Wich type of Conquer Club game takes the most skill to win?

[Iron Butterfly]

I like good jokes. Yours? I dont get...or have.

[owenshooter]

obviously crossword, because the OP can't spell...-the black chaka khan

[Onefistjel]

I tried reading most of the posts here, but I couldn't justify spending all that time, so I will just lay out my thoughts on here, at the risk of repeating several other dozens of posters:

I believe what takes the most skill is 5-8 player, sequential, no spoils/flat rate, no fog, adjacent reinforcements.

1. # of players actually matters little to me. I think with more players you need to be more adept at navigating the field. When there are 2 players, of course, a lot of it comes down to dice after you master the basic strategy. I concede that it's a different style of play than the others, but knowing the map, finding blocking points and everything that goes into a 1v1 game are all fairly simple ideas to me and once mastered it is merely a matter of putting them into practice and hoping the dice don't get in your way. With 3-4 players it seems the gameplay is still simpler and it just comes down to being careful and again putting into practice the basic build-up/conquer strategies. With more players you have a greater need to balance good tactics with diplomacy and you have options to start over (with a big enough map), when someone targets you.

2. I am really split on sequential and Freestyle. I'll admit they are different skill-sets. Navigating the chaos of freestyle turns is mostly about timing, and not everybody has the luxury of timing things out right each day. So often it can become a matter of who has more time to sit around and wait for just the right moment to take their turn, and though knowing that moment and doing it just right is undoubtedly a skill, it also can put the game in favor of the people who have that time-frame, which leaves it unattainable to some who may be very smart. Thus I would go with sequential, where you have to know what your move is going to mean for the next guy, and turn order becomes a critical factor in making decisions.

3. The classic battle between escalating and flat/no spoils. Again, I'll admit there is some skill involved with playing Escalating. Proper positioning and smart decisions are essential and I often enjoy a good escalating game. A good sense of timing is also critical in these games, but as I have read from others before, there are inherent luck factors to deal with that almost always come into play. For one, to someone with a good sense of timing, the right play for the win sometimes never comes. Sometimes it comes and one bad turn of luck ruins it, and you can't come back. Flat spoils makes it possible to come back from an unlucky assault/defense, and just because you miss that one critical kill doesn't mean your chances are over. There are more opportunities to show off your skills in flat rate and usually in no spoils, so that one bit of bad luck doesn't offset everything you've striven for.

Flat rate and no spoils are similar to me. Each have their own pros and cons, but each make for a game based on good tactics, sound choices and clever diplomacy. With no spoils it can be a little more difficult to come back from a bad start or poor dice. With Flat Rate it can be more difficult to finally close the deal. You have to be more careful about when you make your game-winning play, because those extra troops from the last 2 or 3 players can bite you in the butt. Either way, it takes a deal of skill to weave your way through the crowd, wade patiently through those mind-numbing stalemates, and finally close the deal for a win.

I read one guy who complained about no spoils. He said he was playing "better" then the others in the game, but they ganged up on him and he lost despite all the good tactics he had employed. To that I say... no... you were not playing "better." If you get too far ahead of the other players and they gang up on you, that is bad strategy. Sometimes, there's nothing you can do about it, aside from throwing your whole game away, but for the most part surviving to the end requires staying level with the pack. The ones in front get pulled back and the ones in back get left behind. I like the skill involved in no spoils because, it is not just about the basics. It is not just taking bonuses, protecting borders, expanding steadily. Proper strategy always depends on the situation, including the disposition of the other players and the relative strength and weakness and location of each player. I played in one game where I a stronger player was attacking me, and I would have been wiped out in the next few turns, but instead of fighting back, I attacked a third player, forcing the one who attacked me to pay attention to a stronger fourth player. I pitted the two of them against each other while annihilating another, which gave me the weakness I needed to be ignored for a couple of turns, and at the height of the battle between the other two, I swooped back in and took the game. Granted, a couple of these players were not veterans, but that was a part of the strategy. I was able to predict what those players would do, given their experience, skill, and disposition, and thus I took final control of the game. Such maneuvering is rarely necessary in escalating spoils, so I contend that no spoils and flat rate requires more skill.

