Conquer Club

I played one game (I liked it) until I realized I had spent about half an hour on the thing. Good find.

jay_a2j wrote:

Woodruff wrote: Incorrect. If two opposing territories border one another (we'll say you own one and I own one) and we both attack each other with everything we have, we will take over each others' territory and NEVER HAVE A BATTLE. That's ridiculously ignorant, insipid, silly...whatever derogatory term you want to use. I prefer "ridiculously illogical".

Would it be better if they fought at the boarder?

Yes...in fact, that's PRECISELY what they SHOULD do.

thegreekdog wrote:I played one game (I liked it) until I realized I had spent about half an hour on the thing. Good find.

hey, thanks!

Woodruff wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Woodruff wrote: Incorrect. If two opposing territories border one another (we'll say you own one and I own one) and we both attack each other with everything we have, we will take over each others' territory and NEVER HAVE A BATTLE. That's ridiculously ignorant, insipid, silly...whatever derogatory term you want to use. I prefer "ridiculously illogical".

Would it be better if they fought at the boarder?

Yes...in fact, that's PRECISELY what they SHOULD do.

Hope you don't mind Woody but I joined a couple of your games

neanderpaul14 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Woodruff wrote: Incorrect. If two opposing territories border one another (we'll say you own one and I own one) and we both attack each other with everything we have, we will take over each others' territory and NEVER HAVE A BATTLE. That's ridiculously ignorant, insipid, silly...whatever derogatory term you want to use. I prefer "ridiculously illogical".

Would it be better if they fought at the boarder?

Yes...in fact, that's PRECISELY what they SHOULD do.

Hope you don't mind Woody but I joined a couple of your games

Don't be waving and laughing at my tanks as you pass them by, you bastard!!!!

(Heh...that makes me think of Kelly's Heroes, thanks to your avatar...)

It's that Desert Fox Maneuver where you slip past the front lines
and surprise them where they least expect it.

oVo wrote:It's that Desert Fox Maneuver where you slip past the front lines
and surprise them where they least expect it.

You magnificent bastard, I read your book!!!!

jay_a2j wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:4 Players/ 2 teams/1 troop per territory to start/scattered territories

I have 1 spot, there are 3 spots left.

Which team will triumph?

Game ID: 1246728
PIN: 479706


the debate is over...

1 Spot left!


Did everyone at CC stop playing Forces?

Neoteny wrote:

oVo wrote:The tank/grunt thing is a big deal... save you cash when defending
and go for the ground dudes. It's amazing how well a short stack of
ground guys can hang in there.

The destroyer/sub combo is sweet... particularly when you have two
or three of each to roam the seas together and add some air
support when possible... KAPLOW!
I have yet to bother buying an aircraft carrier, but I've sunk a few.

I've found the carrier is good for sticking in the middle of a big ocean (with a little protection). You can do some surprise air attacks that way, but other than that, I don't see much use for them either.

an invasion of another continent via sea, plus a need for air support, minus any friendly land spaces nearby = excellent use for carrier.

You're right, I've found the carriers to be very useful, although it would be nice if the fighters actually travelled with it when it moves.

jay_a2j wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:4 Players/ 2 teams/1 troop per territory to start/scattered territories

I have 1 spot, there are 3 spots left.

Which team will triumph?
Game ID: 1246728
PIN: 479706
the debate is over...

1 Spot left!
Did everyone at CC stop playing Forces?

I'm already in 10 games - sorry.

thegreekdog wrote:I played one game (I liked it) until I realized I had spent about half an hour on the thing. Good find.

If you play the AFRICA MAP your moves are much quicker
as it's a much smaller geography to deal with.

oVo wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I played one game (I liked it) until I realized I had spent about half an hour on the thing. Good find.

If you play the AFRICA MAP your moves are much quicker
as it's a much smaller geography to deal with.

Just like on ConquerClub...the bigger the map and the more participants, the more enjoyable the gameplay.

oVo wrote:You're right, I've found the carriers to be very useful, although it would be nice if the fighters actually travelled with it when it moves.

yeah, really. I noticed the same thing. that may be the only real design flaw and inconsistency in the game,. fighters should NOT have to use up their movement allowance if they're sitting on the deck of a carrier.

on the other hand, maybe it's a way to prevent fighters from completely zooming all over the board. so maybe it is intentional on the part of the game's designers.

Woodruff wrote:I'm already in 10 games - sorry.

yow. really? by the way, one thing I noticed here is that games can sdonmetimes take a LOT longer and be much more invovled than at CC. I'm in two games which have both gone 30-40 turns. (that may be because i missed a turn a while back.) bear in mind that sometimes these games become much more involved than CC. two is about my limit for games running at the same time.

sm8900 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I'm already in 10 games - sorry.

yow. really?

Sure - have been for quite some time now, actually. The last one to get kicked off was the 12-player game I set up (last for obvious reasons).

sm8900 wrote:by the way, one thing I noticed here is that games can sometimes take a LOT longer and be much more invovled than at CC. I'm in two games which have both gone 30-40 turns. (that may be because i missed a turn a while back.) bear in mind that sometimes these games become much more involved than CC. two is about my limit for games running at the same time.

