Yertle wrote:

 

(By the way I've battled for Card turn-in after Unit Placement but prior to Attack before and pretty much got denied, I was used to being allowed to do this on WF and still have problems with it every now and then, but I'm learning :).)

I am quite in favor of allowing card turn-ins up until a die is rolled. You already have undo available during the placement phase. Everyone agrees that undoos during the attack phase are no good. So... allowing card turn-ins up until an attack die is rolled makes this whole thread go away, is good for everyone, and hurts no one.

Yertle wrote:

EnixNeo wrote:

Undo won't (and can't) apply to anything that involves attacking (this has been mentioned over and over again). 

I know it's been discussed, but you are using the example that it's the GUI that causes errors, well in the case of attacking with 2 or 1 instead of 3 that can be considered a GUI error (I've hit 2 instead of 3 before, or even 3 instead of T/A).

tom wrote: The two actions that wouldn't be undoable would be attack and end turn, the rest would be fine I think (i.e. place / fortify / transfer / trade cards).

Undo CAN'T apply to attack.  The point is to make the GUI more transparent NOT to make it perfect.  Just because a solution to improve the GUI doesn't make it a flawless piece of work doesn't mean we shouldn't implement solutions.  Especially since there CAN'T be a solution for undoing anything that involves rolling (that is until the GUI is capable of reading our minds and there is no risk of accidentally attacking a country) <-- it is because of that limitation that we can't apply undo to attack.

Yertle wrote:

(By the way I've battled for Card turn-in after Unit Placement but prior to Attack before and pretty much got denied, I was used to being allowed to do this on WF and still have problems with it every now and then, but I'm learning :).)

And if it keeps coming up and people keep requesting it, that is more the reason to implement that.  Just because it was shoot down before (unless there was an absolute reason why it couldn't be implemented) doesn't mean you shouldn't add your vote whenever someone else brings it up.  There more people rally together over time the more support the feature gets.

Yertle wrote:

This doesn't have to do with being careful--we're human, we've all accidentally clicked a button

Hence you win some you lose some due to no Undo, with Undo you win some you lose some, so no difference :).  I still think Undo is sticky.

And the idea is that with Undo you would win some and lose some strictly due to tactical mistakes rather than misclicking.  I think risk is about pitting a strategist's mind vs another strategist, the mouse shouldn't have a voice in any of it.  The examples I mentioned are unique to an online risk so rather than live with those limitations why not strive to improve them.  (Again with the limitation of attacks, lets please not bring up attacks again, attacks have an absolute limitation.)

EDIT: btw kudos tom for fixing that problem that created a white background on forum messages with quotes from more than one person which required me to bust open the html editor and manually edit the quote tags for each post!

Cramchakle wrote:

I am quite in favor of allowing card turn-ins up until a die is rolled. You already have undo available during the placement phase. Everyone agrees that undoos during the attack phase are no good. So... allowing card turn-ins up until an attack die is rolled makes this whole thread go away, is good for everyone, and hurts no one.

I agree.

I would also love card turn-in allowed up to attack.

Vataro wrote: I would also love card turn-in allowed up to attack.

Aren't we talking about a bunch of mods/game-options here?

"Allow back to attack"

"Allow back to Placement"

"Allow back to Turn in Cards"

These are all rules that even I had the option of implementing back in the days of plastic pieces and real dice, but even more than then, they now need to be optional to give creative map-makers ways to structure game-play.

M57 wrote:

Vataro wrote: I would also love card turn-in allowed up to attack.

Aren't we talking about a bunch of mods/game-options here?

"Allow back to attack"

"Allow back to Placement"

These are all rules that even I had the option of implementing back in the days of plastic pieces and real dice, but even more than then, they now need to be optional to give creative map-makers ways to structure game-play.

These option exist now for the board author to enable.

Does the Allow back to Trade option already exist? I thought it was part of the Allow back to Placement.

Vataro wrote: Does the Allow back to Trade option already exist? I thought it was part of the Allow back to Placement.

It's part of Return to Placement.

Allow back to Placement, Return to Placement, whatever. :P

I'm against the undo.

Raptor wrote:

KrocK wrote: I don't think that a attack should be able to be undone. [...]

