You're playing a doubles game. You trade in a set of cards: QuebecGreenlandIceland. Your team-mate owns Iceland.
Should your teammate get +2 bonus armies placed on Iceland?
_________________________
That's really the crux of it. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.
If a player trades a set of cards in, and a member of that player's team owns a territory named by one of the cards in the set, two bonus armies should be immediately added to the team-mate-owned territory.
The territories named by the cards in a set being cashed in should each receive +2 bonus armies immediately if owned by the active player or a member of the active player's team.
you sure you don't want to say the same exact thing 1 more time?
I think this idea is pointless... It just doesn't make any sense. Using your logic: a team should be able to hold a bonus as long as only people on the same team occupy it.
What I think would be more interesting would be to add +2 to the continent of any card being cashed in regardless of the owner. That would definitely spice things up.
You're playing a doubles game. You trade in a set of cards: QuebecGreenlandIceland. Your team-mate owns Iceland.
Should your teammate get +2 bonus armies placed on Iceland?
_________________________
That's really the crux of it. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.
If a player trades a set of cards in, and a member of that player's team owns a territory named by one of the cards in the set, two bonus armies should be immediately added to the team-mate-owned territory.
The territories named by the cards in a set being cashed in should each receive +2 bonus armies immediately if owned by the active player or a member of the active player's team.
i think its a great idea that your teammate gets 2 bonus on that country but i thought it was rejected
Thematically, the armies you deploy each turn are "trained" in between turns. The bonus armies you get from owning cards are still trained, they just don't get a choice of where to deploy (sort of like being trained as reserve troops first, then assigned to the front lines as needed). You can fortify and deploy on allied territories because you're sending them qualified soldiers to use. It doesn't make sense for you to train your troops on your allies territories. Cards putting bonus armies on ally territories would be like country A recruiting a group of civilians for the national army, sending them to allied country B for basic training, then halfway through B's training program, A tells B that those soldiers are ready to be deployed as reserve troops for B's national army...I highly doubt that any competent military alliance has operated that way.
EDIT: The above might be a bit unclear. I had a long explanation for what I consider cards to represent, but I got tired of trying to clarify that and ended up just cutting it. I think by doing so, it removed the reasoning for why I don't think the bonus armys from cards should be considered as having been trained by country A. A shorter explanation of that is basically owning a card is akin to knowing more about some special militaristic value of the territory, so if you have a card for your own territory, you train troops more efficiently on it. But even if you know details of your ally's country, he doesn't, and you shouldn't be sending him your recruits to train. If trading cards were allowed between partners, then that fits in very well, because you give him the info on his country for him so he can train his own extra soldiers.
Gameplay-wise, I think it's just because it doesn't matter. Nobody has an advantage or disadvantage in the current system, it's just overall slightly slower than if allies got bonuses from each other's cards.
When playing a set of 3 cards in a doubles Flat Rate game, I noticed that we didn't get a bonus two troops on one territory that is owned by my doubles partner. This seemed odd. My suggestion is that if the region is owned by your team (be it doubles, trebles, quads), if you play a set of spoils, all regions owned by you team should count the same as if you owned it, and the 2 troop bonus should be awarded on each one matching the cards.
its been suggested before, and its arguable either way, but in the end...it would just result in too many bonuses...if you own the card, you get the bonus....if you really want the bonus, you can take your partners spot...but, I would hardly ever suggest that, except in certain circumstances.
Doubles games are very well balanced as they are...some maps are different than others, but theres really no reason to mess with a mix that has worked for years.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk Too much. I know.
If I was playing a team game with spoils , esc or flat , If I had a card and my partner had the bonus to that card , he should be able to get those bonus men .
Can we also think about making a no forts application , so there is no option for them , urrently we have chained adjacent and unlimited , lets make " none" available
I think this would improve game play in the team manners as to progres games along a bit faster.
No Forts would make it more of a game of strategy and could make games interesting
bigg chief wrote:If I was playing a team game with spoils , esc or flat , If I had a card and my partner had the bonus to that card , he should be able to get those bonus men .
No. You must own them yourself.
Can we also think about making a no forts application , so there is no option for them , urrently we have chained adjacent and unlimited , lets make " none" available
This has been suggested, and last I heard, it was marked as "pending".
I think that makes a very good argument on its own , if my partner owns the region in my spoils he gets a the 2 man bonus and vice versa ,at least make that an option as well , I would be happy to play a couple of trial games with this implemented
but i thought it was rejected
