retreat from owned land?

[Darwins_Bane]

Speaking in terms of abuse, two people decide to coordinate some secret diplomacy, making it virtually impossible to prove because they can share cards and stuff and yet all anyone else would see is 2 large players hitting neutrals every turn for a card. it would break fog.

[B the impaler]

Speaking in terms of abuse, two people decide to coordinate some secret diplomacy, making it virtually impossible to prove because they can share cards and stuff and yet all anyone else would see is 2 large players hitting neutrals every turn for a card. it would break fog.

this can be done given the current setup too. secret diplomacy and card swapping

[Queen_Herpes]

would allowing the option of reinforcing ALL armies (leaving it neutral) out of an owned territory work?

thanks

Great Suggestion. Keep more like this one coming in!

[TheForgivenOne]

Speaking in terms of abuse, two people decide to coordinate some secret diplomacy, making it virtually impossible to prove because they can share cards and stuff and yet all anyone else would see is 2 large players hitting neutrals every turn for a card. it would break fog.

this can be done given the current setup too. secret diplomacy and card swapping

Yeah, but you know who is attacking who. In Darwin's situation, you have no clue who is attacking who.

[anonymus]

anything that prevents card swapping should be praised, it's a poor strategy that should be against the rules.
killing a neutral player should result in no spoils.

what?! oh my lord, foed just in case i accidentally join one of your games.. if you dont swap cards in esc multiplayer.. oh my lord

Click image to enlarge.

/

[stahrgazer]

Retreating, pillaging and burning are valid strategies in strategy games so I don't understand why you shoot down this idea. I find manual a pointless setting but it doesn't mean that it can't be an option for other people to play it. And, I don't understand what kind of abuse or cheating it would bring up, perhaps somebody can enlighten me?

Well, if you retreat, pillage, and burn, you wouldn't be able to retake the region - nothing to take. If THAT could be coded, where, once you retreat off a region, you couldn't get back on it unless another player first took it, then you take from them, that ... would prevent the cards problem, definitely require a new form of strategy, and enhance the "retreat" rather than "stack front" idea. Could that be coded? hmmm, I wonder.

[greenoaks]

but it couldn't be a neutral, it would be a zero

and there would be no point taking it as there'd be no spoils

[B the impaler]

but it couldn't be a neutral, it would be a zero

and there would be no point taking it as there'd be no spoils

great idea! solves all the perceived problems.

[Beckytheblondie]

i don't like it.

you don't conquer a region and then kindly hand it back to them. you keep it and force someone to take it from your dying grasp.

No, you retreat and, therefore, make it anarchical and neutral. I could see many potential benefits and many potential harms with this option. But as I am a strategical freestyle player I could see this option being very very fun to play with and many players could tweak this to their advantage. Probable would be withdrawing to gain a favourable advantage in adjacent reinforcements or moving out of a territory in freestyle team play so a teammate can conquer the single neutral. I would love to see this as an option, but I don't think I've completely through through its potential problems.

BexXx

[Victor Sullivan]

Now, if this is implemented, I assume it would be an option that you could choose whether or not to have in the game you're creating?

[B the impaler]

Now, if this is implemented, I assume it would be an option that you could choose whether or not to have in the game you're creating?

that could be a way to keep everyone happy, I would prefer to see it be an option (sorta like FOW/spoils) than not available at all.

[jrh_cardinal]

in what way is card swapping a bad strategy? In escalating games you need cards and stacks, best way to get the most of those is card swapping.
And this in no way prevents card swapping. A-holes leaving 3's across the board hinder card swapping, making it possible to leave a neutral 1 wherever you want makes it easier to get cards.

