibited?)

Adjacent Attacks prohibits any attacks from a newly invaded territory. Very similar to what yours does to the attack phase.

Your proposal does not affect reinforcement,

Which is why I think that our AA would work together very well with your RR, if RR was only in the reinforcement phase. Together, they would have the effect you desire. But people should also have the option to choose to only limit the attack phase, while still choosing some other reinforcement option. Or, they should be able to choose to make only the reinforcement phase realistic, while still using normal attacks. By separating the ideas out like this, it gives people more options, and keeps the options for the two phases distinct.

But I have two problems there. One is that unlimited movement of reinforcements is not realistic either. In fact, it eliminates one of the general's most important tactical considerations of where to deploy reinforcements so they can be moved where they are needed when they are needed. "Chained reinforcement" allows movement over any distance just like "unlimited reinforcement" but it limits it to a single movement of forces from A to B. This leads me to problem two. It is not realistic to limit reinforcement to a single action like "adjacent" and "chained" reinforcements do. What are the other available forces supposed to be encumbered by that they cannot also be moved to a place of greater need?

I agree that the current reinforcement options are all realistic. Which is why I support using your idea as an alternative to chained, adjacent, and unlimited... which only effect the reinforcement part of a turn.

N00blet and I like your idea as an option... but we think it should be divided up into an attack phase option, and a reinforcement phase option. The attack phase part would be almost identical to AA, but the reinforcement phase part would be a really good option, that would work well with AA.

[n00blet]

N00blet and I like your idea as an option... but we think it should be divided up into an attack phase option, and a reinforcement phase option. The attack phase part would be almost identical to AA, but the reinforcement phase part would be a really good option, that would work well with AA.

I agree. I understand completely that you are interested in the concept as a whole being passed, but i think that realistically on CC, it has a far better chance of being passed if it was offered as a new method of reinforcement only. Besides, you could still play it the way you envision with both RR and AA enabled

[yeti_c]

The one thing I dislike about this idea - is that you cannot - attack/take and retreat in one turn.

Tehnically this is less important at CC - instead of Risk - due to the dice limits not being in place. (i.e. you can advance 1 even if you roll 3)...

Also - I think you need to garner some opinions of the Freestyle crowd - as they have completely different ideas about this.

Also - I think that your plan falls down somewhat if you (say) attack one area from another and move 2 troops in - but the stack next to them with a further 20 - can't then reinforce that territory as well - which should be perfectly possible.

I think the plan falls down with regards to your modelling - you are basing the problem on the territories - whereas perhaps it should be based on the individual armies. - i.e. each army has a "used" flag and they can only be used once...

Note - this would make attacking slightly more interesting - as 1 troop could attack once - so if you have a 10 stack vs a 10 stack... you would only be able to roll 3 times (with 3 dice) and take out a maximum of 6 armies... (of course your 3rd army - whilst increasing your odds - is reducing your efficiency - so attacking with 2 dice each time would allow the removal of 10 armies maximum - but you're more likely to lose more) That would change the game in a massive amount... but I guess my ramblings have moved onto a new suggestion.

C.

[Charles_IV]

I'm gonna go with "no" on the restriction of movement in any way during the attack phase. Why? That'd change the balance of the game vastly in favor of the guy on top. It frees up way too many armies from defense. The game would be a long, slow slaughter of anyone who didn't get a country right quick, or get very lucky on cards... Nah. No thanks.

That evaluation is wrong Nikolai. It will require that every force be busy either assaulting a border or defending one. Concentration of force to the extreme I see in assault sweeps would be suicidal with restricted reinforcement. And it will certainly be no easier to hold a country or continent than before. It will only involve a different kind of tactics based upon the realities intrinsic to this movement option. I think it will require careful and well-planned invasions that will provide a most intriguing strategic option. Give it a chance. You'll be pleasantly surprised. I've used this limitation when playing Risk (T), and it made for a very interesting version of play.

C4

[Charles_IV]

I agree that the current reinforcement options are all realistic. Which is why I support using your idea as an alternative to chained, adjacent, and unlimited... which only effect the reinforcement part of a turn.

N00blet and I like your idea as an option... but we think it should be divided up into an attack phase option, and a reinforcement phase option. The attack phase part would be almost identical to AA, but the reinforcement phase part would be a really good option, that would work well with AA.

I did not say the reinforcement options are realistic, I said they are unrealistic. Chained and unlimited reinforcement allow reinforcement across great distances which is as unreaslistic as long-distance attacks (sweeps). Chained and adjacent reinforcements are unrealistic because they allow only one reinforcement per turn. Using restricted reinforcement ONLY for the reinforcement phase could resolve the latter problem, but would otherwise be of little consequence since most reinforcements to a territory are not thereafter followed by a further reinforcement from the same territory.

In conclusion, I believe that the limitations to all motion from the use of "TO" flag programming places realistic limitations that should be consistent in all phases of the game where forces are moved from one territory to another. The alternative of restricting one phase of the game while leaving another phase uncontrolled and unrealistic is not a reasonable alternative.

C4

[Charles_IV]

I think that your plan falls down somewhat if you (say) attack one area from another and move 2 troops in - but the stack next to them with a further 20 - can't then reinforce that territory as well - which should be perfectly possible.

I think the plan falls down with regards to your modelling - you are basing the problem on the territories - whereas perhaps it should be based on the individual armies. - i.e. each army has a "used" flag and they can only be used once...

C.

yeti_c, unless that stack of 20 next door has just moved there this turn, they are free to reinforce the 2 troops next door if you want them to. There is no restriction about moving forces into a territory whose "TO" flag is on; you just can't move forces out of such a territory.

Regarding the flagged army versus flagged territory option, you're probably right. But as a programmer, I believe it would be more difficult to program. For one thing, when do you turn the flag on? Not when they attack (not after a single dice roll), I'd say, but only when a dice roll results in the elimination of forces from a targeted territory, just before the first force is moved into the defeated territory. None of the attacking forces could attack any more. But suppose that the territory and its forces are adjacent to two or more enemy territories. After successfully eliminating one enemy territory, they have been disabled and cannot attack the other enemies although no movement would be required. There may be a solution to this, but the flagged territory option allows a force to attack any and all territories adjacent to it. It even allows the forces to move into a conquered territory and attack again from there. However, since they can move no further, they could not advance into another defeated territory and could only leave it annihilated and occupied by a neutral force. I actually think it eliminates the need to separate attack and reinforcement phases, since the forces in every territory can move only one territory per turn and can attack before and/or after moving, although invasion/occupation after movement is not possible.

Altogether, the flagged territory restricted movement option is very intriguing and (I think) quite simple to program as an available option for any game.

C4

[Ditocoaf]

I agree that the current reinforcement options are all realistic. Which is why I support using your idea as an alternative to chained, adjacent, and unlimited... which only effect the reinforcement part of a turn.

N00blet and I like your idea as an option... but we think it should be divided up into an attack phase option, and a reinforcement phase option. The attack phase part would be almost identical to AA, but the reinforcement phase part would be a really good option, that would work well with AA.

I did not say the reinforcement options are realistic, I said they are unrealistic. Chained and unlimited reinforcement allow reinforcement across great distances which is as unreaslistic as long-distance attacks (sweeps). Chained and adjacent reinforcements are unrealistic because they allow only one reinforcement per turn. Using restricted reinforcement ONLY for the reinforcement phase could resolve the latter problem, but would otherwise be of little consequence since most reinforcements to a territory are not thereafter followed by a further reinforcement from the same territory.

In conclusion, I believe that the limitations to all motion from the use of "TO" flag programming places realistic limitations that should be consistent in all phases of the game where forces are moved from one territory to another. The alternative of restricting one phase of the game while leaving another phase uncontrolled and unrealistic is not a reasonable alternative.

C4

Very sorry, I meant to say that I thought the current options are unrealistic... in that I agree with you. re-read the rest of my post in that light; again sorry for the miscommunication.

[Charles_IV]

Ditocoaf, I kind of figured the "realistic" thing was just a typo from our previous discussions. I just responded to the typo because I had to. Thanks for clarifying that. C4

[FabledIntegral]

Thanks for the support, Ditocoaf, but the idea is to eliminate the massive attack sweep, especially in spoils games where a player can clean a map on a single sweep. This is a fun tactic and one that is central to play in such games, often supplanting any real effort to gain and hold significant territory. I do not condemn the massive attack sweep; I only find it highly unrealistic from any strategic point of view.

The idea of my proposal however is to provide an option that eliminates such sweeps when chosen by the players of a game. It will have the effect of allowing attacks and reinforcements only for a distance of one adjacent territory, while allowing any number of those even from a single territory. Advancement of forces will be gradual and must be distributed (deployed) cautiously and strategically to both attack and defend effectively. This creates an entirely different strategic challenge that players should appreciate, and it restricts movement of forces to a realistic speed limit.