Absolutely, this is not to be used for any action involving chance.

I think this is the essence, and I am in favor of the undo, but ideally "undo status" could be configurable by the game host. A friendly game might want to have undo on, whereas a tournament might want to make the finality of your choice part of the challenge.

Yertle wrote:

EnixNeo wrote:

Undo won't (and can't) apply to anything that involves attacking (this has been mentioned over and over again). 

I know it's been discussed, but you are using the example that it's the GUI that causes errors, well in the case of attacking with 2 or 1 instead of 3 that can be considered a GUI error (I've hit 2 instead of 3 before, or even 3 instead of T/A).

 

(By the way I've battled for Card turn-in after Unit Placement but prior to Attack before and pretty much got denied, I was used to being allowed to do this on WF and still have problems with it every now and then, but I'm learning :).)

This doesn't have to do with being careful--we're human, we've all accidentally clicked a button

Hence you win some you lose some due to no Undo, with Undo you win some you lose some, so no difference :).  I still think Undo is sticky.

 

Yertle, your argument that you can't undo attacking with 1 or 2 so why allow undoing a transfer?  It's like saying "But we CAN'T have chocolate ice cream, because I'm allergic to vanilla, and if we can't have vanilla we CERTAINLY can't have chocolate!"

I can think of a few times when clicking the drop down list my mouse does something funky and transfers the wrong amount - OR I'm playing a map and expect return to attack functionality due to author settings that was modded.  Or I simply click transfer because it was my plan on the left side of the board and I forgot about the right because I was half-asleep but wanted to take my turn to keep the game moving.  Or I've stranded myself because there is a missing border (not as big an issue on wg though).

I don't see how an undo function hurts us.  Just because you can't take away ALL of your actions, some is better than all.  I don't want to win because somebody mistakenly transferred all their troops (maybe they hit T instead of A, or were used to hitting T from the rest of the turn and just followed the pattern, and goofed and stuck themselves on an island). 

In short, a "return to previous action" button is fine with me.   I'm arguing for it, but mostly because I don't like any of the arguments that are against it.  I don't care, I've lived with my mistakes in games.  But losing or winning on a mistake is not satisfying at all.

Isn't most Chocolate ice cream made from Vanilla? ;)

Vataro wrote: Isn't most Chocolate ice cream made from Vanilla? ;)

Go ruin someone else's similes.

Andernut wrote:
But losing or winning on a mistake is not satisfying at all.

Disagree.

By the way, 2 spaces after periods went out of fashion along with typewriters.

The only undo I can see as being useful is an undo all fortifies and return to attack. Anything that effected T vs. A attacks would negate the need to have two different types of all out attacks.

I have certainly had difficulty with selecting the correct number of units to fortify after an attack or during the fortification phase (due to scrolling and possibly impatience), but I accept these as part of the game.

I am against such a feature as I would rather see other things worked on and can only think of a couple of cases where undoing my mistake would have led to a different result. (That is after playing around 1000 games between here and wf).

asm wrote:

By the way, 2 spaces after periods went out of fashion along with typewriters.

But it looks SO much better.  Of course, I learned to type on a typewriter - and a manual one at that.

I am with M57 on both points.  However, my typewriter was at least automatic.

Grammar isn't fashionable, it's got rules and 2 spaces after a period is one of them. Let's not let laziness and Twitter ruin correctness, shall we.

asm wrote:

 2 spaces after periods went out of fashion along with typewriters.

The experts seem to agree with asm:

Because it is increasingly common for papers and manuscripts to be prepared with a single space after all punctuation marks, this spacing is shown in the examples in the MLA Handbookand the MLA Style Manual. As a practical matter, however, there is nothing wrong with using two spaces after concluding punctuation marks unless an instructor or editor requests that you do otherwise.

http://www.mla.org/style_faq3

& so do the rabble (i.e. bloggers).  For example this guy:

In professional printing, you have what are generally well-designed typefaces with professionally tweaked kerning that shouldn't need the extra space.  For the old-fashioned typewriter, however, the text was in a fixed-width typeface (kinda like Courier) that did not aid the user in his or her reading of the text.

http://www.evolt.org/node/213

And the other top 5 google results to 

http://www.google.com/search?q=spaces+after+period