Variant 1: Cashing in your cards transfers the ownership of any territories to your control. This could mean in maps like Arms Race where assassin is currently almost unworkable you can still win by taking a good territory from your opponents.
Variant 2: Cashing in 2 like coloured cards would swap the ownership of those two territories. Thus I could transfer myself from one side of the map to another. You lose all of your old units to the other person and gain their units on the other territory.
Variant 3: Cashing in 3 territories transfers the ownership in a circular manner e.g. if you own XXX, player A owns YYY and Player B owns ZZZ. After cashing those three cards ZZZ would be yours, XXX would be players A's and YYY would be Player B's
Specifics:
Depending on which variant is implemented it would allow either the transferring of units from one player to another or cause the swapping of territories. Bringing propoganda to the modern day CC world as one of the all-time military classics.
This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Game Play Addition (Yay)
What else dare thou want?
‹max is gr8› so you're a tee-total healthy-eating sex-addict?
‹New_rules› Everyone has some bad habits
(4th Jan 2010)
Variant 2:That's a little weird... because if you change 3 cards what happens with the third?
Variant 3: It's curious...and I bet playing it could be annoy, more if you start changing swaping a lot of time in a freestyle also it would be very funny I guess for 50% would be annoy and for the other 50% would be funny lol
max is gr8 wrote:If you play for fun then it will literally put meaning to the word "The games not over yet." A lucky set could mean you have a big stack...
The second is basically the two card cash variant of the third. And I didn't realise you'd posted that earlier today :/
I didnt say it was bad the variant 3 indeed i like it(im sure ill love and hate them at the same time )
the second variant yse i understood that but ...you always have to change 3 cards...so you would only swap 2...
But if you dont own one of the cards the swap for you would be practically useless,well it will help a lot in adjacent forts where you change his 40 to a place very far of you...example you are in tokyo and B has 50 in madagan and 2 in cape town this will make 50 in cape town and 2 in madagan so in order to move this 50 he will have to fort 5 times...
Yes I suppose you could also work it so the units stay in the same place but different owners. Which would be interesting. I suppose it's more like propoganda and less like teleportation
‹max is gr8› so you're a tee-total healthy-eating sex-addict?
‹New_rules› Everyone has some bad habits
(4th Jan 2010)
max is gr8 wrote:Yes I suppose you could also work it so the units stay in the same place but different owners. Which would be interesting. I suppose it's more like propoganda and less like teleportation
I guess you are meaning an spoil like Nuclear but changing the owner neutral for this player who used the cards. isn't it?
max is gr8 wrote:Yes I suppose you could also work it so the units stay in the same place but different owners. Which would be interesting. I suppose it's more like propoganda and less like teleportation
I guess you are meaning an spoil like Nuclear but changing the owner neutral for this player who used the cards. isn't it?
Yes, precisely.
‹max is gr8› so you're a tee-total healthy-eating sex-addict?
‹New_rules› Everyone has some bad habits
(4th Jan 2010)
I supossed it was that propaganda...propoganda just it sound strange and i didnt found definition anywhere... well is also other possible name...maybe better...because with converstion I was thinking more like and Middle age...
That would require 0 skill. In this though luck of cards will have an effect similar tactics to nukes would be used. Where you would distribute units fairly evenly so the loss of a territory did not destroy your plans completely.
You might as well say that nukes is pure luck also. It has just as much as this.
‹max is gr8› so you're a tee-total healthy-eating sex-addict?
‹New_rules› Everyone has some bad habits
(4th Jan 2010)
)
