Varying numbers of bonus armies for holding territory cards

[CreepyUncleAndy]

I can never seem to fit enough letters to make these titles sensible.

Anyways, how about another game option that allows the game creater to select different numbers of bonus armies placed on territories you control that match cards you trade in?

BONUS TERRITORY CARD ARMIES:

(_) 0 (none)
(_) 1
(*) 2 (default)
(_) 3
(_) 4
(_) 5
(_) 6
(_) 1d6 (random each time: between 1 and 6)
(_) d6-d6 (random each time: roll two dice; subtract lowest from highest; between 0 and 5)
(_) + (escalating: zero for first card traded in representing a territory owned by the trading player, one for second, two for third, three for fourth, four for fifth, five for sixth, and so on,
(_) X (other?)

I especially like the idea of the escalating territory bonus armies, especially in junction with a standard escalating trade in value game. For example:

Red is the first player to trade in a set of cards for which he owns one of the territories represented by one of his traded cards ( Paraguay ) ; he gets ZERO bonus armies on Paraguay .

Blue is the next player to trade in a set of cards for which he owns one of the territories represented by one of his traded cards ( Quebec ) ; he gets ONE bonus army on Quebec .

Green is the next player to trade in a set of cards for which he happens to own ALL THREE of the territories represented by his traded cards ( Japan , Algeria and France ) ; he gets TWO bonus armies on Japan , THREE bonus armies on Algeria and FOUR bonus armies on France .

The next player to trade in a card for which he owns the corresponding territory will get FIVE bonus armies on that territory....and so on....

[spiesr]

No more confusing options!

[AndyDufresne]

I like your enthusiasm, though I don't know many of these suggestions will ever be actually implemented. I wouldn't mind seeing this as an option, but again the whole debate of 'clutter' pops up. Anyways, I think the options of 0, 2 (default as it is now), + might be interesting. The others seem a little too much based on luck, which most people hate.


--Andy

[CreepyUncleAndy]

Ah, luck....the name of the game is "RISK"! I fully understand everyone's concerns, and I appreciate your appreciation of my enthusiasim, and, yes, I understand the issues of clutter (and bloatedness of code caused by inclusion of so much "clutter"). Heh, some day, when you guys release Conquer Club 2.0 , maybe some of these and other ideas can be implemented (or at least an "enable all the crap Creepy suggested" checkbox for new games lol).

As for this most recent suggestion, could you make the range be from 0 to 3 or 6 inclusive, 2 being default as it is? I've played games where it was 3, which worked out very nicely, because it practically allows one triple-dice surprise attack from a sparsely defended territory without additional reinforcements drawn away from your main thrust -- and does not really disrupt the game any more than 2.

I know that the great majority of my suggestions will never be implemented, but I continue to offer them to give everyone perspective (and to make everyone realize just how lucky they are not to have to deal with so many extras). Regards....