Moderator: Community Team
gopher897 wrote:but if people can't forfit they tend to just stop playing. and gthe game is delayed 15 min. before they get dropped. All I'm saying is that there should be a way for people to bow out in a more respectfull manner to the remaining players. As far as the cards go.. if they forfit thier armies become nutral and whom ever kills all the nutral could get the cards.
Thats just pointless. The point of adjecent forts is so you to add some stratgy to where and when to attack/fortPhoenixSF wrote:I should clarify: i was thinking armies that had been 'fortified' would somehow be locked until next turn.Fire Mario wrote:What is the point of Unlimited Adjacent Fortification? It is basically the same as unlimited fortification except it takes longer to move the troops.
Actually, i would prefer an option to have up to say six adjacent fortifications. Six because even in large maps (with the possible exception of World 2.1) this would enable you move most of your dormant/useless armies to the front line but you would still need to be strategic about which ones.
Your thoughts?
You cant really have a middle ground for all maps. if you had 6 forts for doodle earth and 6 for world 2.1. in doodle earth thats bassicly unlimited and world 2.1 thats bassicly just one fort.PhoenixSF wrote:Not at all. It provides for a middle ground between flexibility and the need for strategy.soundout9 wrote:Thats just pointless. The point of adjecent forts is so you to add some stratgy to where and when to attack/fort
I can see i should have been more specific in my initial clarification. I was thinking that the game option would be in the form of a drop down box or similar which allowed the host to choose the number of adjacent fortifications allowed (up to say 6). Logically, smaller maps would need less to meet the middle ground as you say.soundout9 wrote:You cant really have a middle ground for all maps. if you had 6 forts for doodle earth and 6 for world 2.1. in doodle earth thats bassicly unlimited and world 2.1 thats bassicly just one fort.PhoenixSF wrote:Not at all. It provides for a middle ground between flexibility and the need for strategy.
When it all comes down to is lack has said no and he is not going to change his desiscion because either he does not think it is in the best interest of the site or there is too much coding to do or just not very popular with the general public