by Shirtripper
CapNClassic wrote:
Shirtripper wrote:
That said, it is game breaking to eliminate a chance of error if you are doing it against the way the game is intended to be played.
Since this is the only thing you pulled from my last post I am going to assume that you either agree, or at the very least comprehend everything else I wrote.
That said, I suppose my writing skills are not decent enough for you to comprehend this point but let me quote someone else who made a similar point to the one I am getting at :
Stu Holttum wrote:
Ummmm.....tricky.
On balance, I'd probably say not. You have to be careful with expansions as to how many troops you push along each front (Saharans less so!), so I'd be against it more because he would be "skipping" those decisions.
Like you said - expanding while reinforcing "helps him keep track of his plans". I think that's the point - when you move armies along a route, at each territory you have to think "how many do I move"? Playing the way he did takes that tough decision away.
On balance, I'd probably say not. You have to be careful with expansions as to how many troops you push along each front (Saharans less so!), so I'd be against it more because he would be "skipping" those decisions.
Like you said - expanding while reinforcing "helps him keep track of his plans". I think that's the point - when you move armies along a route, at each territory you have to think "how many do I move"? Playing the way he did takes that tough decision away.
If he is skipping ahead with his place holder expansion he is taking away that tough decision, i.e. eliminating any chance of error, and if the other players are not playing that way, then it is game breaking.
Does it make sense now, or am I just falling for a clever trolling?