Huh. I play a turn there in about the same amount of time I take a turn here at ConquerClub. It really doesn't take very much time to see and grasp the goings-on on the board. And uh...30-40 turns is a rather short game for ConquerClub, unless you don't play with many players in the same game (outside of escalating games, which I generally try to avoid when I can, and even those can go much longer).

oVo wrote:You're right, I've found the carriers to be very useful, although it would be nice if the fighters actually travelled with it when it moves.

sm8900 wrote:yeah, really. I noticed the same thing. that may be the only real design flaw and inconsistency in the game,. fighters should NOT have to use up their movement allowance if they're sitting on the deck of a carrier.

on the other hand, maybe it's a way to prevent fighters from completely zooming all over the board. so maybe it is intentional on the part of the game's designers.

Yes it is very intentional and has always been the case in the A&A rules.

A&A 2nd edition; Page 14 wrote:If a fighter on a carrier is flying out to attack, it must take off from where the carrier is positioned at the start of the turn. For example, you CANNOT move a carrier with a fighter 1 or 2 adjecent sea zones and then move the fighter from where the carrier ends its move.

A&A Revised Edition; Page 27 wrote:A fighter must be launched from the carrier’s initial position to participate
in combat this turn. However, it may land on a carrier after combat (even if retreating) or a noncombat move.
(A fighter may not land on a carrier during the carrier’s move, however.)

One interesting thing to note is that Forces allows for kamikaze moves with fighters/bombers while the A&A rules specifically don't.

jay_a2j wrote:Did everyone at CC stop playing Forces?

Clearly not as I'm in that game with you.

And you are going dooooown.....

Well I put 2 on my block list at Forces.

neanderpaul14 and Burg


neanderpaul14 set up a 3 player game, oddly enough he and Burg are not attacking each other and have no defenses set up near each other. They are both too occupied attacking me. He could have at least made it a four player team game so the game would have some tinge of fairness to it.

Thezzaruz wrote:

oVo wrote:You're right, I've found the carriers to be very useful, although it would be nice if the fighters actually travelled with it when it moves.

sm8900 wrote:yeah, really. I noticed the same thing. that may be the only real design flaw and inconsistency in the game,. fighters should NOT have to use up their movement allowance if they're sitting on the deck of a carrier.

on the other hand, maybe it's a way to prevent fighters from completely zooming all over the board. so maybe it is intentional on the part of the game's designers.

Yes it is very intentional and has always been the case in the A&A rules.

A&A 2nd edition; Page 14 wrote:If a fighter on a carrier is flying out to attack, it must take off from where the carrier is positioned at the start of the turn. For example, you CANNOT move a carrier with a fighter 1 or 2 adjecent sea zones and then move the fighter from where the carrier ends its move.

A&A Revised Edition; Page 27 wrote:A fighter must be launched from the carrier’s initial position to participate
in combat this turn. However, it may land on a carrier after combat (even if retreating) or a noncombat move.
(A fighter may not land on a carrier during the carrier’s move, however.)

One interesting thing to note is that Forces allows for kamikaze moves with fighters/bombers while the A&A rules specifically don't.

wow. excellent post. thanks for your excellent reply and helpful information.

interesting point re kamikazes too. it's eithr a programming issue, or maybe they felt it helps the game along.

since these games can last 3 weeks if necessary, maybe they felt a little variability is good.

jay_a2j wrote:Well I put 2 on my block list at Forces.

neanderpaul14 and Burg


neanderpaul14 set up a 3 player game, oddly enough he and Burg are not attacking each other and have no defenses set up near each other. They are both too occupied attacking me. He could have at least made it a four player team game so the game would have some tinge of fairness to it.

Post a C&A Secret diplomacy thread--oh wait... HAHAHAHAHAH!!

It seems fun, except I still don't understand quite how things work. Like, if your infantry moves to an enemy territory and rolls the 15% attack, they kill a bomber, or whatever they want? How do you decide who dies?

john9blue wrote:It seems fun, except I still don't understand quite how things work. Like, if your infantry moves to an enemy territory and rolls the 15% attack, they kill a bomber, or whatever they want? How do you decide who dies?

it usually eliminates units starting with the lowest-valued units first. If you send in high-priced units like bombers, it's always better to send in a few ground troops as well, to absorb losses. if the target is unreachable by land forces, try to send some fighters along with bombers. you can also move a sub or transport into any sea spaces. also, SAMs can be useful to move around sometimes to absorb losses.

I'm still trying to figure out some of the logistics too. The blocking thing can really be a mystery, like how does someone you're moving away from still block/hold you in the spot? When engaged in combat sometimes you can retreat from the position and other times you can't.

Two World Wide games waiting for players if you've got the open gameslots

#13255 (3 of 5) - . . . has a top 5 player in it

#13276 (4 of 5) - Each player's chosen capital will start with a factory and no initial forces.

I'm getting kind of tired of some ridiculous things that were pointed out. maybe it's because i don't really understand the rolls system, or how aircraft can hold land from attackers without any defending ground forces, among many other basic things that I thought would apply to this game. But to hell with it, I'm gonna finish up my games and retire it.