Adjacent Attacks

[Ditocoaf]

Yeah... even if the entire force on a just-taken territ is new, its still unrealistic to attack further. I see this rule as limiting the time-span of a round. You aren't going to be able to attack a region, conquer it, deploy on that region, then attack from that region and conquer another, all before anybody else does anything. I still think that regions you conquer cannot attack until the next round works best... because it's as if you just finished conquering it for each region. Like it's happening simultaneously.

[denominator]

And strategically, it does make sense that going for a mid turn cash should give you more strength, it makes setting up and completing a kill much more important. A bigger risk for a bigger reward.

That was the key issue I was addressing. I see that, like in no cards games, there really isn't that great of an advantage with a kill.

My final point of support for this is that it only opens up territories re-deployed on, and even then, only one more space.

Exactly. Only territories that are deployed on are eligible for the extra attack. Once you cash in, it essentially resets your advancements and any territories you deploy on are able to make attacks and one more advancement.

Having said all that, I do understand the thought behind leaving it as it is to keep things simple and make it easier to balance. Especially as this is something new, and we know how much inertia this site has.

This is why it took me so long to bring it up. We already have a good thing going here, and this rule makes things really difficult to explain to newcomers.

Option 2 really does change the game play in a way...

It changes it dramatically, much the way that strategy changes dramatically from a no cards game to an escalating game in normal mode.

I still think that regions you conquer cannot attack until the next round works best... because it's as if you just finished conquering it for each region.

The boost of troops would allow you to make one more attack in that round. It brings in the strategy of eliminating players along with conquering territories, which I feel is a large part of this game.

Would anybody be interested in playing a game like this? ClassicArt, Flat Rate, Sequential, No Fog?

[sully800]

I don't think the rule matters much either way. I've given both options a lot of thought but I think for simplicity the original rule is best.

It may make sense if you say troops can only attack from the country they are deployed on instead of attacking from countries that you start with. But then again, at the start of a turn you might have a stack that was fortified the previous round (ie not deployed on that territory). So then you have to say you can attack from countries that you own at the start of the turn OR from territories where the armies were deployed. BUT if some of the armies were advanced and then others deployed you could only attack with the deployed portion?

Simplicity rules in this case for me. Sorry for the above free thought rambling

[yeti_c]

The reason I dislike it - is because it has too many loopholes and can be abused - thus pretty much overriding the premise of the original idea...

For instance - you have a 20 stack - and you attack with them to conquer 1 territory - that gives you a continent... and you still have 15 left on there.

Then you attack elsewere and kill someone... now you can drop 1 troop on your 15 and attack into someone else's continent - when they should've had it safe...

Seems like a big loophole... and the sort of thing I dislike about freestyle play...

C.

[Ditocoaf]

The reason I dislike it - is because it has too many loopholes and can be abused - thus pretty much overriding the premise of the original idea...

For instance - you have a 20 stack - and you attack with them to conquer 1 territory - that gives you a continent... and you still have 15 left on there.

Then you attack elsewere and kill someone... now you can drop 1 troop on your 15 and attack into someone else's continent - when they should've had it safe...

Seems like a big loophole... and the sort of thing I dislike about freestyle play...

C.

exactly. It's improbable, but possible, that you could defeat three other players in a single turn, and then attack three territories away in a single round... this completely invalidates the strategy of this turn.

The point of this rule IS NOT to limit how far each specific army can move, per se. More precisely, the point IS to limit how far YOU can advance your empire in a single round. It's much simpler if we don't start adding exceptions at this point.

anyway, let's vote on this, I suppose? So far, we have:

FOR midurn-cash-resets-territ's-ability-to-attack:
Denominator
SuicidalSnowman

AGAINST midurn-cash-resets-territ's-ability-to-attack:
Sully
Yeti-c
lanceloch
Ditocoaf

[n00blet]

I would vote against it as well, for the exact reasons yeti_c mentioned.

On another note, realmfighter had an excellent suggestion in my opinion: an Adjacent Attacks Tournament.
I think it would be a good way to get lots of new people to play this type of game, and thus build a larger support base for it. I don't know what maps and game settings should be used, but I think it would be really fun (To limit the possibility of cheating, we could say that any player that breaks the AA rules is disqualified, perhaps).
What do you think?

[yeti_c]

I would vote against it as well, for the exact reasons yeti_c mentioned.

On another note, realmfighter had an excellent suggestion in my opinion: an Adjacent Attacks Tournament.
I think it would be a good way to get lots of new people to play this type of game, and thus build a larger support base for it. I don't know what maps and game settings should be used, but I think it would be really fun (To limit the possibility of cheating, we could say that any player that breaks the AA rules is disqualified, perhaps).
What do you think?

IN.

C.

[n00blet]

I would vote against it as well, for the exact reasons yeti_c mentioned.

On another note, realmfighter had an excellent suggestion in my opinion: an Adjacent Attacks Tournament.
I think it would be a good way to get lots of new people to play this type of game, and thus build a larger support base for it. I don't know what maps and game settings should be used, but I think it would be really fun (To limit the possibility of cheating, we could say that any player that breaks the AA rules is disqualified, perhaps).
What do you think?

IN.

C.

I've never hosted a Tournament before, so I don't think I should be the one to host it. I think it would attract more people if someone with an established Tournament Directing rep hosted it (and it certainly would run a lot smoother!)
So.....Anyone want to host it? Maybe?

[Ditocoaf]

I would vote against it as well, for the exact reasons yeti_c mentioned.

On another note, realmfighter had an excellent suggestion in my opinion: an Adjacent Attacks Tournament.
I think it would be a good way to get lots of new people to play this type of game, and thus build a larger support base for it. I don't know what maps and game settings should be used, but I think it would be really fun (To limit the possibility of cheating, we could say that any player that breaks the AA rules is disqualified, perhaps).
What do you think?

IN.

C.

I've never hosted a Tournament before, so I don't think I should be the one to host it. I think it would attract more people if someone with an established Tournament Directing rep hosted it (and it certainly would run a lot smoother!)
So.....Anyone want to host it? Maybe?

I'm already in the middle of hosting my first tournament. It's really not hard, at all. Try it!

[n00blet]

I'm already in the middle of hosting my first tournament. It's really not hard, at all. Try it!

I'll give the handbook a look-see. If no one more experienced expresses interest in the next few days, I might make it myself

[yeti_c]

I've never hosted a Tournament before, so I don't think I should be the one to host it. I think it would attract more people if someone with an established Tournament Directing rep hosted it (and it certainly would run a lot smoother!)
So.....Anyone want to host it? Maybe?

I'm already in the middle of hosting my first tournament. It's really not hard, at all. Try it!

I'm currently hosting 2 so wouldn't want to add another one - especially as the C4 tourney is very hectic!!

But like DC says - it's mega easy...

The one thing I will say is - I would make sure that everyone posts that they understood the rules - and the punishment for breaking them... if any game is broken in - the breaker gets booted - and the game gets replayed without them...

Tourney minimum is 16 players... so if you're worried about running a tourney - only make a 16 big one...

C.

[yeti_c]

I'm already in the middle of hosting my first tournament. It's really not hard, at all. Try it!

I'll give the handbook a look-see. If no one more experienced expresses interest in the next few days, I might make it myself

And if you do - my name goes onto the list!!

C.

[lancehoch]

I would help out running a tournament. If you are doing it in the main Tournament Forum, you should link to this thread and make a post in here detailing the exact rules as we have discussed them.

[Ditocoaf]

ooh! and also link to my post explaining why AA is so very awesome!

Aslo,

add me to the "in," whoever ends up running this.

[yeti_c]

Looks like you have a quarter of the necessary signups already - of course - the idea was to get it out to the public - not the core fans already!!

PLEASE - make sure it's not a 1 game you lose your out tourney... I'm loving this new style so much I just want to keep playing it!!

To me - this and FOW are the biggest changes to the other game that we never mention that I've seen so far - not only are they ever so simple - but they're muchos funos...

Imagine... FOW - AA - Infected Neutrals... Awesome - CC PLEASE!

C.

[denominator]

I would also be in said tournament.

