|
|
Post by Alèx Soleighlfred on Oct 5, 2016 5:48:10 GMT -6
Imagine Australia conquering Wellington; what'd happen to the rest of New Zealand? They'd form a middle-earth themed underground resistance movement? Which would still be underground, but officially Australian authority would be declared over kiwis  |
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Oct 5, 2016 5:49:02 GMT -6
We'll try this system next time we play too, then Notice how Seresa looks like a donkey. I found it ironic that in the early days, Serena looked like a cross. |
|
|
|
Post by Alèx Soleighlfred on Oct 5, 2016 5:50:32 GMT -6
We'll try this system next time we play too, then Notice how Seresa looks like a donkey. I found it ironic that in the early days, Serena looked like a cross. That was because my first step turned out to be outrageously irrational. |
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Oct 5, 2016 5:54:34 GMT -6
Another question. Can you attack from your capital?
|
|
|
|
Post by Alèx Soleighlfred on Oct 5, 2016 5:55:41 GMT -6
Another question. Can you attack from your capital? No, Capital is a Stronghold. |
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Oct 5, 2016 5:57:19 GMT -6
What if your capital is completely surrounded by empty/enemy lands?
|
|
|
|
Post by Alèx Soleighlfred on Oct 5, 2016 6:00:33 GMT -6
You have other lands. Do Capitalshift.
And you _do_ have other lands, because your Capital becomes a simple land if you own less than 10 lands.
The thing is you won't be able to Conquer for a while. No matter what, your chances are pretty slim if your situation drowns this deep.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Oct 5, 2016 6:09:48 GMT -6
I have a suggestion on turn orders:
Instead of doing all 10 actions from player A , and then all 10 actions from player B, and then all 10 actions from Player C.
We should do Action 1 from player A, then action 1 from player B, then action 1 from player C, action 1 from player D.
And thebm Action 2 from Player A, etc...
Why?
It minimizes the effect of the turn order.
If Black plays first this turn, he can WIPE me out before I have time to move. I can't do the same because of the 5 turn pause, but without that pause, I could wipe him out next turn.
Speed is thus of a crucial importance and it's not fair since we are in different time zones...
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Oct 5, 2016 6:10:51 GMT -6
Huh, I thought that was what we were doing already?
"6. After the step is over, the Gamemaster resolves the actions. First actions are resolved in order in which the Action Plans were submitted, then second actions are resolved, and so forth until tenth actions are resolved."
|
|
|
|
Post by Alèx Soleighlfred on Oct 5, 2016 6:11:09 GMT -6
We should do Action 1 from player A, then action 1 from player B, then action 1 from player C, action 1 from player D. This is exactly what I'm doing!  That's why it's no big deal if you're first or last. |
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001 
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 5, 2016 6:13:54 GMT -6
I don't the know that in, say, a 7 vs 7 battle, the winner should come out completely unscathed.
PS realized this is completely out of context
It did have relevance to an earlier topic though
|
|
|
|
Post by Alèx Soleighlfred on Oct 5, 2016 6:24:13 GMT -6
Let's call the kind of battle when a winner reserves all his troops and gets half of enemies an "All-in Battle" (the way we play now), and when units fight one-on-one and live and die separately a "Scurpulous Battle". What are the effects?
Let me clarify this.
All-in Battle means that if you attack and you win, you are undamaged and you get bounty units and a new land.
If you attack and you lose, amount of units on your land divides by two (this is what I didn't write down clearly before, sorry for that)
If you defend and you win, therefore, you are not damages.
If you defend and you lose, you lose that land and those units to your enemy.
All-in Battle, I think, spices the game up, because Scurpolous battle slows the game down: you can attack and then the result is half is dead hald is alive,is slows your movements and your blitzkrieg. That's what i had in mind.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 5, 2016 8:03:57 GMT -6
Let's call the kind of battle when a winner reserves all his troops and gets half of enemies an "All-in Battle" (the way we play now), and when units fight one-on-one and live and die separately a "Scurpulous Battle". What are the effects? Let me clarify this. All-in Battle means that if you attack and you win, you are undamaged and you get bounty units and a new land. If you attack and you lose, amount of units on your land divides by two (this is what I didn't write down clearly before, sorry for that) If you defend and you win, therefore, you are not damages. If you defend and you lose, you lose that land and those units to your enemy. All-in Battle, I think, spices the game up, because Scurpolous battle slows the game down: you can attack and then the result is half is dead hald is alive,is slows your movements and your blitzkrieg. That's what i had in mind. I guess that makes sense If you attack and win, do you get ALL of the enemy units? Some should have died, I would think. Half would be fair though |
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Oct 5, 2016 9:50:09 GMT -6
Can you reinforce multiple lands in the same move?
|
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Oct 5, 2016 10:26:38 GMT -6
Can you reinforce multiple lands in the same move? It appears so.. you did and I think he let it go. Otherwise, reinforcements are very, very weak... |
|
That's why it's no big deal if you're first or last.
