[GO] Connected Deployment

[DoomYoshi]

That's what I was saying. It only makes sense if the regions can be deployed anywhere.

[OliverFA]

That example doesn't address the point I am making. Round 1 in a Hive game. You have 45 territories. You have 21 different connected areas. Some have 2 troops, some have 1, some have 3 or 4. I have 13 troops to deploy. Where am I allowed to deploy them? Only in the areas with 3 or 4?

Sorry. I don't understand what you say with "some have 2 troops". In a Hive game all territories have 3 troops at the start. Each region would be able to deploy at least the minimum 3 troops, so you would split those 13 troops in groups of 3 across all your areas.

EDITED:

Unless you mean "territories" instead of troops. In that case it would be the same. In your example, none of those 21 areas are bigger than 11 territories, so they can only deploy the 3 minimum. The point is that you would be forced to divide your 13 troops between 5 areas, as opposed to normal settings where you would be able to deploy all 13 in a single point.

To support a deploy bigger than the standard 3, the area needs the resources for it, either by containing one or more region bonuses or by being so big that it can generate a territory bonus.

[greenoaks]

That example doesn't address the point I am making. Round 1 in a Hive game. You have 45 territories. You have 21 different connected areas. Some have 2 troops, some have 1, some have 3 or 4. I have 13 troops to deploy. Where am I allowed to deploy them? Only in the areas with 3 or 4?

Sorry. I don't understand what you say with "some have 2 troops". In a Hive game all territories have 3 troops at the start. Each region would be able to deploy at least the minimum 3 troops, so you would split those 13 troops in groups of 3 across all your areas.

EDITED:

Unless you mean "territories" instead of troops. In that case it would be the same. In your example, none of those 21 areas are bigger than 11 territories, so they can only deploy the 3 minimum. The point is that you would be forced to divide your 13 troops between 5 areas, as opposed to normal settings where you would be able to deploy all 13 in a single point.

To support a deploy bigger than the standard 3, the area needs the resources for it, either by containing one or more region bonuses or by being so big that it can generate a territory bonus.

i thought some more about this and changed my vote. this suggestion needs work as i don't think it will work as you describe.

if a tert that isn't part of a zone bonus can't have more than 3 deployed on it because the area needs the resources for it, how do you handle spoils?

[DoomYoshi]

I have escalating spoils of 100. I only have one territory. I throw away 97 troops and therefore the game. Sounds fun.

Yes, i did mean territories, my bad. So, in your pproposal, I can choose which of my regions to split the bonuses, as long as one particular connected group doesn`t exceed 3 troops?

[greenoaks]

I have escalating spoils of 100. I only have one territory. I throw away 97 troops and therefore the game. Sounds fun.

Yes, i did mean territories, my bad. So, in your pproposal, I can choose which of my regions to split the bonuses, as long as one particular connected group doesn`t exceed 3 troops?

i agree, not going to happen like that. this would be a decent compromise.

I. Deploying Your Troops
At the beginning of every turn you will collect a certain amount of troops. The number of troops you get is determined by this formula:

(regions ÷ 3, minimum of 3) + zone bonus + spoils bonus

Terminology:
"regions" are the total number of regions you occupy. these troops may be deployed anywhere.
"zone bonus" are bonus troops you get for occupying all of the regions that make up a zone. they may only be deployed on the relevant zone or a connected tert.
"spoils bonus" is the number of troops you get for playing a set of spoils. these may be deployed anywhere.

[OliverFA]

Spoils are not affected by the rule as they don't come from land. So you can place spoil armies anywhere.

We have 4 sources of armies.

Autodeploy: That is fully supported by the autodeploying territory. No change to current behaviour
Bonus Regions: Everybody seem to agree about that one. A BR inside a connected area raises the number of troops that can be deployed in that area.
Territory Troops: If an area has 11 or less territories, it's +3. If the area has 12 or more territories it's territories / 3. Those are the classic values but can change depending on maps.
Spoils: They are not affected by the connected rule and can be deployed anywhere.

[DoomYoshi]

So, in escalating games, when you do cash, how do we split up the deploy phase. Step 1: place territory troops step 2: place bonus regions troops step 3: place escalating,

or do we just calculate automatically the maxes and then grey out the deployment values in certain territories?

[OliverFA]

I think that we only need 2 sub phases. The territories+region bonus armies could be done at once. In that phase, when you clicked in a territory, the drop-down control would have the values up to the maximum of that area, and when an area could not accept more armies, it would grey out

[DoomYoshi]

ok, 2 does make sense. Otherwise, we could have the max number displayed on the screen and keep everything one phase.

[agentcom]

Interesting. I know you said you don't like this, but I think I'd prefer it if the territ count bonus were completely detached from this like the spoils bonus is. So, the restriction would only apply to troops generated from bonus zones (zone bonuses?). Also, I'm not sure why you need to allow the troops generated by bonuses to travel outside the bonus zones via chained territs. If the bonus is generated in Australia, what's the justification of having them spring up in Europe just because there is a chain of connected territs? I think you could make the case that you could ONLY deploy them inside the bonus (here Australia).

That's my first take anyway.

[greenoaks]

Interesting. I know you said you don't like this, but I think I'd prefer it if the territ count bonus were completely detached from this like the spoils bonus is. So, the restriction would only apply to troops generated from bonus zones (zone bonuses?). Also, I'm not sure why you need to allow the troops generated by bonuses to travel outside the bonus zones via chained territs. If the bonus is generated in Australia, what's the justification of having them spring up in Europe just because there is a chain of connected territs? I think you could make the case that you could ONLY deploy them inside the bonus (here Australia).

That's my first take anyway.

that's a fair point. i think the idea was to encourage supply lines like in real life. breaking a supply line becomes a valid strategy

btw i used the term zone bonus because that's the terminology in the Instructions

[blakebowling]

This sounds really cool. It will require a bit more calculation as far as bonuses go, but I do like it.

[OliverFA]

Interesting. I know you said you don't like this, but I think I'd prefer it if the territ count bonus were completely detached from this like the spoils bonus is. So, the restriction would only apply to troops generated from bonus zones (zone bonuses?). Also, I'm not sure why you need to allow the troops generated by bonuses to travel outside the bonus zones via chained territs. If the bonus is generated in Australia, what's the justification of having them spring up in Europe just because there is a chain of connected territs? I think you could make the case that you could ONLY deploy them inside the bonus (here Australia).

That's my first take anyway.

I prefer the territory bonus to stay in the area it was created because otherwise we end in the situation this setting is trying to avoid, and this situation is small bits of land being able to deploy armies far greater than what that land can afford.

About the zone bonuses staying in the area they were generated, that's exactly what auto deploy reinforcements do. In Feudal War for example, if you have two connected kingdoms, the castle bonus would stay in each castle and the kingdom bonus could be deploy in any of both kingdoms as long as they were connected.

Plus: allowing zone bonuses to be deployed on connected territories makes for an extra layer of strategy, where splitting the enemy territory in zones (and joining your own zones) becomes important and significative

[OliverFA]

This sounds really cool. It will require a bit more calculation as far as bonuses go, but I do like it.

Yes, it would require a decent amount of calculations but the concept stays simple regardless of how complicated calculations are. The concept is "what gets produced in a connected area gets deployed in that connected area."

Thanks for the support

[OliverFA]

Well the poll seems to be positive, despite the small numbers. 6 yes, 3 yes but needing further development and 3 no.

[SuicidalSnowman]

I really enjoyed the test games we played, but it currently requires a cumbersome amount of calculations!

There are some strategic choices to be made, and I like that this connects your choices to the map/bonuses.

[koontz1973]

If I am reading the OP correctly, something like this may come soon with the planned xml updates. The conditional auto deploys could be used for the majority of a bonus leaving limited troops to deploy elsewhere. So on world2.1, hold USA would give a 2 auto deploy and 1 normal deploy.

But this would be a sod with adjacent reinforcements.

[SuicidalSnowman]

But this would be a sod with adjacent reinforcements.

While not for everyone, I think a game of Trench, Connected Deployment, and Adjacent Reinforcements would be awesome. Might take forever, but it would really make it important to hold key territories, to defend your supply lines, and would actually give a great chance to make a come from behind win by breaking up a bonus with a bold move.

[OliverFA]

But this would be a sod with adjacent reinforcements.

While not for everyone, I think a game of Trench, Connected Deployment, and Adjacent Reinforcements would be awesome. Might take forever, but it would really make it important to hold key territories, to defend your supply lines, and would actually give a great chance to make a come from behind win by breaking up a bonus with a bold move.

IMO it should be "unlimited adjacent reinforcements" as per a suggestion that is out there somewhere. Just one adjacent reinforcement does not make sense, but being able to reinforce all your troops but just one territory per turn would make a lot of sense and completely fit this "Realism setup".

If I have to choose between the existing choices for reinforcements, I go for chained, as despite not being perfect is a lot better than adjacent reinforcements.

[OliverFA]

If I am reading the OP correctly, something like this may come soon with the planned xml updates. The conditional auto deploys could be used for the majority of a bonus leaving limited troops to deploy elsewhere. So on world2.1, hold USA would give a 2 auto deploy and 1 normal deploy.

But this would be a sod with adjacent reinforcements.

Yeah, but it would require to code the map while if it's introduced as a setting it adds a lot more versatility, and the most important, adds a realistic option. Is not like a-thing-that-would-be-cool-to-do, it's a setting that resembles more reality.

About the calculations, if you have to implement the setting manually you have to do a lot of calculations, but if it's done automatically the concept becomes a lot simpler and easier. Simply

Summarizing:
The armies that get generated in a zone can only be deployed at that zone or at a zone that is connected to it.

[koontz1973]

If I am reading the OP correctly, something like this may come soon with the planned xml updates. The conditional auto deploys could be used for the majority of a bonus leaving limited troops to deploy elsewhere. So on world2.1, hold USA would give a 2 auto deploy and 1 normal deploy.

But this would be a sod with adjacent reinforcements.

Yeah, but it would require to code the map while if it's introduced as a setting it adds a lot more versatility, and the most important, adds a realistic option. Is not like a-thing-that-would-be-cool-to-do, it's a setting that resembles more reality.

About the calculations, if you have to implement the setting manually you have to do a lot of calculations, but if it's done automatically the concept becomes a lot simpler and easier. Simply

Summarizing:
The armies that get generated in a zone can only be deployed at that zone or at a zone that is connected to it.

I get that, but look how long it took for trench to come about. If we get the xml sooner, then I am going to use this idea on a large map. While I may not like the idea (did not like trench but that is just me) it might get used by the players that like the long realistic game. The one problem though that would make a mockery of this is the new paratroop reinforcements.

[Dukasaur]

I thought this was not a good fit for CC at first, but I'm starting to like it.

With more XML options for the mapmakers, there may come a time when we are able to have truly sophisticated battle scenes, and I think a more sophisticated set of gameplay options should go with it. A "Realism Package" as I think Oliver called it.

[OliverFA]

Thanks Dukasaur.

A "Realism Package" would include unlimited adjacent reinforcements (if implemented, and chained reinforcements auntil then), connected deployment, no spoils or flat rate spoils and trench. It would closely resemble a "real" battlefield.