Anyway, suggestion. no. I'm not seeing any benefits to it.
As people have mentioned, it kills fog strategy completely,
in addition makes nuclear spoils virtually pointless.
Okay, so you get to have an extra troop where you want it, well so does your opponent, so what's the point. It wouldnt help with massing troops together because everyone would have their own larger than normal mass.
One thing that at first I thought would be good is that it makes it easier to set yourself up for a run in an escalating game, but that's no good either because it makes it easy to set yourself up for a run in an escalating game. Right now you have to have some strategy to pick the right territories to build on and leave yourself plenty of outlets, with your suggestion you could build anywhere and create artificial outlets by sacrificing your neighboring regions.
Clearly people don't 'have' to share the same strategy, you're a great example of it yourself. Everyone else is card swapping, you're setting up and losing mini-stacks across the board.
Territories that give a minus 1 , of course you want to retreat from them, that kills the STRATEGY of not attacking them unless it's smart to attack them. You're doing the opposite of what you want, killing strategy rather than making it.
0's, that's like a cheater's paradise. Set up 1v1's, player 1 leaves 0's in a whole continent, player 2 takes the continent, wow, difficult.



And it drives me nuts when people try to relate this game to real war. If you haven't noticed, war isn't moving little colored numbers around a picture of some made up world as quickly as you can.

[Woltato]

Don't like the sound of this one. The map would end up with neutrals all over the place. That would be really annoying.

[B the impaler]

in what way is card swapping a bad strategy? In escalating games you need cards and stacks, best way to get the most of those is card swapping.
And this in no way prevents card swapping. A-holes leaving 3's across the board hinder card swapping, making it possible to leave a neutral 1 wherever you want makes it easier to get cards.

Anyway, suggestion. no. I'm not seeing any benefits to it.
As people have mentioned, it kills fog strategy completely,
in addition makes nuclear spoils virtually pointless.
Okay, so you get to have an extra troop where you want it, well so does your opponent, so what's the point. It wouldnt help with massing troops together because everyone would have their own larger than normal mass.
One thing that at first I thought would be good is that it makes it easier to set yourself up for a run in an escalating game, but that's no good either because it makes it easy to set yourself up for a run in an escalating game. Right now you have to have some strategy to pick the right territories to build on and leave yourself plenty of outlets, with your suggestion you could build anywhere and create artificial outlets by sacrificing your neighboring regions.
Clearly people don't 'have' to share the same strategy, you're a great example of it yourself. Everyone else is card swapping, you're setting up and losing mini-stacks across the board.
Territories that give a minus 1 , of course you want to retreat from them, that kills the STRATEGY of not attacking them unless it's smart to attack them. You're doing the opposite of what you want, killing strategy rather than making it.
0's, that's like a cheater's paradise. Set up 1v1's, player 1 leaves 0's in a whole continent, player 2 takes the continent, wow, difficult.



And it drives me nuts when people try to relate this game to real war. If you haven't noticed, war isn't moving little colored numbers around a picture of some made up world as quickly as you can.

you need cards and stacks in an escalating game because it's a developed strategy, the fact you swap cards with an opponent is what I find inconsistent with the objective of the game (to kill the opponent), that's what it's a bad (if not odd) strategy. the only reason why that tactic is around is because it's been aloud to develop.

I'm not seeing a lot of you points as they're not coming from a subjective perspective.

[B the impaler]

my bad.

I'm not seeing you points as they're coming from a subjective perspective

[TheForgivenOne]

This would also in essence kill Nuke games, because you'd have to get a 1/45 chance of actually getting a card that HAS a player on it, and an even lower chance of being able to cash in that card.

[B the impaler]

This would also in essence kill Nuke games, because you'd have to get a 1/45 chance of actually getting a card that HAS a player on it, and an even lower chance of being able to cash in that card.

first of all the odds of 1/45 are not even realistic. secondly you're assuming people wouldn't populate any territory, I for one would go after spoils.

cheers

[TheForgivenOne]

This would also in essence kill Nuke games, because you'd have to get a 1/45 chance of actually getting a card that HAS a player on it, and an even lower chance of being able to cash in that card.

first of all the odds of 1/45 are not even realistic. secondly you're assuming people wouldn't populate any territory, I for one would go after spoils.

cheers

Actually, if it's 8 players, and every single person had every army one spot, it would still create low odds of getting anyone. they'd just hit a neutral beside them to get a card. So that nulls out your point about spoils