Limited Fortification game mode

I know how busy the site programmers have been lately working on lots of stuff, but I have a suggestion that might be really interesting to many players. What about adding 2 new Fortification features to game modes as below: 1. Adjacent Limited: allowing a player to perform up to 2 or 3 adjacent fortification moves after each turn. 2. Chained Limited: allowing a player to perform up to 2 or 3 chained fortification moves after each turn. I personally avoid playing unlimited/ or adjacent fortification game modes sometimes and tend to play more chained games. Such a new feature would be very interesting to me and many players. What do you think?

The idea is interesting for me. Really I thought at it many times. It would be suitable when you play in very large maps and in the game ending you hold 50 territories and you would love to be able to do more than one fortification. And it would be interesting also in capital games when you kill more then one and you are not able to fortify back all your left-overs. I think we should have 2 different parameters. The first is how many fortifications you can do [1,2,3,unlimited], the second is what kind of fortification [adjacent, chained] I wouldn't refuse a proportional system, let say: the more territories you hold the more fortifications you get. I know for the programmers is hard work. Not only to implement the new code in the game but also modify every interface where the game settings are shown and where you can select them.

This would also be good for capped games like the current spring tourney 2nd round

While on the fortification topic - a thought i've had about same time games. I think being able to fortify and attack simultaneously on a turn in a sametime game could work. thus adding to the same time theme. switching to fortify or attack till time runs out. (scrap the add time!) It would only be useful in an unlimited fortification setting of course. example gameplay.. classic world map.. i am in australia with a bulk amount of troops, on say.. siam.. but my chain connects all the way to North Africa, and my opponent has taken South america region. I am therefore able to switch to fortification (unlimited) and try to break his take region. if i can't, i will try to make a chain, switching back and forth attack/fortification.. opponent would perhaps be smart to break the chain... The idea comes from when playing sametime teams. you can fortify your partner while he is in attack mode. it's a crazy fun setting. risk on roids.

I'm not sure about hoods ideas about switching fortification mode back and forth for same time games. Not sure if it's fair (unless you can only switch to it once, and if you switch back, ending attack mode will end the turn). About the fortify in steps, well, that's an interesting one. As a little kid I always only knew one fortification mode: max 7 adjacent steps. Not sure how easy or hard this is to implement though. Note that anything above 2 chained steps is pretty much the same as unlimited fortification, so having a number of chained steps isn't that interesting IMO, but a fixed max number of adjacent steps, well, that's an interesting thing.

oops... edited...wrong post

In capital games the difference between 2 chained fortifications and unlimited I think is significant. A middle way between chained and unlimited would work fine in my opinion. 7 steps or a limited number of steps is also interesting. It would be a middle way between adjacent and chained. Fortunately or unfortunately the possible options in this game are always MANY! Maybe something like: Adjacent, 3/5/7 Steps, Chained, 2x/3x Chained, Unlimited.

I think that the real different and interesting thing on this topic is the N adjacent steps. I believe that the nuance that 2x/3x chains gives to the game is not that interesting... But what do I know! :D Lol, I already saw the O-word...

[quote=Matty - Nov 4, 02:03 PM]About the fortify in steps, well, that's an interesting one. As a little kid I always only knew one fortification mode: max 7 adjacent steps. Not sure how easy or hard this is to implement though.[/quote] I implemented the chained check in the rewrite. This is done using a simple flood fill algorithm, so capping the steps is trivial. Not sure how much it would add though, especially in maps with ports. Also, to fulfil my role as Mr. No New Options: every new setting adds a new degree of freedom to games. This means that with every new setting, the game becomes more complex. For new users, it is already really difficult to deal with this huge load of options we provide. We already have to shield them from game types and settings and even for our experienced users we took measures to make it more clear. Now, I see you thinking "but I just want more options, because that's always good for me!". Think about this instead: the more options there are, the lower the likelihood that there are games open with the settings you want to play and likewise the probability that people will join your games with those settings. So... the more settings we add, the more difficult it gets to find people to play with. Why am I telling this to you all? Because while these options are all very much possible to implement (though they wouldn't make up the top of the prioritised todo list), more options isn't always a good thing. So instead of just asking for more options, please consider if you think these options change the game enough to warrant adding them. If it's only a tiny change, why would we add them? Do they solve a "problem" you are experiencing right now? So... tl;dr: don't just ask for more, think about whether it's really something you need.

In this case however I think it is. You see, both adjacent and unlimited get chosen very little. Simply because adjacent is REALLY limiting, and unlimited is REALLY unlimited (and very unfair in 1v1 settings). So they are a bit too extreme to be considered as loved options. Adding a max 7 (or whatever number) total steps to adjacent will make it a nice option that isn't too limiting I think. As for the programming: a single chained step with max 7 hops is trivial, alright, but what if you want to make 7 steps of 1 hop? Or 2 steps, one 3 hops and the other 4? That requires some extra bookkeeping. I hope it's not going to be an extra table again :P Note that IMO the 2 chained steps (or even x chained steps) doesn't add that much, but then I do not play capitals that much either. The reason is that with unlimited fortification you usually fortify 1 or 2 territories, not often more. [b]Edit:[/b] Note that even though it does add a bit of complexity, it makes games less complex than adjacent fortification, so I think noobs can cope with this as new option. Fortification options aren't that game changing (you just have to keep your head clear, but you already have to do that for adjacent). [b]Edit 2:[/b] Hehehe, actually this doesn't add a new option. It just generalises the adjacent one :)

On one side I agree with Cireon that a Sea of Options is not so good for the site and especially who enters the site the first time. On the other side, if I have to say what I like and what I would like, I agree with Matty, both Adjacent and Unlimited are interesting but I usually avoid them because too extreme. Creating middle ways would increase the game I join, not decrease them.

My 2 Peneth Worth only from experience and it is limited to consecutive play: Unlimited is a strategy utilised a lot more by some players who know that kills mean more when you can fortify all their and your troops afterward. You'll find that some players use this in over 50% of their created games and in some cases about 90%. Adjacent again is something you see particular players using a lot, due to it's limitations and required unique strategies, however, I have seen more ruined Capitals games with this setting where newer or lesser experienced players don't realise they can't fortify their Cap after a kill and are stranded. Even in DM games I see them getting large armies stranded. Therefore, I too see a paradox, where the above suggestions would actually help new players more, but at the same time, if they couldn't grasp the basic settings, what hope would they have of understanding & utilising this? In agreement with Cireon... I say "Experienced players see a need and can monopolise from more advanced options (of course, they've played 1000's of games) and there's already too much to grasp for newer / less experienced players"! A benchmark for me is always my short time at CC, where there were so many options, every game had at least one veteran waiting for newbies to [u]join, play & learn[/u], I mean [i]walk into their trap[/i]. Perhaps in the future (after the rewrite), have the purchase of new options with tokens, where only players who've purchased those options can play in games with them, this way, only those that (a) stuck around long enough to gain experience and hence lots of tokens could get them (b) those that would purchase such things would be serious players wishing to use them. This might be an idea for creating value for tokens too.