How hard would it be to have an option for creating a game that is "random placement of armies" and/or "manual placement of armies"
So that instead of 3 armies per country we get to choose where to place them or have them randomly distributed throughout the world.
It would add a new dimension to the game.
If you went with manual distribution, then you could have the first turn is only distribution using the same method of army placement that is available now. The advantage of this is that anyone who does not place their armies in the first turn is automatically dropped for deadbeating and has their men randomly distributed throughout the world as a neutral player...thus solving the problem of 35% 1st move deadbeat players.
Hup! This is a great idea! Especially for games of 5 or 6 players, where early placement is random and frustratingly influential on the early game, and where you are practically guaranteed at least one drop out.
I totally agree. Manual posting lets you set up your armies in a position you wish to go bypassing the frustration of only one fortification which especially takes forever in the USA game.
Thanks
I know this topic has been dead for a while, but it struck me today that we can't manually place armies and i though now we have alot more members than we did when this thread was started, maybe we can get some support for getting Lack to program it in. What do you think?
While your armeis were being transported to the abttle feild the chinooks blades collided with each other and the transporter planes engines malfuntions you had to parachute before the plane crashed and all the ehavy EQ was destroyed but some AA guns survived withthose you destroyed the enemys airborne divisions making it a ground vicious grunt fight and everyoens armies were scattered---------DOUBLES-------------------------------But then you found the leader of a fellow army and made an alaicne to ruel thew world the others eladers in fear of being crushed also teamed up
Manual placement? I totally disagree. You need place 1 army each time, then wait other players. This is the right way, because other way who place armies later will have a great advantage. It is boring, and in actual situation it can last for weeks. Please dont do it, lack.
I had thought the same thing and i understand that as it stands now, it would take forever. But if we ever get time limit options, we might be able to create realtime games, then it would be do-able.
Hmm. I wonder if there could be a compromise of some sort. Like, you can place several deployments' worth at a time, but maybe they can't be touching each other (to prevent someone from claiming 75% of Oceania on the first deployment turn). It'd be faster than deploying one at a time, although it might still be too slow to be practical.
Its just I come from a real-world risk playing background, and am craving the real world rules, sure it would take a long time, but thats the beauty of risk, its not a kids game.
Just a personal opinion. I know other people might like it, but i wouldn't really want to spend the time placing all sorts of troops. With three on each, it keeps things interesting. I know it would only be an option, but i for one would probably avoid using it.
Another nice improvement to deployment would be to change how it is gone about. Say every country is a link, and you can click it, and a little box pops up asking how many armies you want to deploy on that country. Something to that effect... That's the simplest way I could think of going about making deployment easier, so it's not so darn important to know the name of every little country, especially since it's so hard to read them sometimes.
nhulbert wrote:Another nice improvement to deployment would be to change how it is gone about. Say every country is a link, and you can click it, and a little box pops up asking how many armies you want to deploy on that country. Something to that effect... That's the simplest way I could think of going about making deployment easier, so it's not so darn important to know the name of every little country, especially since it's so hard to read them sometimes.
The problem with that is that part of the strategy behind deployment is seeing how you enemy is building up. And if they can dump 20 men on one counrty at once gets rid of alot of the strategy that makes deploying one at a time so good.
III'm, not, sure, what you're talking about... I don't think you got what I meant out of what I said. The only thing that would be different is deploying armies would be easier... So it would be less painful and less of a strain looking at every little country's name because one would be able to click on the country he(/she) wants armies on, and it would ask how many you want to put on there. There's nothing strategic or nice about the way it is now in my opinion...
I think the only way it would work is if you placed all your 20 armies or whatever in one go. I don't think the one army each at a time is feasible here on CC.
Frigidus wrote:but now that it's become relatively popular it's suffered the usual downturn in coolness.
.....
