Forum
unknown5856178
Pegasus wrote
at 2:41 PM, Tuesday December 12, 2006 EST |
0 people think this is a good idea
Replies 1 - 8 of 8
kaddar wrote
at 2:42 PM, Tuesday December 12, 2006 EST A vote for this is also a vote for "It is up to Ryan how winners are decided"
(For example: when you attack mine and I am attacking someone else from my location) |
kaddar wrote
at 2:44 PM, Tuesday December 12, 2006 EST PS: spelling should be
"Simultaneous Mode" |
unknown5583161 wrote
at 2:45 PM, Tuesday December 12, 2006 EST this works
|
aliaiactasunt wrote
at 2:51 PM, Tuesday December 12, 2006 EST How about we invent a whole new game? AGAINST IT!
|
CNE wrote
at 3:54 PM, Tuesday December 12, 2006 EST If I wanted to play a Real-Time Strategy, I'd play Warcraft 3.
|
Tech wrote
at 5:07 PM, Tuesday December 12, 2006 EST Actually, a new game wouldn't be bad. what would it be? l-wars? j-go? s-cards?
|
kaddar wrote
at 8:08 PM, Tuesday December 12, 2006 EST CNE: not real time, turn based simultaneous. Nobody goes first and nobody goes last.
|
Pegasus wrote
at 10:15 AM, Monday December 18, 2006 EST I guess this would be a good and interesting game.
Do we have one attack per turn or many? How do reinforcements work? 1/4 or 1/3 of number of territories? Even if many attacks are allowed, you won't be able to attack A->B->C in one turn anyway, so it makes sense for reinforcements to be fewer. Resolving battles is the easy bit. The only change is if two armies both attack each other, and there is a tie. In that case I suggest both lose half and stay put. |