Side note: I have only played one nuclear spoils game, which was fairly straightforward, but I don't know it as well to make an informed decision on the skill level involved.

4.foggy games can be fun and a clever player can employ various tricks and subterfuges to gain the upper hand, but I think that when it's all out in the open there is more care and more skill involved in the decisions one makes. It's a close call to me. One other thing that bugs me about fog is that there are many players out there who are just reactionary. Even if you have a keen ability to figure out what's really going on in a game, you can't count on others to do so. Too many try to play policeman without really knowing what's happening, and any outright diplomacy is met with great skepticism. Everyone tends to play their own game and there is sometimes no way to maneuver skillfully through. Granted this can happen in a no fog game, too, but I prefer no fog in the skill factor.

5.Adjacent reinforcements just plain requires better planning. I don't actually enjoy playing this way, but I believe it requires more skill.

[pickleofdoom]

Pickles are traditionalists at heart.
Therefore i vote for 6 player standard escalating games on the classic map. U got to jockey for position, line em up, gobble em up and grab those cards. What could be finer than that?

Flat rate and no spoils games = enless deadlock leading to frustration/boredom (at least thats what happened in a bunch of games ive played where the players were all Majors and Captains.)

Every time i play freestyle speed games someone makes a winning move whilst in the blink of an eye whilst i am refreshing the page or the timer is stuck at 0:00. Also people get higher cash value by cashing in and taking their turn right at the end with one milisecond to go. Therefore I endorse standard games. The pickle of doom likes to take his time.

1v1 games is all relentless attacking. I admit that there is skill in it, but all that hitting stacks gives me indigestion.

[pickleofdoom]

Most skill is in escalating games 6-8 players, adjacent forts, with all players above 3000 points where they know when and where to block, on maps with 42+ territories with at least 2 dead ends and 2 hard blocks (one territory blocks). Obviously there is always some luck in escalating if ur turn is after the guy who failed to kill for a win with an 80% chance. But even after a fail kill it doesnt always mean the escalating game is insta-over if blocks are well placed and the failed elim well planned.

I endorse those comments, except that ive never had 3000 points.
I like the High seas map. It is a reasonable size and has a couple of what u call hard blocks which leads to a lot of blocking and lurking about and really makes you work to get those kills.

[Robinette]

Most skill is in escalating games 6-8 players, adjacent forts, with all players above 3000 points where they know when and where to block, on maps with 42+ territories with at least 2 dead ends and 2 hard blocks (one territory blocks). Obviously there is always some luck in escalating if ur turn is after the guy who failed to kill for a win with an 80% chance. But even after a fail kill it doesnt always mean the escalating game is insta-over if blocks are well placed and the failed elim well planned.

set it up... then send me an invite.

[Crazyirishman]

doodle assassin games

[basic_man2010_20]

hardest to win on 8 player freestyle speed doodle assassin

[Iron Butterfly]

hardest to win on 8 player freestyle speed doodle assassin

There is a difference between hard to win and skill.

winning the lottery doesnt make me skillful at it...

[Paddy The Cat]

JCMS is spot on... blocks, timing, protection, knowing when to kill, dead ends... these are all skill factors. when the players are all very good it takes strategy-how else can you explain the players at the top that play nithng but those game, but CONSISTNETL win. virtually none of them are no spoils flat rate players...

however, team trips and quads take a lot of skill no matter what the cards or forts are.. hive triples unlimited fog-takes SKILL, no matter what. so maybe a situation like that is what actually takes the cake for me...

[Iron Butterfly]

Bottom line...different skill sets required for different game formats.

Its like asking who has more skill a Kung Fu master or a Karate Master.

[benga]

The one you suck

[rockfist]

I think any large map with 8 players, fog, and flat rate takes the most skill. I prefer the large map because an early rainbow set in 2.1 or a similar map is not going to win the game for someone.