Page 4 of 8
Posted:
Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:54 amby PaperPlunger
Even in real Risk, you get cards for where you place your armies when starting, so in effect, it is random.
Posted:
Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:18 pmby Twill
greenoaks, laci_mae is right. If you don't have anything meaningful to say...don't If you have something to say, say it nicely
Mute, the main problem is the timing. You could do it with speed games, maybe, but in a 3 player game, depending on the map, each person would have anywhere from 10 to 50 armies to place. If they were placed one at a time in a 5 minute turn cycle, that would add up to 12 hours to a speed game JUST in deployment.
If you do it in blocks, yes, it might work time wise, but again you lose the element of "see where the others are placing" making the impetus to do it rather meaningless.
It's been asked for several times, but the implementation of it doesn't seem to work well in an asynchronous environment.
Choosing Placement
Posted:
Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:42 pmby waiwai933
Concise description:- Allowing members to pick territories in order using a list.
Specifics:- Allow an option for members to pick territories.
- To save time, have members rank a list of all territories when they join the game. This list should include all starting territories, in order of how much they want them.
- When the game begins, assign Player 1 their first territory.
- Continue with every player. If a territory has already been chosen, go to the next one.
- Continue until all territories are occupied. If there is an uneven number, fill the remaining with neutrals. (As is currently done)
- Do NOT allow members to choose number of armies as this will change depending on which territories they get.
This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Re: Choosing Placement
Posted:
Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:24 amby Thezzaruz
Re-posted from another thread...
Thezzaruz wrote:Has been proposed before but never been considered a priority. Mainly because of the fact that it's really only feasible in speed games.
And even if your priority list is a new thing that makes the idea much more feasible I'd rather keep it the way it is.
Re: Choosing Placement
Posted:
Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:37 pmby waiwai933
This is why I'd like to make it an option, like Fortifications, or Cards. I understand that some people would not like to go through the hassle of deciding a list, or prefer the excitement of randomness. In fact, I feel partially this way myself.
Re: Choosing Placement
Posted:
Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:22 amby Sir. Ricco
I would hate going through the list on Conquer Man.
I rather be able to deploy man starting armies where I wanted then choosing starting territories.
Re: Choosing Placement
Posted:
Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:26 pmby waiwai933
bump
Re: Choosing Placement
Posted:
Mon Jun 09, 2008 10:19 amby max is gr8
The problem with this is I might have west australia high on my list but if I don't have new guinea or Eat Auss why would I want it?
Manual Territories
Posted:
Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:55 amby Dibbun
Concise description: - There would be a game option to have manual territory selection.
Specifics/Details:- When the manual territories option is selected, players will go 1 by 1 selecting the territories they desire. Then, depending on whether deployment is automatic or manual, after all territories which will be selected have been, the deployment phase will begin.
How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:- Adds additional customization and layers of strategies to games.
Re: Manual Territories
Posted:
Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:56 amby demonfork
Dibbun wrote:Concise description: - There would be a game option to have manual territory selection.
Specifics/Details:- When the manual territories option is selected, players will go 1 by 1 selecting the territories they desire. Then, depending on whether deployment is automatic or manual, after all territories which will be selected have been, the deployment phase will begin.
How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:- Adds additional customization and layers of strategies to games.
Already been suggested like infinity times.
Re: Manual Territories
Posted:
Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:36 amby TheForgivenOne
demonfork wrote:Dibbun wrote:Concise description: - There would be a game option to have manual territory selection.
Specifics/Details:- When the manual territories option is selected, players will go 1 by 1 selecting the territories they desire. Then, depending on whether deployment is automatic or manual, after all territories which will be selected have been, the deployment phase will begin.
How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:- Adds additional customization and layers of strategies to games.
Already been suggested like infinity times.
This is true. This would make games last a VERY long time. Especially for Speed games.
Re: Manual Territories
Posted:
Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:40 amby Dibbun
True that.
I'd still like to see it
lol @ Hive game with manual selection.. 12 hour speed game ftw
Re: Manual Territories
Posted:
Tue Jul 12, 2011 4:01 pmby nebsmith
For this to work in any resonable ammount of time all players would have to be online and in the game together for the deployment. While I have played this way in RL, it only works because you are all sitting around the same board together.
Placement of initial armies
Posted:
Thu Oct 18, 2012 3:58 amby waltero
Concise description:
[list]
Would it be possible to have players do a manual drop at game set up?
Specifics/Details:
Maybe you could Total up all the Territory's on the map (say 50) then allow players to pick first choice second, third and so on.
Have turn order on placement.
Any duplicate (numbers on the same territory) would go to the player in turn order. If a player loses his (say 3rd) pick he would automatically get his fourth pick (as his new third choice) for his placement. Following in turn order of course.
Start of game simply reverse turn order.
How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
[list]Would prevent random drop that give Extreme advantage.
Re: Placement of initial armies
Posted:
Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:09 amby blakebowling
You should try the setting called Manual Initial Troops. It's exactly what you're looking for.
