Conquer Club

Criticalwinner wrote:This has been already been brought up countless times before..... It's not going to happen.

I find that an interesting statement. If it has been brought up so very many times... why isn't it going to happen? That seems counter intuitive. Usually, the more a request is brought up the more likely it is to happen.

i find it amusingly ironic how a suggestion to eliminate luck actually manages to make the games 100% luck.

in a no spoils no dice game where the person that starts the game gets a bonus from the drop, the second guy has no chance to come back and win.
game over from the start. so much about "stratagy"

I think the title of this thread should be changed to: "Whoever is luckiest to go first wins games".

what is "stratagy"?

rokus35 wrote:Does anybody hate it when your opponent gets a lucky win?
Does anybody hate it when you get an unlucky loss?

Well, what if there was another game option. This option would allow little to no luck to be in the game. This new option would include the following

-no dice
-colorless cards

Does anybody hate it when you bring up a topic that we've already seen and proven that it didn't work?
Does anybody hate it when the "new option" just turns it back into a purely luck game based on drops, player-owned cards, and who goes first?

Well, what if there was an opinion about this?

This "stratagy" would include the following

-Not Implementing This (Ever)

Back to the drawing board.

Don't they actually have this option over at majcom?

I'd be interested to hear how it works out...

Let's have a completely penis based game. Whoever has the largest penis will win. Girls can use dildos if they want to,or they can borrow their significant others.

We can implement it at the same time.

hurry up and put this damn suggestion through - The "Randomness" is really starting to f*ck me off

jammyjames wrote:hurry up and put this damn suggestion through - The "Randomness" is really starting to f*ck me off

If this was implemented you'd be in the forum complaining about the "randomness" of you always going 2nd and always losing no dice games.

Bones2484 wrote:

jammyjames wrote:hurry up and put this damn suggestion through - The "Randomness" is really starting to f*ck me off

If this was implemented you'd be in the forum complaining about the "randomness" of you always going 2nd and always losing no dice games.

I play freestlyle mainly - therefore your first argument is invalid.

What would i have to complain about when losing a no-dice game except for that first point?

Please enlighten me...

This sounds like an awful idea. How is in submitted suggs?

I can already think of a way to farm this and game types that will result in unbreakable ties.

agentcom wrote:This sounds like an awful idea. How is in submitted suggs?

I can already think of a way to farm this and game types that will result in unbreakable ties.

Please - do go on?

What maps / settings would have an unbreakable tie?

jammyjames wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:

jammyjames wrote:hurry up and put this damn suggestion through - The "Randomness" is really starting to f*ck me off

If this was implemented you'd be in the forum complaining about the "randomness" of you always going 2nd and always losing no dice games.

I play freestlyle mainly - therefore your first argument is invalid.

What would i have to complain about when losing a no-dice game except for that first point?

Please enlighten me...

Actually, my argument is perfectly valid. It just does not apply to your situation.

This setting would be absolutely useless for sequential (and most freestyle) games. Really the best use of this game type would be speed freestyle, and since this site only has ONE developer I really doubt he'll focus on something so specific to a small amount of the community at this time.

jammyjames wrote:

agentcom wrote:This sounds like an awful idea. How is in submitted suggs?

I can already think of a way to farm this and game types that will result in unbreakable ties.

Please - do go on?

What maps / settings would have an unbreakable tie?

Farming: Actually, I have to think about this one. It could generally be done, but high ranked players would be at risk against and equally talented but low ranked team, if that team went first.

Unbreakable ties. Think of a simple CC map where all territs are able to be attacked (no neutral barriers) and where there are no easily taken bonuses. Let's say that map has a 14 territ per player drop. Let's further simplify this and say there would be only one front (but the analysis is the same with 2 or 3, it just gets more complicated to type out). Picture it almost like the players are playing in a straight line.

Game Starts:

R3 - R3 - R3 - G3 - G3 - G3

Red's turn: Deploy

R3 - R3 - R7 - G3 - G3 - G3

Red attacks:

R3 - R3 - R1 - R3 - G3 - G3

Red Forts:

R1 - R3 - R1 - R5 - G3 - G3

Green (13 territs) drops:

R1 - R3 - R1 - R5 - G7 - G3

Green attacks

R1 - R3 - R1 - G1 - G1 - G3

Green Forts

R1 - R3 - R1 - G3 - G1 - G1

Red (14 territs) drops:

R1 - R3 - R5 - G3 - G1 - G1

Red attacks:

R1 - R3 - R1 - R1 - G1 - G1

Red forts:

R1 - R1 - R1 - R3 - G1 - G1

Green (13 territs) deploys:

R1 - R1 - R1 - R3 - G5 - G1

Green attacks:

R1 - R1 - R1 - G1 - G1 - G1

ad nauseum. Basically as long as you don't attack any neutrals and no bonuses are taken, both teams have exactly the same amount of troops at the end of any given round (after both players have gone). How many drops do you think you can take and hold a bonus when your opponent is getting the exact same troops and dice as you and you're playing a map that allows you both to drop 4 in the first turn. Or a map that allows you to drop 3.

