[GP/UI] No Fortifications / Reinforcements

Herakilla · Post by **Herakilla** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:29 pm

Optimus Prime wrote:
sfhbballnut wrote:wow I can just see it massive army gets stuck, completly useless til someone decides to attack t, this would be a mess, but a lot of fun, i say it should be considered
If people no ahead of time that they cannot fortify, they will be much more careful about placing armies. They will be placing 3 here, 4 there, 2 over there and such. That way they can advance in more complicated fashions.

I see this idea as one that will REALLY prove who knows how to play strategically and who doesn't. Would LOVE to see it implemented.

QFT

jennifermarie · Post by **jennifermarie** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:39 pm

this sounds really cool!

keiths31 · Post by **keiths31** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:57 pm

Herakilla wrote:
QFT

huh?

militant · Post by **militant** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:04 pm

keiths31 wrote:
Herakilla wrote:
QFT
huh?

It means quote for truth, so Herakilla agrees with the post he quoted.
Antway, i think no forts would be a awesome idea, and like optimus said it would increase stratergy used in games. Thumbs up from me to

keiths31 · Post by **keiths31** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:19 pm

militant wrote:
keiths31 wrote:
Herakilla wrote:
QFT
huh?
It means quote for truth, so Herakilla agrees with the post he quoted.
Antway, i think no forts would be a awesome idea, and like optimus said it would increase stratergy used in games. Thumbs up from me to

huh...I learned something today

Forza AZ · Post by **Forza AZ** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:28 pm

Interesting idea. Team games will change a lot also with this as you would have to attack your partners armies to get a bonus. Think this will result in longer and more interesting team games.

insomniacdude · Post by **insomniacdude** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:06 pm

Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes.

Timminz · Post by **Timminz** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:16 pm

keiths31 wrote:*for the record-this is Timminz idea*

For the record, I was not the first one to suggest this. I forget who was, but I remember a month or 2 ago I thought of it and before making a suggestion, I searched for it. There was another thread already started. I'm not sure who started it, or what happened to the idea. I re-thought of this the other day and started one. It's gonna be interesting.

Timminz · Post by **Timminz** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:17 pm

Forza AZ wrote:Interesting idea. Team games will change a lot also with this as you would have to attack your partners armies to get a bonus. Think this will result in longer and more interesting team games.

But, they could attack away first, leaving only 1. In some situations.

Timminz · Post by **Timminz** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:25 pm

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... ight=forts

It was actually a fellow Gen 1-er, Coleman, who suggested it, but he didn't use the form.

cicero · Post by **cicero** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:31 pm

keiths31 wrote:Suggestion Idea: No Fortification Option

Specifics: A fourth fortification option would be added to the Start A Game choices, but it would be for No Forts

Why it is needed: There's already an option for no cards, so why not?? It would add a heck of a lot more strategy.

---------------------------------------

*for the record-this is Timminz idea*

keiths31, Timminz, Coleman or ... whoever.
It doesn't change anything: Great idea!!

Like many great ideas - simple.
And as has already been noted, this would be simple to code.

My vote is in. And counted. (There was 1. And it was "yes".)

Cicero

Risktaker17 · Post by **Risktaker17** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:01 pm

I like the idea but I thought it has been rejected

Timminz · Post by **Timminz** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:06 pm

Risktaker17 wrote:I like the idea but I thought it has been rejected

As far as I can find reference to, it hasn't been officially recognized yet, let alone rejected.

Risktaker17 · Post by **Risktaker17** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:16 pm

You might be right, but I thought it was rejected...

Timminz · Post by **Timminz** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:10 pm

Risktaker17 wrote:You might be right, but I thought it was rejected...

references?

demon7896 · Post by **demon7896** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:57 pm

i can just imagine...

some random dude wrote:NO! NO! DAMMIT! WHY THE **** DID I ****** SEND ALL MY ARMIES THERE!!!

Risktaker17 · Post by **Risktaker17** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:58 pm

Timminz wrote:
Risktaker17 wrote:You might be right, but I thought it was rejected...
references?

I'm too lazy to look sorry bud.

Timminz · Post by **Timminz** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:55 am

Risktaker17 wrote:
Timminz wrote:
Risktaker17 wrote:You might be right, but I thought it was rejected...
references?
I'm too lazy to look sorry bud.

Well then. Until someone official says otherwise, this is an open suggestion. And it appears that people like the idea, and it wouldn't take much to implement.

Jamie · Post by **Jamie** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 4:28 am

Bad idea. You start out with 3 men on each country. Almost all those would stay trapped, cause you could never fort them. The only way they'd ever be useful is if your opponents conquered the countries around them. If you have a no forts game, you'd have to make it unlimited forting for round 1, than no forts after that. That might work

BaldAdonis · Post by **BaldAdonis** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 4:53 am

Jamie wrote: Almost all those would stay trapped, cause you could never fort them. The only way they'd ever be useful is if your opponents conquered the countries around them.

I think that's the point. Sort of like a standing army: the armies in one country won't fight unless the battle comes close enough to affect them.

Jamie wrote: The only way they'd ever be useful is if your opponents conquered the countries around them

No kidding! In our test game, I dropped three territories in Australia. So now two behind my lines have 3 each.

john1099 · Post by **john1099** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:00 am

I actually suggested this a while ago, guess it never caught on.

BaldAdonis · Post by **BaldAdonis** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:48 am

Risktaker17 wrote:
Timminz wrote:
Risktaker17 wrote:You might be right, but I thought it was rejected...
references?
They don't exist sorry bud.

Fix'd.

Night Strike · Post by **Night Strike** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:38 am

BaldAdonis wrote:
Jamie wrote: Almost all those would stay trapped, cause you could never fort them. The only way they'd ever be useful is if your opponents conquered the countries around them.
I think that's the point. Sort of like a standing army: the armies in one country won't fight unless the battle comes close enough to affect them.

Jamie wrote: The only way they'd ever be useful is if your opponents conquered the countries around them
No kidding! In our test game, I dropped three territories in Australia. So now two behind my lines have 3 each.

It's like the national guard who stay to protect the homeland.

Kaplowitz · Post by **Kaplowitz** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:46 am

I would never play it- but it sounds good!

Risktaker17 · Post by **Risktaker17** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:52 am

its just an option so that is ok.

[GP/UI] No Fortifications / Reinforcements

Re: No fortification option?

Re: No fortification option?