Re: Placement of initial armies
Posted:
Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:30 amby spiesr
blakebowling wrote:You should try the setting called Manual Initial Troops. It's exactly what you're looking for.
No, he is clearly asking for the ability to choose his starting territories. Manual isn't like that.
Re: Placement of initial armies
Posted:
Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:56 amby agentcom
spiesr wrote:blakebowling wrote:You should try the setting called Manual Initial Troops. It's exactly what you're looking for.
No, he is clearly asking for the ability to choose his starting territories. Manual isn't like that.
Exactly. No this is not possible at the moment. Manual territory selection, I'm 100% certain, has been suggested before. You can use the "Advanced Search" function at the top right of your screen to narrow your search to suggestions and find and comment in the appropriate topic.
Re: Placement of initial armies
Posted:
Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:35 amby blakebowling
agentcom wrote:spiesr wrote:blakebowling wrote:You should try the setting called Manual Initial Troops. It's exactly what you're looking for.
No, he is clearly asking for the ability to choose his starting territories. Manual isn't like that.
Exactly. No this is not possible at the moment. Manual territory selection, I'm 100% certain, has been suggested before. You can use the "Advanced Search" function at the top right of your screen to narrow your search to suggestions and find and comment in the appropriate topic.
Eh. That's not what I read. But choosing your own territories is not plausible because of the sheer time it would take.
Re: Placement of initial armies
Posted:
Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:18 pmby agentcom
blakebowling wrote:agentcom wrote:spiesr wrote:blakebowling wrote:You should try the setting called Manual Initial Troops. It's exactly what you're looking for.
No, he is clearly asking for the ability to choose his starting territories. Manual isn't like that.
Exactly. No this is not possible at the moment. Manual territory selection, I'm 100% certain, has been suggested before. You can use the "Advanced Search" function at the top right of your screen to narrow your search to suggestions and find and comment in the appropriate topic.
Eh. That's not what I read. But choosing your own territories is not plausible because of the sheer time it would take.
I know that's the reason given, but it really wouldn't be a problem for premium members or as an option for speed games only.
Re: Placement of initial armies
Posted:
Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:39 pmby elonpuckhog
I was thinking, and I think the OP suggested this, that we set up a "fantasy type" draft for this option. So, when you join a game with this option, all the territories would be ranked in alphabetical order, and you could change the rank. So if you really wanted Los Angeles (on the classic map), you would rank that #1. If you're first to go, you would get Los Angeles. The next person would get either their #1 choice (unless it was LA) or their #2 choice. So, rankings are done in advance to cut down on the time thing.
I think it would be a great addition, but I'm sure its been suggested before. I went looking a couple of days ago and couldn't find anything specific.
Re: Placement of initial armies
Posted:
Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:41 pmby waltero
I did a search. Found something along the line. was not the same and got off on different tangent.
Time would not be a factor? One turn to place (set up). Could happen simultaneous.
Re: Placement of initial armies
Posted:
Thu Oct 18, 2012 2:41 pmby sirgermaine
There would be several ways to do this, whether as an auction-based system or as a draft-style selection, or a ranking of all terits, etc. There are many ways that this could be very interesting, although they'd have upsides and downsides based on the variability of maps here.
Re: Placement of initial armies
Posted:
Thu Oct 18, 2012 2:45 pmby MoB Deadly
Re: Placement of initial armies
Posted:
Thu Oct 18, 2012 3:59 pmby agentcom
elonpuckhog wrote:I was thinking, and I think the OP suggested this, that we set up a "fantasy type" draft for this option. So, when you join a game with this option, all the territories would be ranked in alphabetical order, and you could change the rank. So if you really wanted Los Angeles (on the classic map), you would rank that #1. If you're first to go, you would get Los Angeles. The next person would get either their #1 choice (unless it was LA) or their #2 choice. So, rankings are done in advance to cut down on the time thing.
I think it would be a great addition, but I'm sure its been suggested before. I went looking a couple of days ago and couldn't find anything specific.
The problem with this is that usually people don't want a certain territ, they want to set their territs based on where everyone else is claiming territs. So it they go first and snag one in Aus, but then the next 3 players grab an aus, they may want to try to do something different. So I do not think any type of fantasy draft/ranking would work.
I just thought of another problem: in fog games, you would see where everyone is deploying. The best way around that I can think of is to have all territs except yours appear as "?"s. Then you get an error message if you pick a territ that has already been chosen. The downside to this solution is that toward the end of the territ selection you would either have to flip this so that it shows available territs (but then possibly giving away some info) or continue with the above (and have players potentially selecting 100 territs on a map like World 2.1 before finding an available one).
Thus, I think we've found another restriction on this: it couldn't be used for fog.
So, you'd only be able to do sunny premium/speed games.
Re: Placement of initial armies
Posted:
Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:31 pmby waltero
Not sure Fog is the best route to go.
My Idea had fog in mind.
one turn.
Simultaneous.
Speed or 24 hour.