[GP/UI] No Fortifications / Reinforcements

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:33 am

I was thinking. We have a no cards option, what about a no fortification option. It would make much more strategic games. Just an idea.

millej11 · Post by **millej11** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:37 am

It can't hurt anything, so I don't see why not.

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:16 am

Not sure I'd play a game like this - but I like the idea... would definitely make it more strategic.

C.

Jimari · Post by **Jimari** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:00 am

How about adding a "No fortification" to the current options of "chained", "Adjacent" and "unlimited".? This way if this option is chosen during the game setup no players will be able to fortify any where. The games will be more challenging and require more skill to play.

nmhunate · Post by **nmhunate** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:33 am

I say No to No fortification.

Bad Speler · Post by **Bad Speler** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:36 am

I say yes, its a good option to have although i personally wouldnt use it that often.

corner G · Post by **corner G** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:18 pm

this all depends on how hard it is to add on to the site, I like the idea and I and other players would use the option sometimes, but if it's to difficult to add on the site, than forget it.

yowzer14 · Post by **yowzer14** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:57 pm

Jimari wrote:How about adding a "No fortification" to the current options of "chained", "Adjacent" and "unlimited".? This way if this option is chosen during the game setup no players will be able to fortify any where. The games will be more challenging and require more skill to play.

Might be interesting...okay as an option

Aries · Post by **Aries** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:03 pm

Bad Speler wrote:I say yes, its a good option to have although i personally wouldnt use it that often.

Same with me.

RobinJ · Post by **RobinJ** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:29 pm

Aries wrote:
Bad Speler wrote:I say yes, its a good option to have although i personally wouldnt use it that often.

Same with me.

Likewise here. Although I hate chained games and I hate adjacent even more, I could see why some players might like this form of gameplay

for dummies · Post by **for dummies** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:46 pm

it would be ok but i think there are more importent things lack can spend his time on

hobs09 · Post by **hobs09** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:12 pm

I don't see the point. I hardly see any adjacent games started.

CBlake · Post by **CBlake** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:44 pm

hobs09 wrote:I don't see the point. I hardly see any adjacent games started.

maybe you should open your eyes

CreepyUncleAndy · Post by **CreepyUncleAndy** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:16 pm

I say "YES" to an option for "No Fortifications" games. That makes you much more cautious than in games allowing fortifications.

Also, I love playing Adjacent Fortification games, so go start one so I can join.

Anarkistsdream · Post by **Anarkistsdream** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:18 pm

So you would not be able to fortify at the beginning of every round, either???

That makes no sense... You'ld have three armies on every country and the last person to go would have the advantage.

MExe · Post by **MExe** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:26 pm

I think they mean the fortification at the end of each round, not the deployment of troops at the start of each round, genius.

Why I can still read your st00pid messages if you are in my ignore list???

Anarkistsdream · Post by **Anarkistsdream** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:28 pm

MExe wrote:I think they mean the fortification at the end of each round, not the deployment of troops at the start of each round, genius.

Why I can still read your st00pid messages if you are in my ignore list???

Hahahaha... It is only messages in the games, stud...

hecter · Post by **hecter** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:29 pm

MExe wrote:I think they mean the fortification at the end of each round, not the deployment of troops at the start of each round, genius.

Why I can still read your st00pid messages if you are in my ignore list???

Because, as you put it, you are st00pid. Ignore list is just for games. You can still read his posts and pm's that he sends you. Now, how bout you go read the rules okay.

Anarkistsdream · Post by **Anarkistsdream** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:44 pm

hecter wrote:
MExe wrote:I think they mean the fortification at the end of each round, not the deployment of troops at the start of each round, genius.

Why I can still read your st00pid messages if you are in my ignore list???

Because, as you put it, you are st00pid. Ignore list is just for games. You can still read his posts and pm's that he sends you. Now, how bout you go read the rules okay.

hehe.

Jimari · Post by **Jimari** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:52 pm

You fortify at the end of your turn this is what I was talking about

MasterZ · Post by **MasterZ** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:06 pm

hmmm, I was thinking about an idea, what about having another attack step after the fortification step, but after that attack step no more fortifying. So play would go: deploy - attack - fortify - attack - end

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Tue May 08, 2007 12:09 pm

I'd like a no fortifications option.

That's really all there is to say.

Guilty_Biscuit · Post by **Guilty_Biscuit** » Tue May 08, 2007 12:23 pm

Sounds painful - I like it

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Tue May 08, 2007 12:35 pm

No one's forcing you to fortify. :wink:

firth4eva · Post by **firth4eva** » Tue May 08, 2007 12:36 pm

wicked wrote:No one's forcing you to fortify.

but he wnats a rule where you are forced not to

[GP/UI] No Fortifications / Reinforcements

No fortification Option

[GP/UI] No Fortifications / Reinforcements

Re: No fortification option

whats the point

Re: whats the point

No Fortifications