I'd like to know why this was rejected? Is it too difficult to code, or does the site operator simply not like this idea? I personally think this is by far the best way to play.
Think of it as military mobilization. If the US has troops in Northern Iraq, Southern Iraq, and Western Iraq, they can "fortify" each group of armies at the same time into Eastern Iraq.
I used to play this way on a Hasbro board with my friends and believe it to be the most realistic form of play.
Please reconsider this rejection.
Thank you.
"Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves."
-Albert Einstein
killthejoe wrote:I'd like to know why this was rejected? Is it too difficult to code, or does the site operator simply not like this idea? I personally think this is by far the best way to play.
Think of it as military mobilization. If the US has troops in Northern Iraq, Southern Iraq, and Western Iraq, they can "fortify" each group of armies at the same time into Eastern Iraq.
I used to play this way on a Hasbro board with my friends and believe it to be the most realistic form of play.
Please reconsider this rejection.
Thank you.
it was rejected because it would be too hard to program
Without a doubt unlimited adjacent fortification is the best option in terms of realistic strategic simulation. The existing options are weak by comparison. I came to the forum to suggest it myself, as I'm sure others will in the future. Those who oppose the idea of it are lacking in strategic understanding.
Concise description: What if you could fortify only one space, but make more than one fortification? Basically unlimited adjacent fortifications.
Specifics: You have 10 armies on Indonesia and 10 on North Africa. You hold Siam, India, Brazil, and Argentina. You can fortify from Indonesia to Siam, but not on to India. You can also fortify from North Africa to Brazil, but not on to Argentina. You can do both of the above mentioned fortifications in one turn.
This will improve the following aspects of the site: It would be more realistic militarily than adjacent, because you can move all of your armies, but only a little ways. It would provide another option for fortifying.
It's a bit tricky though as it would have to be a limit on how far each single army could be fortified for each round (and it would need to keep track of each individual army and its movement).
i.e a army standing on indonesia can be fortified to siam but not from siam to india (in the same turn), however an army standing on siam (before the indonesian troops where fortified) should be able to fortify to india (even after the indonesian troops was fortified). Because if you allow armies to be double fortified then you just have a slow "unlimited" and that would be a crappy idea.
That would be simple to do, But it still might confuse people. If there are 4 armies on siam and you move 10 from indonesia then you can only move 3 to india. But I can see people hitting fortify over and over again and wondering why it's saying illegal fortification.
Did you even read it? Let's try this again. Each army can move one space, and then can't move. So, you have four armies in Brazil and seven in Venezuela. You can fortify three to Venezuela from Brazil, but you can only fortify seven from Venezuela to Central America.
The general idea is that you can't do that. Every army could individually make 1 adjacent fortification move.
For example, you have 3 on A, 4 on B and 1 on C. You could fort 2 from A to B, but then only 3 from B to C, as two of them had moved from A and used up their fortification move.
It's already been rejected though, so really no point in discussing it
Stroop wrote:The general idea is that you can't do that. Every army could individually make 1 adjacent fortification move.
For example, you have 3 on A, 4 on B and 1 on C. You could fort 2 from A to B, but then only 3 from B to C, as two of them had moved from A and used up their fortification move.
It's already been rejected though, so really no point in discussing it
Stroop wrote:The general idea is that you can't do that. Every army could individually make 1 adjacent fortification move.
For example, you have 3 on A, 4 on B and 1 on C. You could fort 2 from A to B, but then only 3 from B to C, as two of them had moved from A and used up their fortification move.
It's already been rejected though, so really no point in discussing it
Stroop wrote:The general idea is that you can't do that. Every army could individually make 1 adjacent fortification move.
For example, you have 3 on A, 4 on B and 1 on C. You could fort 2 from A to B, but then only 3 from B to C, as two of them had moved from A and used up their fortification move.
It's already been rejected though, so really no point in discussing it
To make another form of adjacent fortifications, or substitute the current one with REAL adjacent fortifications, meaning one could make an unlimited amount of fortifications as long as the units he's moving only move one territory away (or two for horses in Waterloo and similar territory types)
Specifics:
Whenever I play risk with adjacent forts (Real board game), what this rule implies is you can move ANY units in the map, but only one territory. So if you had South America, and your borders were on Mexico and North Africa, and let's say you traded in a set that had Brazil and Venezuela and you get 2 on each, you want to reinforce Venezuela to Mexico and Brazil to North Africa, then that you can do, it's two adjacent reinforcements, however, if someone decides to attack your North Africa border and weakens it, you CAN'T reinforce it with units from Mexico, they'd have to go to Venezuela the first round, to Brazil the following, and then to NA if it's still yours...
This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Make the adjacent forts setting a bit more dynamic.
Give players more possibilities for different strategies.
