Does it make sense to anyone else to tweak the "Attack Only" option to limit it to non-neutral territories? As it now stands, the attack-only function works the same for neutral or opposing forces despite the considerable strategic difference between the two.

Consider a scenario on standard ME where you hold Hawaii and your opponent is expanding in Western US despite California being a wasteland. Obviously you don't want to take out the wasteland and burn your armies but you also don't want to let your opponent complete the bonus. Currently, you can either attack when you think they will complete the bonus and lose the 7 additional armies or wait until they complete it and have 5 more income.

With the change I am advocating, you could ensure that your attack only goes through when the wasteland falls, thus maximizing the efficiency of your armies.

Thoughts?

In my opinion, a core part of WL is the division of each turn into two phases: entering orders (independently from your opponent) and watching them being executed (intermixed with your opponent's orders). The ability to use "attack-only" and/or "transfer-only" orders is already a bit of a violation of that principle, since your order depends on the state of the board when the order is executed, as opposed to the state of the board you predicted as most likely at the beginning of the turn. (This just might be the reason there's a setting to disallow those kinds of orders altogether in a game.)

While you are right, it would be really helpful to make this distinction, I still don't agree with you it's a good idea. After all, if your opponent started in Canada (or Greenland and came through Canada), he might also be working towards Japan. If that falls, you'd be better of with your big stack in Hawaii so he can't storm through and break your Indonesia bonus... So the order should really be "attack, but only if California is owned by the opponent, has fewer than ten armies on it and Japan is still Neutral".

Sure, it'd be a useful addition, but you're quickly getting into a grey area of ever-more-powerful additions. Before too long though, it's not really WL any more.

The other use of the attack only is when you are defending a bonus on two bordering fronts; a very delayed attack only between the two territories is often effective; when your opponent takes the bonus you take it right back.

Arun, while I agree that is an effective method, it's function would not be altered by the change I am advocating since you could only be attacked by an enemy force and not a neutral.

Though in thinking about it, the change I reference would negate the value of the Abandon card.

Yeah, it would screw the abandon card a new one, and I've never found a use for the scenario you're describing. I don't think I've ever tried to stop someone from taking a wastelanded bonus by sniping the wastelanded part. So a more practical example would be talking about neutral 2s, which won't really factor in because you should be hitting with enough to take out a 2-3 anyways.

A more reasonable case for when you'd want that option is when you and your opponent both have a large stack, with one neutral territory between you. Then you'd only want to attack if you got to attack before your opponent.

I guess that's more like transfer only than attack only, but same idea.

Edited 4/24/2014 17:41:01

Beren highlights the other case where such a play would be useful. I've caught myself a handful of times going to select 'attack only' before realizing it wouldn't help matters any. In the absence of OP cards it can be a crapshoot to make the attack on the critical neutral. Game can be decided on not getting the randomly decided first-turn.

1) I dislike that you want to change the current way it works, there's more use for it than what Arun describes and it could be an imensivly important option. Instead it would be better to suggest a new option, "Attack Enemy Only" sounds fitting.

2)If you don't like the randomness that comes with Beren E's example, simply play cyclic order, no need for this function then.

3) that being said, I like the idea, don't think there's much use for it though, beside abadon cards and big stacks crashing. Compered to Attack only which I use all the time.

Henns, thing is, besides the Abandon card scenario, I can't think of an instance where an attack enemy only would differ strategically from an attack only. Most any instance where you are attacking only will be against an enemy position and not a neutral so the strategy involved won't change. Instead, it would just allow for additional opportunities to effectively use the attack only function.

And while cyclical allows you to predict the first move, it doesn't change the inherent randomness to who gets first turn of first move. Carrying that randomness forward, it is random who gets first turn on the critical move already described.

one of the main usages for atacc only is against neutrals*. Your suggestion would ruin that use. that's why I want you to rather make it a new option, though it would unfortunatly be partly overlapping.

*say strat 1v1, you want to complete a bonus with leftovers, lets say you've A and B with 2 arimies each, both borders neutral C which also have 2 armies. you'd atacc from A with 2 armies, there's a ferly high chance the ataccs suceeds, in which chese you'd want the armies in B to stay put (for whatever reason, better expanding closer to enemy etc). therfore you'd do an atacc only from B, giving the optimal outcome if the first atacc fails, and if it suceeds.
(same idea applies when ataccing or in teamgames)

While the 2v2 only has 12% success rate at 16% luck, you do make a valid point for the use of attack only on neutrals.

Combine that scenario with the negation of the Abandon card and it probably isn't worth making the change. No need to overly complicate the system with a fourth option.