Are there any plans to add some kind of option to launch a Long Range Attack?

Meaning, if you recon/surveil/spy an opponent that you are not bordering, there should be a way that you can attack that person using a card.

no play hope scotch or whirpool instead

clarity hopscotch and whirpool are map sin which the territory that borders the one it should conect to is connected intead to that territory

The FBI actually uses the hopscotch maps as an alternate form of torture to get information from suspected terrorists.

True story.

I think it shouldn't be as hard as it seems if it was a card - similar in work to airlift card, but allowing to attack territories instead of transfer... But that card would be too OP imho.

Scrooloose,
You are of course welcome to create a UserVoice suggestion, but please let me explain why I personally wouldn't vote for it.

What people like to do is to have a short front line, with an (if all goes well, ever expanding) "safe" area behind it. That's why it's very common to see a big area with only a single army on each territory, with a one-territory-thick "line" of heavily guarded territories around it.
If it were possible to attack any territory at all, that would mean every territory on the entire map would have to be fortified. (If even a single territory was left unguarded, you would obviously choose that one to attack).
Once you have a single territory behind my front lines, I'm really in trouble; there's usually at least four or five territories it connects to and I have no idea which one you'll attack next turn.

While it is not exactly what you are asking for, have you ever played with multi-attack? That also allows a kind of long-range attacks, but with more restrictions than your idea, making it more playable.

Any attack with such a card would almost have to be limited to not be able to receive reinforcements the following turn and only send a limited number in the first place. Would be like paratroopers who are inserted to get a job done ahead of a main invasion force but have no hope of support until the main army arrives.

Would still have value in breaking a bonus unexpectedly but would mean likely losing the gain the following turn.

Ironheart
Whirlpool has a different connection system than Hopscotch. In Whirlpool, territories connect both to adjacent territories and to the territories on the other side of the map.

@RvW-
The thing to remember is that in Scrooloose's scenario it is a card- so would not be utilized in every game- rather would be an option inserted by the game creator- and if that wasn't something that appealed to you just avoid games with that card in them (much in the same way 90% of the time I choose to avoid multi-attack games).

I think it would be a cool option to have (occaisionally) and would add a new wrinkle to the game. I even think it would be cool in a certain scenario to have it weighted 1 where you get 1 each round so you could reinforce if your previous attack wasn't squashed. Would be mayhem in a FFA! ;) I think it would also work well with limited spy/survellience so you are airlifting "blind".

Bigby:
Whether it's a card (like airlift) or an option (like multi-attack), I'm afraid the game will become unplayable, because essentially every territory could be attacked at any time.
But, I can't vote against, merely withhold my vote in favour.

I wish there was a way to playtest new ideas and see how they work out without Fizzer having to implement them...?

I don't see this as much different than Multi-attack, in the ways it changes the game RvW.

I imagine it working much like an Airlift card, but that allows for an attack instead of a transfer. What would be required is a reasonable way to defend from it, which brings in Richard's suggestion. If the card wasn't like an airlift, but was instead a new type of card that allowed a set number of troops (say 5, but variable at game creation) to attack, it would be possible to defend important territories in your bonuses with 4 troops, negating the card entirely. Then it becomes strategic and could be a lot of fun. You'd have to decide which territories are most likely to be attacked or most important to defend, and use some troops in the backfield. The person using the card would have to decide which areas would be vulnerable and which ones would be worth attacking, and hope you don't reinforce on that same turn.

An attack version of the airlift card would simply be impossible to defend from. Being able to drop 2-3 turns worth of troops anywhere on the board would be pretty insane. Being able to drop a controlled amount would be very fun, I think.

I would likely vote for some variations of this card.

Another thought about strategy with such a card: You could set up 10+ armies (assuming 5 point attack card) with "attack only" orders set to go off at the end of your turn, and cover all adjacent areas in case of a card being used. So, under those circumstances, it becomes entirely possible to defend and be smart about your distribution.

What it opens up is the requirement to defend your backfield, and the possibility of someone you are not bordering being able to attack you.

Duke, that won't work.

The system won't allow you to attack twice with the same armies, even if the first doesn't occur. If you aren't using percentages, the first 'attack only' will use up all your armies for the turn and leave you zero for the second move.

If you use percentages, you can do the 100% but it won't actually make the second attack since the first move used 100% of available armies even if no attack occurs.

Your right, but that doesn't change the idea very much. You just use one army to cover two spots, rather than using one to cover many.

Duke, to even defend against a moderate attack (say 5 armies) you would need to have 1.5 additional armies for every territory. That's a huge drain on your resources and that would only protect from a small attack. If they send in 20+ you are in real danger suddenly.

Well obviously this is a huge disadvantage to the party who doesn't have access to the card. What kind of game creator would set up a scenario where one player gets the card and the others don't? If all parties have to defend their interior territories, then the game is still equal, even if a bit odd. At worst it becomes something like the Hopscotch board or any game with Multi-attack.

Having 4 troops on each territory that you need to defend will be sufficient to prevent the attack completely. I was offering an additional way for troops to be dispersed so that you could defend multiple areas with a larger number of troops in a stack.

I still think the card has a lot of potential.

True that it would impact all equally.

I agree that it has potential, I just think there needs to be limitations on it as I stated above. Whether those limitations are the number of armies that can be sent (max of 10?) or making it so that the armies can't be reinforced the following turn? Would minimize the impact of the card so it wasn't too powerful and make it more a matter of a strategically used card to reduce income rather than an all-out invasion from within.

A potential way to handle that would be to make the card turn the target neutral, instead of capturing it. We could make the card blockade at end of turn for a set number of troops as well, if it wins the combat and the territory remains captured until end of turn. Then it becomes a lot like the "nuke" card that has come up a number of times.

Still, lots to think about with this idea.

I don't agree with the line of thought by which it's ok as long as it impacts all equally.. It's not a sufficient criteria to justify a possible implementation of the idea. Stupid example: you could just flip a coin to select a winner, that's equal w.r.t all player but it's hardly fun.. More warlight-themed example: each player skips his turn (no actions are done) with X% chance.. Still impacts all equally, not enjoyable though..
I'd rather have Fizzer work on other aspects of the site which need work or on "twists" which are actually going to become enjoyable by most of the community..

You'd have to decide which territories are most likely to be attacked or most important to defend, and use some troops in the backfield.

The most important thing to defend is my biggest bonus..., but not just any territory, all of them (and the biggest bonus usually has the most territories.

Richard's idea (not allowed further reinforcements) has potential, but would require a pretty big change to the way WL works (selectively disallowing deployments is currently impossible I think).
Besides, it also creates a bunch of corner-cases. Let's say you're doing a Market Garden; Airdrop (or whatever it's called) some troops at the corner of a few big bonuses, and multi-attack with a huge stack towards the same point. If both attacks succeed, would reinforcements still be disallowed? And on which territories exactly?

I wish there was a way to playtest new ideas and see how they work out without Fizzer having to implement them...?

I've been thinking, would allowing a "Dungeon Master" for test games work? Someone who is not a player himself, can see everything and can change the state off the board at any time, in any way?
Then you could have a couple testing games where the DM (on a piece of paper, or in private chat) keeps track of the number of Airdrop cards, is told which card a player wants to play (and when), then manually performs the effect by manipulating the board (and telling the affected player what happened).
This would take quite a bit of code to implement, but once in place, new suggestions could be play-tested properly before being implemented for real.