Conquer Club

Neutral Armies, Neutral Territories

Suggestions that have been archived.

Moderator: Community Team

Should Neutral Armies Recieve Deployments?

Yes, at the end of every game round, one new army placed on a randomly selected neutral territory for every three neutral territories, rounded down, minimum of one for less than three neutral territories, as if neutral were considered a player
2
29%
Yes, one bonus neutral army randomly placed on a randomly selected neutral territory at the end of each player's turn.
0
No votes
Yes, a 50/50 chance for each neutral territory to recieve one additional army when the game is incremented to the next turn.
0
No votes
Yes, as above (50% chance), with the possibility for explosive growth (after each successful 50% chance for deployment, that territory has an ADDITIONAL 50/50 chance to get ANOTHER army, ad infinitum until territory fails to gain additional deployments).
0
No votes
Yes, each time a player trades in a set of cards, ALL neutral territories reciece one additional neutral army each.
0
No votes
Yes, each time a player trades in a set of cards, two new neutral armies are placed on each neutral territory represented by a card being traded in.
0
No votes
Yes, at the end of each player's turn, each neutral territory has a 50/50 chance to gain an additional neutral army.
0
No votes
Yes to one of the above ideas, but with adjusted numbers (please explain).
0
No votes
Yes, but another method (please discuss).
5
71%
 
Total votes : 7

Neutral Armies, Neutral Territories

Postby CreepyUncleAndy on Fri Dec 22, 2006 2:24 pm

I've started this thread as a discussion forum for the topic of neutral territories and neutral armies, so please post any thoughts on these and related subjects here; let's have a nice, long, productive thread.

Okay, so my last suggestion (giving bonus armies to neutral territories when you turn in your cards) didn't go over so well. Still, I want to make neutral armies more of a threat, and possibly more dynamic. Here are some ideas....

These ideas are just for fun; I don't imagine they'll be implemented here, but it would be nice to see something similar but stripped down incorporated as a game option, even tho Ron hates options :roll:

:idea: NEUTRAL ARMY DEPLOYMENTS & REINFORCEMENTS

:!: At the end of each player's turn (as soon as they select "end turn" or perform a chained fortification), each neutral territory has random chances of doing the following:

:arrow: 25% chance of adding one additional neutral army, increased by +5% for each neighboring neutral territory. (Possilbly change these to 33% & 3%, 50% & 10%, 10% & 1%, x% & y%?) (For fairness to the players, this neutral army deployment may have to happen AFTER any potential attacks are checked for; see below.)

:arrow: If three or more neutral territories connect, they are considered to be a "robber barony", "pirate empire", "third world dictatorship" or somesuch. Each "robber barony" is sorta considered its own quasi-player with limitations (no cards, only attacking as ruled below, etc). "Robber baronys" take their "turns" as the game is incremented to a new round -- at this time, total territories are counted for armies (with continental bonuses) and deployed as evenly as possible throughout the entire robber-barrony (with the exception that "landlocked" neutral territories inside the neutral empire which adjoin only neutral territories are never reinforced, as their borders are protected -- or maybe not; I'm not a despot).

:idea: NEUTRAL AGGRESSION

:!: If a neutral territory contains neutral armies that outnumber the player armies in a neighboring territory by at least two (three?) to one, and if there are at least 4 neutral armies in the neutral territory, the leader of that territory has a 25% chance of adopting an expansionist approach and invading the neighboring player-controlled country.

:arrow: This chance is decreased by 1% per player-controlled army in the intented targed, and increased by 1% per neutral army in the attacking nation.

:arrow: The invading neutral player will not waste their armies; they will only attack so long as they can attack with three dice, and they will retreat after loosing 50% of their total forces.

:arrow: In the event that the neutral armies are successful in their invasion, the neutral armies will split their forces evenly between occupying the newly invaded country and defending the homeland. If there is an odd army left over, it stays on the originating country; the balance of fortification always favors the homeland.


:shock:


Example: On World 2.0, Red has 5 Armies in China and 1 Army in Pakistan, while Blue has 1 Army in Iran and 2 in Iraq, and there are 9 Neutral Armies on Afghanistan.

Afghanistan's 9 armies is not greater than China's 5 x 2, which urges caution on the part of "Osama" there in the 'Ghan against sinoexpansionism, but the NPC Taliban have way more than double the armies of the sparsly defended Pakistan and Iran.

Afghanistan has a 25% -1% for Pakistan's one army +9% for Afghanistan's nine armies for a 33% chance to launch an invasion on Pakistan. For the sake of argument, Afghanistan attacks Pakistan, taking the territory from blue and loosing no armies in the process.

Neutral Bin Laden advances 4 of his 9 armies into newly claimed Pakistan, keeping ther remaining 5 on Afghanistan to defend the homeland (the remainder always remaining home).

Now, Afghanistan has a 25% -1% for Iran's one army + 5% for Afghanistan's five armies for a 29% chance to attack Iran. For the sake of argument, we will assume Afghanistan decides to invade again. This time, things don't go so well, and Afghanistan looses an army on its first sortie against Iran, then another on its second. Without enough Afghan armies to press a three-dice attack, Afghanistan retires from the field, retreating home with 3 Neutral Armies and leaving an exhultant Blue still in control of Iran.

The picture of the middle east has now changed....
:oops:
User avatar
Private CreepyUncleAndy
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Exterminator on Fri Dec 22, 2006 3:47 pm

last time i checked, neutral ppl dont attack.

Im fine with the random deployment, but attacking will make it a threat. and could cost the whole game, for u or ur opponant.

deplyment, fine. Not the aggression
"Sex is like maths. You add the bed, subtract the clothes, divide the legs, leave your solution and pray you don’t multiply."

Click this to be part of something HUGE!
User avatar
Private 1st Class Exterminator
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:52 pm

Neutral Army Deployment

Postby CreepyUncleAndy on Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:14 pm

Shall we include an option to make Neutral Armies slowly grow in size as the game progresses? I'd like to see this implemented as a selectable option at game initiation.

For some reason, even though I include "hell no!" as a poll option, it did not appear, and now that there has been a reply, I can no longer edit the poll. Please select the last option if you would say "no" to this.

And please post your ideas and discussions here....
Last edited by CreepyUncleAndy on Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Private CreepyUncleAndy
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby spiesr on Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:14 pm

no
and only sugest something once
User avatar
Captain spiesr
 
Posts: 2809
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:52 am
Location: South Dakota

Postby CreepyUncleAndy on Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:18 pm

Did I submit this idea once before? I'm sorry! Too much coffee! :oops: How do I collapse this and the other thread together?
User avatar
Private CreepyUncleAndy
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby spiesr on Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:31 pm

you can't
it wasn't exactly like this, but same idea
User avatar
Captain spiesr
 
Posts: 2809
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:52 am
Location: South Dakota

Postby Wisse on Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:48 pm

yeah i remember that thread but that was only about when using bonus cards
Image Image
User avatar
Sergeant Wisse
 
Posts: 4448
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: The netherlands, gelderland, epe

Postby everywhere116 on Fri Dec 22, 2006 5:16 pm

I do not like this idea and I never will.
"Disease, suffering, hardship...that is what war is all about."-Captain Kirk, from "A Taste of Armageddon"
User avatar
Corporal everywhere116
 
Posts: 1718
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:37 am
Location: Somewhere on this big blue marble.

Postby Star_BuRiT on Fri Dec 22, 2006 6:12 pm

NO, NO and NO....!!!!!
User avatar
Private 1st Class Star_BuRiT
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:10 am
Location: ???


Return to Archived Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron