<< Back to Ladder Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 10 of 10   
Question about cyclic move order.: 12/13/2011 04:09:49

emgzapper 
Level 3
Report
Is the move order independent of who got first territory pick?

For example if you ascertain that player A picked first for territory distribution does that mean that player B will get the first move of the game?
Question about cyclic move order.: 12/13/2011 05:01:31

Fizzer 
Level 58

Warzone Creator
Report
Good question! The answer is yes, the order in which territories are distributed is considered part of the cycle.
Question about cyclic move order.: 12/13/2011 07:36:45


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
only relevant in cyclic move order, not something I really use, so not a relevant question to me, but very nice ;)
Question about cyclic move order.: 12/13/2011 20:52:26

emgzapper 
Level 3
Report
Thanks. Good info to have.
Question about cyclic move order.: 12/17/2011 16:03:31

emgzapper 
Level 3
Report
Follow up question: Do orders that don't happen count towards the cycle?

For example if you use the transfer only function on a territory that you don't own. Is the transfer order used in the cycle?

Furthermore, can you use orders such as this to delay your final attack without actually moving any of your troops?
Question about cyclic move order.: 12/17/2011 17:34:42

emoose 
Level 3
Report
Any order where at least 1 army either attacks or transfers is counted towards the move order. If an order is executed with 0 armies or is canceled due to the Attack Only/Transfer Only circumstances, it does not count towards the move order.

To be clear for your last question, this means you cannot use such orders to delay your final attack.
Question about cyclic move order.: 12/17/2011 22:34:57

emgzapper 
Level 3
Report
Thanks. That makes sense. Now that I think about it it would be a little weird the other way.
Question about cyclic move order.: 12/18/2011 02:00:25


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
If it worked differently, Vets would be using orders En-Masse to delay their turns, and it would make having more territories with more connections increasingly more useful just for delaying reasons..
Question about cyclic move order.: 12/18/2011 04:36:01

RvW 
Level 46
Report
@Perrin: if you have a set of territories with lots of connections between them, safely away from any front lines, dropping X armies there will allow you to delay for (almost) X moves, each and every single turn. Spawning one or two reinforcements there, even just every once in a while will allow you to stall considerably. Of course, it does require you to manually dial in all those delays every single turn, which will rapidly become incredibly boring, but surprisingly little planning is needed to manage them.

I've used 10 or 15 armies as a poor-man's order delay card a few times. Sure, a real OD card will obviously beat it, but you can't spend a real OD every turn. Once you managed to free up a few armies however, you can do this stalling on every turn. Actually, you can even use armies (from a dead-end, such as cleaning out Portugal/Spain on the Europe Challenge map) moving to the front for a very similar purpose; just send them through slightly different routes. Especially if you allow a small number of armies to take a suboptimal route and arrive one or two turns late.
Question about cyclic move order.: 12/18/2011 10:33:49


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
RvW, not denying that fact, but being able to do it with 0 armies, will require no initial output, and will reward someone starting in a location such as E.china as compared to Mexico, just because there are more territory connections for 0 army attacks to be spammed
Posts 1 - 10 of 10