retreat from owned land?

[B the impaler]

would allowing the option of reinforcing ALL armies (leaving it neutral) out of an owned territory work?

thanks

[Darwins_Bane]

is this a suggestion? or a question? use the form if its a suggestion, otherwise it won't get looked into. technically, it could be coded to work, but i dont know that I like the idea, as it would mess up some game types.

[Metsfanmax]

What would happen afterward? It would turn into a neutral with 1 troop?

[B the impaler]

it's a statement in the form of a question, so technically it's both (that require one answer). I thought it deserved conversation before it was an outright suggestion.

the land would turn neutral with one/three troops. In no-spoil or assassin games it would help with massing troops together. what game types would it mess with?

thanks

[Darwins_Bane]

assassin, terminator, it would completely screw with every FOW strategy out there, you could keep moving troops to the front while still carding.

[B the impaler]

I hate to ask but what's FOW, how can you move troops to the front when I'm talking about retreating? I don't understand your point (I'm sure it's good one I'm just a bit more noobie than you).

I guess the better question is 'why shouldn't you be allowed to retreat off owned land', it will add more strategy not take any away. In other games and real life war you can retract troops.

[Darwins_Bane]

what if instead, on a map like feudal, you can take all the starting territories, and still move the troops that get auto-deployed to the castles to the front every turn. it would break that map strategy. FOW = Fog Of War btw. Right now you can read the log and still gleen from that.....this could break that in some ways.

[blakebowling]

This would also destroy strategy in 8 player escalating as you could take a territory and then retreat off of it leaving a neutral that you can easily attack the next round.

[B the impaler]

it would create new strategy causing opponents to block this from happening. change is good.

[B the impaler]

people 'card swap' all the time (which I can't stand), it's even talked about openly in chats. how would this be any different?

[TheForgivenOne]

it would create new strategy causing opponents to block this from happening. change is good.

Change isn't always good.

people 'card swap' all the time (which I can't stand), it's even talked about openly in chats. how would this be any different?

Because this wouldn't be people "Card swapping" This would be YOU getting cards too easily just so you don't run into a player who advances into the card spot. And opponents can't exactly "block" this from happening. Would you risk your big stack of armies just to steal someone else's card spot, with the Risk of them autoing your stack?

[greenoaks]

i don't like it.

you don't conquer a region and then kindly hand it back to them. you keep it and force someone to take it from your dying grasp.

[B the impaler]

anything that prevents card swapping should be praised, it's a poor strategy that should be against the rules.
killing a neutral player should result in no spoils.

[Sir. Ricco]

anything that prevents card swapping should be praised, it's a poor strategy that should be against the rules.
killing a neutral player should result in no spoils.

So now we have to add that conquering neutral does not get a card. I don't like this suggestion. I think the strategy would become, retreat all troops into one area and just attack out. You might as well manual.

[TheForgivenOne]

anything that prevents card swapping should be praised, it's a poor strategy that should be against the rules.
killing a neutral player should result in no spoils.

And this would throw out all possibility of getting cards on maps like Feudal War, Feudal Epic, Monsters, or any map where the majority of the map is Neutrals.

Card swapping is mainly used in Escalating, and is actually apart of the Strategy Guide.

[Rodion]

Some maps allow you to bombard a neutral. You get a card from that and can bombard that neutral again (which will be a 1 after being bombarded for the 1st time) for another card.

[B the impaler]

regardless of personal/strategy guide troops should be allowed to move off owned land, not allowing it locks a person into a permanently 'fixed' strategy. sometimes you have to throw a person off their routine to win (ever play chess?). it's no fun when everyone 'has' to share the same strategy.

card swapping is cheap and dirty, hardly like to shake hands with the enemy. may as well start the game with 100 troops and avoid that all together.

agreed that neutrals should be worth spoils tho

[blakebowling]

regardless of personal/strategy guide troops should be allowed to move off owned land, not allowing it locks a person into a permanently 'fixed' strategy. sometimes you have to throw a person off their routine to win (ever play chess?). it's no fun when everyone 'has' to share the same strategy.

card swapping is cheap and dirty, hardly like to shake hands with the enemy. may as well start the game with 100 troops and avoid that all together.

agreed that neutrals should be worth spoils tho

Wait.....

anything that prevents card swapping should be praised, it's a poor strategy that should be against the rules.
killing a neutral player should result in no spoils.

I rest my case. My vote stays at No

[Victor Sullivan]

I feel like this could easily abused and would present a lot of problems that I can't be bothered to go into detail and explain. I agree with blake and the rest of the nay-sayers.

-Sully

[Darwins_Bane]

basically, the only people who would do this are people who are blantantly trying to get away with cheating. any honest person at the game doesnt care if someone takes a territ and if it shows up in the log. besides, y would i take a bonus and then retreat partway. As well, leaving 1 army per territory has been basically the same across pretty much every risk and risk variant there ever was.

[B the impaler]

i saw someone else's point and agreed.

regardless of personal/strategy guide troops should be allowed to move off owned land, not allowing it locks a person into a permanently 'fixed' strategy. sometimes you have to throw a person off their routine to win (ever play chess?). it's no fun when everyone 'has' to share the same strategy.

card swapping is cheap and dirty, hardly like to shake hands with the enemy. may as well start the game with 100 troops and avoid that all together.

agreed that neutrals should be worth spoils tho

Wait.....

anything that prevents card swapping should be praised, it's a poor strategy that should be against the rules.
killing a neutral player should result in no spoils.

I rest my case. My vote stays at No

[B the impaler]

what about on territories that give a minus 1 for owning, retreating from them would be ideal.
retreating is a tactic, why not allow it (other than it ruining your personal strategy on your favourite boards).
old dogs new trick I suppose.

[Army of GOD]

I really don't understand the point of this. It's called not advancing people. Or, if it wasn't the last territ you took over, it's called reinforcing. I see ABSOLUTELY NO purpose for this.

[amazzony]

Retreating, pillaging and burning are valid strategies in strategy games so I don't understand why you shoot down this idea. I find manual a pointless setting but it doesn't mean that it can't be an option for other people to play it. And, I don't understand what kind of abuse or cheating it would bring up, perhaps somebody can enlighten me?

[B the impaler]

Retreating, pillaging and burning are valid strategies in strategy games so I don't understand why you shoot down this idea. I find manual a pointless setting but it doesn't mean that it can't be an option for other people to play it. And, I don't understand what kind of abuse or cheating it would bring up, perhaps somebody can enlighten me?

thank you. finally someone with clout agrees that the lack of retreating is inhibiting.