Trading countries between opponents
Moderator: Community Team
- MR. Nate
- Posts: 951
- Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:59 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Locked in the warehouse.
Trading countries between opponents
Trading Countries.
I was wondering if we could somehow implement the ability to trade territories with opponents.
I know this has been rejected for the team game, for good reason, but I've often had one random country in a place where I really don't care, and it's going to be wiped out anyway. It would be nice to be able to turn that into something profitable, rather than just watching those armies die.
I think the armies on the territory would have to go with the territory, so that would have to be considered, but since both individuals are trying to win, it would tend to be fairly equal.
There would have to be restrictions, such as a limit, maybe one per person per round, and only 1 for 1, and maybe a cap on the number of trades between individuals to prevent abuse. It would have to be for tactical reasons, rather than as a way to acquire bonuses.
Under the right circumstances, it could add an interesting level to the game play.
Importance . . . Not very, maybe a 2.
I was wondering if we could somehow implement the ability to trade territories with opponents.
I know this has been rejected for the team game, for good reason, but I've often had one random country in a place where I really don't care, and it's going to be wiped out anyway. It would be nice to be able to turn that into something profitable, rather than just watching those armies die.
I think the armies on the territory would have to go with the territory, so that would have to be considered, but since both individuals are trying to win, it would tend to be fairly equal.
There would have to be restrictions, such as a limit, maybe one per person per round, and only 1 for 1, and maybe a cap on the number of trades between individuals to prevent abuse. It would have to be for tactical reasons, rather than as a way to acquire bonuses.
Under the right circumstances, it could add an interesting level to the game play.
Importance . . . Not very, maybe a 2.
- Bigfalcon65
- Posts: 452
- Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:55 pm
- Location: Moscow
- AndyDufresne
- Posts: 24932
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
- Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo
- Contact:
- Bigfalcon65
- Posts: 452
- Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:55 pm
- Location: Moscow
- max is gr8
- Posts: 3720
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:44 am
- Location: In a big ball of light sent from the future
- Bigfalcon65
- Posts: 452
- Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:55 pm
- Location: Moscow
- joeyjordison
- Posts: 1170
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:10 am
-
chessplaya
- Posts: 1875
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:46 pm
Re: Trading countries between opponents
good idea , but when u say u have countries where u dont want them to be u must be not looking well to the board i never once whined about deployments cuz i know every country of mine is important as any other country where u have country that u think u dont need my advise to u fort it up and u will like the outcome of itMR. Nate wrote:Trading Countries.
I was wondering if we could somehow implement the ability to trade territories with opponents.
I know this has been rejected for the team game, for good reason, but I've often had one random country in a place where I really don't care, and it's going to be wiped out anyway. It would be nice to be able to turn that into something profitable, rather than just watching those armies die.
I think the armies on the territory would have to go with the territory, so that would have to be considered, but since both individuals are trying to win, it would tend to be fairly equal.
There would have to be restrictions, such as a limit, maybe one per person per round, and only 1 for 1, and maybe a cap on the number of trades between individuals to prevent abuse. It would have to be for tactical reasons, rather than as a way to acquire bonuses.
Under the right circumstances, it could add an interesting level to the game play.
Importance . . . Not very, maybe a 2.
Veni...
Vidi...
Vici...
Vidi...
Vici...
-
Spritzking
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:19 pm
- Gender: Male
if think it is rather dumb to end up with a lot of armies that are slaughterd anyway... maybe its just a good idea to not put your armies in such places... and if you get some armies there from begin deployment it are just 3 of them... is that such a big deal?
on the other hand it is pretty hard to organize the whole thing... you should have an offer, then a re-offer, for the offer is not profitable enough... and an acceptance...
furthermore, an allience whould become way to strong this way, for the other players in the game would need some time to respond to the teritory trading stuff. so the suddenly see a lot of armies on their neck... before the y could escape anyway...
I dont think this would be an idea the players the balance their strategy would need...
on the other hand it is pretty hard to organize the whole thing... you should have an offer, then a re-offer, for the offer is not profitable enough... and an acceptance...
furthermore, an allience whould become way to strong this way, for the other players in the game would need some time to respond to the teritory trading stuff. so the suddenly see a lot of armies on their neck... before the y could escape anyway...
I dont think this would be an idea the players the balance their strategy would need...
- john1099
- Posts: 1558
- Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:14 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: St. Catharines, ON
- Contact:
Re: Trading countries between opponents
Hi, my name is chessplaya, and im a noob and need lessons from someone who is good to improve my skills because i suck!chessplaya wrote:good idea , but when u say u have countries where u dont want them to be u must be not looking well to the board i never once whined about deployments cuz i know every country of mine is important as any other country where u have country that u think u dont need my advise to u fort it up and u will like the outcome of itMR. Nate wrote:Trading Countries.
I was wondering if we could somehow implement the ability to trade territories with opponents.
I know this has been rejected for the team game, for good reason, but I've often had one random country in a place where I really don't care, and it's going to be wiped out anyway. It would be nice to be able to turn that into something profitable, rather than just watching those armies die.
I think the armies on the territory would have to go with the territory, so that would have to be considered, but since both individuals are trying to win, it would tend to be fairly equal.
There would have to be restrictions, such as a limit, maybe one per person per round, and only 1 for 1, and maybe a cap on the number of trades between individuals to prevent abuse. It would have to be for tactical reasons, rather than as a way to acquire bonuses.
Under the right circumstances, it could add an interesting level to the game play.
Importance . . . Not very, maybe a 2.
GunnaRoolsUDrool wrote:yo mama has 3 titties, ones for milk, ones for water, ones out of order
- CreepyUncleAndy
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:45 pm
- MR. Nate
- Posts: 951
- Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:59 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Locked in the warehouse.
I'm against trading countries between teammates. That makes teams almost too easy. But in singles, everyone is looking out for #1, so the trades will generally be equal. As for the "danger" that it will be easier for multis, or that more accusations will occur, well, you can see what Fitz said.
AAFitz wrote:There will always be cheaters, abusive players, terrible players, and worse. But we have every right to crush them.
End the Flame Wars.MeDeFe wrote:This is a forum on the internet, what do you expect?
- flashleg8
- Posts: 1026
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:21 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: the Union of Soviet Socialist Scotland
I'm sorry I don't like the idea at all. Teams would become super-strong too quickly and as another poster said, for a single player game the offer stage would take to long.
I firmly agree with the post that says if you want to go down this road - merely reduce the fortifications on the territory to make it easier for the other player to capture it.
I firmly agree with the post that says if you want to go down this road - merely reduce the fortifications on the territory to make it easier for the other player to capture it.

- MR. Nate
- Posts: 951
- Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:59 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Locked in the warehouse.
Why does everyone think I want this in team games? I don't. I'm talking about Standard, Assassin and Terminator games.
AAFitz wrote:There will always be cheaters, abusive players, terrible players, and worse. But we have every right to crush them.
End the Flame Wars.MeDeFe wrote:This is a forum on the internet, what do you expect?