Then there's the problem of maps with 15 starting territs. The player that goes first would certainly be able to send the other player to 14 territs, which means that the starting player would get +1 relative bonus each turn for the first several turns until he could knock the player down to 12 and have a +2 relative bonus. Then the other player would be down to 11 territs and the first turn guy would get +3 relative bonus. The first turn would end the game unless you play against someone dumb who goes after neutrals or is otherwise crazy.

In jammyjames' case, the game would be dependent on the drop. Such an awful suggestion.

agentcom wrote:
Unbreakable ties. Think of a simple CC map where all territs are able to be attacked (no neutral barriers) and where there are no easily taken bonuses. Let's say that map has a 14 territ per player drop. Let's further simplify this and say there would be only one front (but the analysis is the same with 2 or 3, it just gets more complicated to type out). Picture it almost like the players are playing in a straight line.

Game Starts:

R3 - R3 - R3 - G3 - G3 - G3

Red's turn: Deploy

R3 - R3 - R7 - G3 - G3 - G3

Red attacks:

R3 - R3 - R1 - R3 - G3 - G3

Red Forts:

R1 - R3 - R1 - R5 - G3 - G3

Green (13 territs) drops:

R1 - R3 - R1 - R5 - G7 - G3

Green attacks

R1 - R3 - R1 - G1 - G1 - G3

Green Forts

R1 - R3 - R1 - G3 - G1 - G1

Red (14 territs) drops:

R1 - R3 - R5 - G3 - G1 - G1

Red attacks:

R1 - R3 - R1 - R1 - G1 - G1

Red forts:

R1 - R1 - R1 - R3 - G1 - G1

Green (13 territs) deploys:

R1 - R1 - R1 - R3 - G5 - G1

Green attacks:

R1 - R1 - R1 - G1 - G1 - G1

ad nauseum. Basically as long as you don't attack any neutrals and no bonuses are taken, both teams have exactly the same amount of troops at the end of any given round (after both players have gone). How many drops do you think you can take and hold a bonus when your opponent is getting the exact same troops and dice as you and you're playing a map that allows you both to drop 4 in the first turn. Or a map that allows you to drop 3.

Then there's the problem of maps with 15 starting territs. The player that goes first would certainly be able to send the other player to 14 territs, which means that the starting player would get +1 relative bonus each turn for the first several turns until he could knock the player down to 12 and have a +2 relative bonus. Then the other player would be down to 11 territs and the first turn guy would get +3 relative bonus. The first turn would end the game unless you play against someone dumb who goes after neutrals or is otherwise crazy.

If no one can overcome this problem, then this should be rejected, IMO.

BaldAdonis wrote:
A few other threads where this was discussed:
Fruitcake, from a month ago;
Generaln7, from 3 months ago;
coolpsp, from last May;
CreepyUncleAndy, from over a year ago;
Basic summary: it's never been officially rejected; hardly anyone supports it; "why not just play Diplomacy?"; and Risktaker17 makes funny posts.

L.O.L.

Thanks to the above post from 2008, I have discovered that fruitcake has performed the amazing feat of having a suggestion in Submitted Suggestions AND an identical suggestion in Rejected Suggestions.

I plan on moving this version over to Rejected when I get a chance to search for and merge all this stuff together. Reading back through this thread, there isn't even that much support for this suggestion.

I think this can be modified, preserving the positive original intention (decrease the luck factor from games), but avoiding the obvious flaws (stagnated dull games, as pointed out for agentcom).

Add the option of "City of Mogul" troops scale. so instead of starting with 3 troops, people start with 30, receving very few troops due to territories, but modifying the bonus accordingly.

So for instance, in classic map, instead of receiving 2 for Australia/south america, you receive 20. It has been proved that at large scale the streakness of the dice is less dramatic, but still preserves the "luck" inherent to our beloved game.

agentcom wrote:I plan on moving this version over to Rejected when I get a chance to search for and merge all this stuff together. Reading back through this thread, there isn't even that much support for this suggestion.

stop slacking off, move this to Rejected.

