Allow fortification of neutral territories

[CreepyUncleAndy]

You can fortify friendly armies in team games; you should also be allowed to fortify neutral (grey) territories. Nothing like having a client buffer state or waging a war by proxy.

[sully800]

Hmmm, that's actually a decent idea. I don't think it would be used very often at all but it should be a possibility I think.

[Caleb the Cruel]

Eh, maybe. I guess it could be made an option.

[yeti_c]

I concur!

C.

[Aegnor]

That's an interesting idea. However, it would suck if you mistook a neutral territory name with one of your own. (like iReland and iCeland).

[s.xkitten]

i like that idea...would make for a different kind of game play

[AndyDufresne]

I don't see much point to it, as an option. Maybe if available during normal gameplay, but as an option, NO.


--Andy

[RobinJ]

It's definitely an interesting idea though...

[nyg5680]

its a pretty good idea

[yeti_c]

I don't see much point to it, as an option. Maybe if available during normal gameplay, but as an option, NO.


--Andy

Boo - hiss!!

C.

[Dr. Jim]

Solution would be to attack it (it only has 3 armies anyway, unless the remains of a deadbeat) and use it not only to gain the continent bonus but so that you can fortify it as much as you would like.

[boberz]

i like the ide but think new things like this should be an option so then people can choose what they would like to play ratyher tha have unifirmity.

[Bad Speler]

I don't see much point to it, as an option. Maybe if available during normal gameplay, but as an option, NO.

I agree with Andy on this point, neutral fortications would seem unnecessary as an option, it would just cause an annoyance to have to have that displayed on the join game page.

I also think that it shouldnt be implemented as regular gameplay, as this would just cause complete confusion and also cause a bunch of newbs to start posting in the bug reports forum about this.

[CreepyUncleAndy]

People get confused and accidentally deploy troops to territories owned by team-mates anyways. You just have to be careful what you click on (and, remember, the "do-it" button is totally separate from the selection menus). At least with neutral territories, you don't have to worry about being attacked by them.

Oh, and as a corollary, perhaps neutral territories could receive +2 bonus armies if they are listed on cards you trade in, just like your own territories (I kinda brought something like that up earlier).

So, please implement this idea, not as an option, but as a standard game feature.

[Warcraft3rocks2]

I don't see much point to it, as an option. Maybe if available during normal gameplay, but as an option, NO.

I agree with Andy on this point, neutral fortications would seem unnecessary as an option, it would just cause an annoyance to have to have that displayed on the join game page.

I also think that it shouldnt be implemented as regular gameplay, as this would just cause complete confusion and also cause a bunch of newbs to start posting in the bug reports forum about this.

same

[joeyjordison]

i reckon it would b a gd idea. say u r in siam with a 7 and indonesia is a neutral country. ur oponents is about to take oz bonus next turn. instead of attacking the neutral country to block the final piece of the cont and therefore running the chance of losing several armies and not doing anything, why not just fort the grey? sounds gd to me. this would work particularly well in games with a 1v1 ratio eg 3 player game with 1 person out (especially if they deadbeated), trips, or 4p doubles.

[Wisse]

dam than you forfit accendinetely 500 armys to that country and want that country then you have to kill 500 amrys, noway i disagree

[CreepyUncleAndy]

dam than you forfit accendinetely 500 armys to that country and want that country then you have to kill 500 amrys, noway i disagree

Well, then, you'd just better be extra careful "forfeiting" those 500 armys. -- How the heck would you get so many, anyways; you'd have to be multiplaying not to get wiped out by the guy who trades in for 400, or 300, or 200.... Blaming a loss on an accident smacks of bad play (although I admit, I've done it before).

i reckon it would b a gd idea. say u r in siam with a 7 and indonesia is a neutral country. ur oponents is about to take oz bonus next turn. instead of attacking the neutral country to block the final piece of the cont and therefore running the chance of losing several armies and not doing anything, why not just fort the grey? sounds gd to me. this would work particularly well in games with a 1v1 ratio eg 3 player game with 1 person out (especially if they deadbeated), trips, or 4p doubles.

You see, now this is the kind of strategic deployment to a neutral territory that I'm thinking about! Also, how about you're playing World 2.0, and you own Australia, but the Australian Claim on Antarctica is owned by neutral....and the rest of Antarctica is crawling with hostiles, but you've got bigger fish to fry in Asia -- just drop some extra armies on the Australian Claim, and BAM, you've got a nice wall there. Or, you own Western Europe, your team-mate owns Scandinavia, and Moskva is neutral -- you could BOTH keep placing one or two armies each turn into Moskva to build a nice wall against threats from Turkey, Iran, Kazakhstan and Komi.

Oh, oh....or....say Blue ownz0rs Europe, but Red's got Asia on lock-down....but Moskva is neutral (World 2.0). Each turn, Blue would place armie(s) on Moskva to keep building a wall against Red, while Red does the same. Imagine -- a neutral territory continuously fortified by the players on either side -- the ultimate Conquer Club wall/buffer. Wow, these 24oz talls Buds really go to your head....

I know is great idea! Please to be implementing her now for great success!

[jammyjames]

Concise description:

• Create a setting that allows players to deploy on neutral armies

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• add's more strategy to the game, completely alters some maps strategies
• Bring some more fun to the table =)

[Assassin07]

I see not a bad idea

[Victor Sullivan]

Color me intrigued. I think it's an interesting idea. I'm just a little concerned in the area of Secret Diplomacy (though I suppose it would be easy to track). Despite that, I support this.

-Sully

[ManBungalow]

Hey, neutral player...secret alliance?

Neutral?

NEUTRAL?! YOU BITCH HAD BETTER START RESPONDING RIGHT NOW, GET YOUR ASS IN ON THIS SECRET DIPLOMACY.


Foed.



Edit:
Nice idea. Only the other day I thought about a similar suggestion, where I could deploy on another non-teammate to prevent him being eliminated and save my ass as well as his in an escalating game. Neutral only is better idea, bravo.

[waltero]

Why not make it possible to fortify neutral owned territory's?

So as to keep enemy from taking control of (Trebuchet)

You are next to a hex and know you can not control it. To keep the enemy from occupying it simply reinforce the neutral territory to help prevent enemy from taking control.

[Kaskavel]

The idea has occured to me once or twice. Not critical, but not bad I say.

[chapcrap]

It's not an awful idea.