I know some things are already said, i know some thing may are just to complicated...
may i will write this in the Uservoice, but before i will collect all ideas and remove bad ones

About Atttack transfer option:

- the option to remove your armies after succesful attack(may as an option for game creator, button beside analyze and advanced, it will change the bar above and the text will change from "Attack or Transfer" to "Return after attack", 1 army have to stay in conquered territory, one could also choose attack by percentage)
[May this works in Multi-attack too, but i am not sure]
|> it happens often to my, that i attack voluntary with such a numer of armies , so
that i just kill 90% of the defenders but my army is not deplaced
|> is that reallistic, that a failling attack could go 2 territorries per turn, but a
succesful one have to stay after their victory?

About connections:
- 1 direction connections (attack from air)
- transfer only connections (some sea connections, mountain pass)
- hard to attack conections(game creators can choose a more defensive kill rate for
this connections (he also can bring all attack conditions in line)) -- To simplify i
there could only be 2 different groups of connection(hard and easy to attack)
|>(sea connections, mountain pass)

>This have to be made visible by the map creator<

About territories
- No deploy territorries
- Hard to take territories(alternative to "hard to attack connections") (castles, cities, strategic points)
- hard/ impoosible to take from- territories

Just add your ideas and fell free to post your critic to some ideas

the return after attack idea is bad, i dont understand the failing attack could go 2 territories per turn part, but i think the rest could be implemented, but in in normal maps, you'd have to make a new map to have easy and hard to attack territories. Also i think that most strategic points on maps are given minus bonuses, so that people are less inclined to take them

a failing attack move to the territorry and move back, why not to have the chance after captured a territory to return like you did if you didnt captured

Armies of a failed attack don't go anywhere, they stay exactly where they are.

You want to allow for one army to move twice or to be involved in two conflicts (attacking and then defending original). Why not then allow for a transfer to cover two territories instead of the current one? Or for armies to attack two territories in non-multi-attack games? After all, they use the same logic.

Thats a matter of opinion:
while you say, they may just shoot only and dont move ,if they fail to take -|- and i said they move there to battle and they return.

Whatever: even if they dont move, we could say if they return this is like they failed and didnt move (just shoot)

They only could return to the territory they came from, and this will be theirs because that will happen in 1 Order (just like attacking armies that failes)

I disagree with everything they will be too complex for the site,rules will be longer,some people might not understand them and be at a disadvantage,it will make maps load longer.I think we should keep the connection and,territories and attack transfer the same they are the only thing in this site that doesn't need a change.

Cephistokles, you ignored my broader point here.

Say I conceded that a failed attack counts as two moves. You say that this logic should allow for a successful attack to have two moves. Why then shouldn't a transferring soldier be allowed two moves? Or a transferring army be utilized in an attack from its new position? Your initial point has an army attacking and then retreating (transferring) so why not allow the inverse situation of transferring then attacking?

First off, realism, is a silly point to make, this is not a realistic game, it is a strategic game.

ow for army's moving twice.
Let us say you have an army on A, and the enemy has B and C
"A" has 20 units and you attack "B" with 17, and fail, those 17 troops are now unable to do anything but defend.
You also have a unit the is only able to defend, so that the territory always has 1 on it,
so "A" after the first attack has two units able to move.
So you could put Attack "C" with 10 units, but only 2 would be sent since that is all that is usable.
So what you're saying about units failing attacks being able to be used again is untrue.

As a map maker, one way connections would be very interesting and fun, but there is a host of problems that go with it, can you see them? can they see you? Can you use it to make territory's that cant be escaped from? etc

Different levels of attack and defense rates, while cool in theory, again would require a lot of questions to be asked and answered. Can the map maker set which territory's can and cant be changed? Can the Map maker set preset percentage bonuses to territory's? How will it show up on the map to distinguish which territory's have these bonuses? etc

Personally no deploy areas, seem annoying, and the only time the could be fun would be with a custom rule set for victory, which if that is in place, why not just tell people which territory's the can and cant place troops on.

I also tought for this but the problem is, if they fail their 2nd attack they must go 3/turn the problem(for me it is a problem) may wont disappear.

So we have to say: i was wrong when i said, an army could go to a territory AND return
We have to name my proposition not "the option to remove your armies after succesful attack" but: "the option to stay with some armies after succesful attack"

They did their job and killed the defender like a failing attack , and they should could stay like failing attacks, and be involved in another conflicts like failing attacks

@DaganDaDragon: 1.Part: (didnt really understand this part am not english)
2.Part: just lets decide it (my opinion:you could see them even if only
they could attack)
To test if sb makes maps with not attackable territorys or with not escapable territories, we have to make just the test if u could reach in a endless number of turns every territory from every territory
make it with thewater method : give in water in 1 territorry and add all direct reachable territories to the group of reachables, then add all reachables of them to the group and so on, very complicated.
Sure map creators will have to make visible all of these connections(same thing like sea connections and connections wrapping around the map) they could use arrows or text
3. Part: To hold it simply we should only hav 2 different : Between "Conections Wrap" and "Show conections" the map creator has the option "art of connection" with 2 rows of 2/3 buttons
Row 1: start territory Row 2: end territory (depends of what the creator clicks first)
per row we have "hard to attack" "normal" and maybe "no connection to"
would be shown with different colors(green normal yellow hard red impossible)
Now the game creator has 2 times the defensive/offensive-killrate-bar:
1. Normal , 2. Hard to attack
default would be 1.: 60/70 and 2. 60/70 and it should be a advanced function with an advanced map
What about 2 classes of games : Normal games with only a few cards possible without
multi attack and simply enough for newbies to understand
Advanced games for Advancer to enjoy some new features
This could be shown like Multi Day/ Real time games
(am not really sure if this is a realizable idea)