You would have to be very explicit in explaining the rules, and there would be tricky issues with making everybody follow the rules. I would suggest everybody gets one warning - then disqualification. It would take a lot of work to make sure everybody didn't cheat though.

[n00blet]

I would also be in said tournament.

You would have to be very explicit in explaining the rules, and there would be tricky issues with making everybody follow the rules. I would suggest everybody gets one warning - then disqualification. It would take a lot of work to make sure everybody didn't cheat though.

I think one warning and then disqualification is a good idea. Although, a truly ruthless player could wait until the finals and then use their "warning" to clean up . Maybe we should say that if they win the game because of that move, the game is redone? Although it's hard to tell sometimes when exactly the game turns around. If it's a clear-cut case then I suppose a warning and game redo would be fair.

I think the best way to make sure people aren't cheating would be to have anyone post in the tournament thread that one of the players accidentally attacked too far, and then post in the game chat as well so one of the directors could check it out and deal with it accordingly.

PLEASE - make sure it's not a 1 game you lose your out tourney... I'm loving this new style so much I just want to keep playing it!!

I'm thinking double elimination, or maybe mini-leagues of 4 with the top two advancing.

To me - this and FOW are the biggest changes to the other game that we never mention that I've seen so far - not only are they ever so simple - but they're muchos funos...

Imagine... FOW - AA - Infected Neutrals... Awesome - CC PLEASE!

C.

Oh man.....A Foggy Adjacent Attacks game with Infected Neutrals.....that would be insane....

I would help out running a tournament. If you are doing it in the main Tournament Forum, you should link to this thread and make a post in here detailing the exact rules as we have discussed them.

Sweet! I'll pm you about organizing it if I end up doing it

[denominator]

[Oh man.....A Foggy Adjacent Attacks game with Infected Neutrals.....that would be insane....

How would you program the infected neutrals stop after one attack?

[lancehoch]

[Oh man.....A Foggy Adjacent Attacks game with Infected Neutrals.....that would be insane....

How would you program the infected neutrals stop after one attack?

You warn them once and then kick them out.

[Ditocoaf]

[Oh man.....A Foggy Adjacent Attacks game with Infected Neutrals.....that would be insane....

How would you program the infected neutrals stop after one attack?

You warn them once and then kick them out.

Well, at the point in their assault that it lists the territories that can attack, prevent it from listing the territories that are ruled out by AA.

I think one warning and then disqualification is a good idea. Although, a truly ruthless player could wait until the finals and then use their "warning" to clean up . Maybe we should say that if they win the game because of that move, the game is redone? Although it's hard to tell sometimes when exactly the game turns around. If it's a clear-cut case then I suppose a warning and game redo would be fair.

I think rather that they should have one warning in round 1, and if they make it through the first round, then its assumed that they know how to play. People will have to be extra careful if there's no warnings, sure, but I think removing that cushion after the first game will be the best way to prevent the most mistakes.

[yeti_c]

[Oh man.....A Foggy Adjacent Attacks game with Infected Neutrals.....that would be insane....

How would you program the infected neutrals stop after one attack?

That should be easy enough.

C.

[walnutwatson]

I've played this style of play on a board game (mentioning no names) and it makes a nice change. Slow games but lots of new strategies involved. I say go for it.

[n00blet]

Yaaaaay support!



I'll probably start setting up the Tournament when I get home from work today. Look for the thread sometime tonight (no promises )

[sully800]

I'd also make a distinction between two breakages of the rules. I broke the rules twice accidentally by picking the wrong country from a drop down list. This should not be allowed in the future or go unpunished (because I'm not saying I was faultless) but in both instances I could have made a legal attack and made a mistake. If AA was a real feature that mistake could not have happened.

On the other hand there were at least two instances of a chain of illegal attacks. I think that they were both because the person did not realize which game was AA. However, this should be a highly punishable offense in the tourney - one warning and you are done. This type of mistake can absolutely change the outcome of the game, on any card setting.

I would be interested in the tournament by the way. Let's play it on a map with "standard" gameplay but not a very common map. That way the chance of people mixing up the AA games with one of their regular games is minimized. I would otherwise suggest classic, but instead we could do any standard map like Europe or Phillippines

[lancehoch]

Philippines sounds good.