Falkomagno wrote:I think this can be modified, preserving the positive original intention (decrease the luck factor from games), but avoiding the obvious flaws (stagnated dull games, as pointed out for agentcom).

Add the option of "City of Mogul" troops scale. so instead of starting with 3 troops, people start with 30, receving very few troops due to territories, but modifying the bonus accordingly.

So for instance, in classic map, instead of receiving 2 for Australia/south america, you receive 20. It has been proved that at large scale the streakness of the dice is less dramatic, but still preserves the "luck" inherent to our beloved game.

no offense, but a question. what to do with the. oh noes, someone started with australia in turn 1?

Why is this in submitted?

SirSebstar wrote:

Falkomagno wrote:I think this can be modified, preserving the positive original intention (decrease the luck factor from games), but avoiding the obvious flaws (stagnated dull games, as pointed out for agentcom).

Add the option of "City of Mogul" troops scale. so instead of starting with 3 troops, people start with 30, receving very few troops due to territories, but modifying the bonus accordingly.

So for instance, in classic map, instead of receiving 2 for Australia/south america, you receive 20. It has been proved that at large scale the streakness of the dice is less dramatic, but still preserves the "luck" inherent to our beloved game.

no offense, but a question. what to do with the. oh noes, someone started with australia in turn 1?

the same like if that happen with such drop in regular scale....it doesn garantee to be unbreakable, since the amount of troops is high as well....

greenoaks wrote:

agentcom wrote:I plan on moving this version over to Rejected when I get a chance to search for and merge all this stuff together. Reading back through this thread, there isn't even that much support for this suggestion.

stop slacking off, move this to Rejected.

Unfortunately, I didn't have time to put together any previous threads that have discussed this topic. Another project for another day, I suppose. With a little bit of happiness, I move this one to REJECTED.

Dear Conquer Club,

I checked the forum for this subject,could not find it,so here it comes;

I played risk with my friends very often and suddenly someone came with the idea to play it without the dice (there was a lot of stress and nagging becouse of it;bad luck/dice laying on edges).
The idea is to conquer territorys just by doing math;take the army(s) of the territory you attack,take the same amount of armys of your own territory and place at least one army of your terry on the one you conquered.
This sounds very dull and predictable,but the fun is that you can use the spoils you earn not only in sets,but also single and also for defending a territory.
for example: you earned a card by succesfully conquering a territory last round;the card is china(cavellary=8).Then the next round you can put 8 armys on china if you own it,conquer it or whenever someone attacks it.
So even someone else is playing and attacking a terry of yours that you have a card of,you can intervent;trade the card in and use the armys standing for it to defend it.
The other rule we had was that you get one army on every territory you have with no enemy-neighbours connected in the beginning of your round.
We never played with dice again,but it was hard confincing new players it was more fun that way.So i dont say 'lets get rid of those dice',but maybe one map with this concept for trial?Just try to help,hope not i am again someone with that stupid idea!!I play poker a lot,so i know theres no luck in the long run.Just keep rolling those dice,love to play on your site and maps!!!

kind regards,osok68

This has been suggested many times. MOVED and MERGED.

osok68 wrote:Dear Conquer Club,

I checked the forum for this subject,could not find it,so here it comes;

I played risk with my friends very often and suddenly someone came with the idea to play it without the dice (there was a lot of stress and nagging becouse of it;bad luck/dice laying on edges).
The idea is to conquer territorys just by doing math;take the army(s) of the territory you attack,take the same amount of armys of your own territory and place at least one army of your terry on the one you conquered.
This sounds very dull and predictable,but the fun is that you can use the spoils you earn not only in sets,but also single and also for defending a territory.
for example: you earned a card by succesfully conquering a territory last round;the card is china(cavellary=8).Then the next round you can put 8 armys on china if you own it,conquer it or whenever someone attacks it.
So even someone else is playing and attacking a terry of yours that you have a card of,you can intervent;trade the card in and use the armys standing for it to defend it.
The other rule we had was that you get one army on every territory you have with no enemy-neighbours connected in the beginning of your round.
We never played with dice again,but it was hard confincing new players it was more fun that way.So i dont say 'lets get rid of those dice',but maybe one map with this concept for trial?Just try to help,hope not i am again someone with that stupid idea!!I play poker a lot,so i know theres no luck in the long run.Just keep rolling those dice,love to play on your site and maps!!!

kind regards,osok68