I therefore think it essential that the restriction apply to both attack and reinforcement.

Charles_IV

lmao that's the only type of strategy that I find generally exists on this site with multiple people. It involves blocking other people from going for that sweep, positioning yourself so you aren't a target, positioning yourself so you can kill others, etc.

Bonuses just cause stalemates, unless they are on large maps like World 2.1 where I find it's not occuring quite as much as there are more bonuses to go back and forth on.

[yeti_c]

I think that your plan falls down somewhat if you (say) attack one area from another and move 2 troops in - but the stack next to them with a further 20 - can't then reinforce that territory as well - which should be perfectly possible.

yeti_c, unless that stack of 20 next door has just moved there this turn, they are free to reinforce the 2 troops next door if you want them to. There is no restriction about moving forces into a territory whose "TO" flag is on; you just can't move forces out of such a territory.

OK - then I misread your suggestion slightly... perhaps something is slightly unclear about this.

C.

[Nikolai]

I'm gonna go with "no" on the restriction of movement in any way during the attack phase. Why? That'd change the balance of the game vastly in favor of the guy on top. It frees up way too many armies from defense. The game would be a long, slow slaughter of anyone who didn't get a country right quick, or get very lucky on cards... Nah. No thanks.

That evaluation is wrong Nikolai. It will require that every force be busy either assaulting a border or defending one. Concentration of force to the extreme I see in assault sweeps would be suicidal with restricted reinforcement. And it will certainly be no easier to hold a country or continent than before. It will only involve a different kind of tactics based upon the realities intrinsic to this movement option. I think it will require careful and well-planned invasions that will provide a most intriguing strategic option. Give it a chance. You'll be pleasantly surprised. I've used this limitation when playing Risk (T), and it made for a very interesting version of play.

C4

What I'm imagining is a game on a map like Iceland or the Pac-man map, or any number of other fairly linear maps. One player grabs a small early continent or bonus. All he has to do to ensure complete safety for it is always own the next territory out. Doesn't even need defense. Meanwhile, on more traditional maps at least, all he has to do to ensure that nobody is able to successfully take any other bonuses is aquire two linear territories in each one. Bam - nobody can get a bonus, because they can't attack through any territory, and nobody can break his bonus. And he doesn't need any defense... all he has to do is attack any larger concentrations that are near any of his key points to keep the size down to a level where he can handle any attacking force with one drop's worth of troops, and he's got the game locked up. The rest is just rolling dice. I can tell you that with this strategic variant on the classic RISK board, if you can get SA, you win. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Just my perspective, but this seems to have some serious flaws.

[Charles_IV]

I'm really having trouble trying to visualize the problem you're suggesting, Nikolai, although I think you're trying to help with this. I realize that restricted movement might not work well on *all* maps and that's why it's offered as an optional choice for games. You need not ever use the option, but if you do you would use it for a game map where it has shown itself useful and interesting. I'm sure you don't mind it being an available option as long as you don't have to play in any game where it has been selected as the reinforcement option.

But as to your concerns about restricted movement on a more normal map, I can't see the problem you suggest. I've played with these rules on a standard RISK(T) map and have found it entirely functional. You have to play with a recognition of the new challenges presented and build your forces accordingly, but I've never had any insurmountable problems gaining a bonus (continent) or taking one that was held...except the same easy to hold continents we have with regular rules. Just because you can't take two territories in a turn doesn't mean you can't take them over two turns. (And actually you can invade one territory and neutralize the next in the same turn!) In the restricted movement mode, battle lines are formed and advanced to and fro until one side eventually claims the "field" by virtue of carefully massing troops against the weakest point of their adversary's line. Flanking becomes useful. Sweeping out with a massive force without regard for lines of communication simply does not work in this mode.

C4

[steak]

yeah i agree with Ditocoaf and NOOblet. You can't go all or nothing with this idea because different people enjoy different options. AA could be an 'attack option' (I probably wouldn't use it much I kinda like the sweep to victory, regardless of its realism or otherwise) and RR could be a reinforcement option (I would definitely use it- I would enjoy the step-by-step movement of troops to the battle front, especially where autodeploy territories are present in the map type.)

So I would be one player who would start plenty of games with RR if the options were separate, but package them together, and I wouldn't want it.