Defered troops - what is rationale for this?

[Grifter]

I discovered (the hard way) that the number of deferred troops given when a player misses a turn is based on what territories the player had at the time he takes his turn and not on what he had on the round that was missed. What is the rationale for this?

By missing a turn a player already loses the chance to defend his territories as well as losing a chance at spoils. Is there a need to further punish the player? If he was given the full number of troops he can stage a comeback.

[neanderpaul14]

I discovered (the hard way) that the number of deferred troops given when a player misses a turn is based on what territories the player had at the time he takes his turn and not on what he had on the round that was missed. What is the rationale for this?

By missing a turn a player already loses the chance to defend his territories as well as losing a chance at spoils. Is there a need to further punish the player? If he was given the full number of troops he can stage a comeback.

I believe the idea behind it is so people won't attempt to abuse the deferred troop system by intentionally missing turns. Also this way those who take all their turns are not punished.

[AndyDufresne]

Neanderpaul14 sums up a few points very nicely.


--Andy

[Grifter]

How does it punish other players if one player misses their turn? How does it give the absent player an advantage?

[delahoc]

[quote="Grifter"]How does it punish other players if one player misses their turn? How does it give the absent player an advantage?[/quote]
I thoroughly agree with Neanderpaul14. Well summarised.

Remaining players are punished by having to wait around unnecessarily for the clock to tick down on an absent player. Remaining players are also punished if one of them is in a superior position - it then makes it more difficult for the weaker player to remain in the game if they are left to take on the stronger player alone. I've come across this often in 3 and 4 player games.

[Skiman]

The deferred troops rule needs to go. It's the dumbest feature of CC. Nothing provokes as much annoyance in other players than watching a turn missing player return and move into an advatnaged position *specically* due to the extra deployment. Happens all the time, and plenty of people skip turns on purpose. I would love to see the rule abolished. The benefits is supposedly provides (perhaps giving an incentive to keep playing games where a turn has been innocently missed) are far outweighed by how negative everyone feels about it

[oVo]

What is the rationale for this?

You're fortunate to get anything at all. In many games not showing up results in a forfeit.

I definitely prefer the current deferred deployment method over the old one,
where a player received deferred armies at the start of a turn.

[Timminz]

The deferred troops rule needs to go. It's the dumbest feature of CC. Nothing provokes as much annoyance in other players than watching a turn missing player return and move into an advatnaged position *specically* due to the extra deployment. Happens all the time, and plenty of people skip turns on purpose. I would love to see the rule abolished. The benefits is supposedly provides (perhaps giving an incentive to keep playing games where a turn has been innocently missed) are far outweighed by how negative everyone feels about it

You would have loved the old way. Deferred armies used to be given at the same time as regular deployments. The current method is fine. Anyone missing turns on purpose is just being stupid.

[PLAYER57832]

The deferred troops rule needs to go. It's the dumbest feature of CC. Nothing provokes as much annoyance in other players than watching a turn missing player return and move into an advatnaged position *specically* due to the extra deployment. Happens all the time, and plenty of people skip turns on purpose. I would love to see the rule abolished. The benefits is supposedly provides (perhaps giving an incentive to keep playing games where a turn has been innocently missed) are far outweighed by how negative everyone feels about it

You would have loved the old way. Deferred armies used to be given at the same time as regular deployments. The current method is fine. Anyone missing turns on purpose is just being stupid.

In general, yes. However there are some games where not having those extra armies up to be attacked can be an advantage. Nothing is perfect.

Still, I think it was a good compromise.

[trinicardinal]

The deferred troops rule needs to go. It's the dumbest feature of CC. Nothing provokes as much annoyance in other players than watching a turn missing player return and move into an advatnaged position *specically* due to the extra deployment. Happens all the time, and plenty of people skip turns on purpose. I would love to see the rule abolished. The benefits is supposedly provides (perhaps giving an incentive to keep playing games where a turn has been innocently missed) are far outweighed by how negative everyone feels about it

You would have loved the old way. Deferred armies used to be given at the same time as regular deployments. The current method is fine. Anyone missing turns on purpose is just being stupid.

In general, yes. However there are some games where not having those extra armies up to be attacked can be an advantage. Nothing is perfect.

Still, I think it was a good compromise.

I agree. Under the current rule players should anticipate the deferred troops and be prepare for them to be deployed. thus they should not weaken themselves to the point where they will be at a disadvantage when they are deployed. Play smart. that's all

[Skiman]

I disagree - it's not enough to say players should simply be preferred for the deferred troops. The problem is this: when someone is missing turns, some players often assume that player is NOT returning. Because once someone starts missing turns, people make different judgements about whether that player will return, and guessing correctly can give an unfair advantage. A few scenarios...

In scenario one, one player guesses correctly the turn skipper is not returning, and uses that to an advantage (not defending a border, attacking all out against a remaining player). The guy sitting there worrying about the turn skipping player gets screwed. Worse, the player that worried about the return might have even wasted armies attacking the skipper.

In scenario two, all players guess correctly the turn skipper isn't returning, and nobody is disadvantaged.

In scenario three, most players assume the turn skipper isn't returning, and attack each other, wearing ecah other down. Then the turn skipper returns, and suddenly has the most armies on the map.

As these simple scenarios illustrate - the games can get warped.

Of course, not providing deferred armies doesn't completely solve the problem. But it helps from two angles. First, its much more difficult for the turn skipping player to be the one that benefits from different scenario outcomes - and that's a good thing, because it's that player that is in the wrong. Second, it reduces the incentive to miss turns.

[Timminz]

I disagree - it's not enough to say players should simply be preferred for the deferred troops. The problem is this: when someone is missing turns, some players often assume that player is NOT returning. Because once someone starts missing turns, people make different judgements about whether that player will return, and guessing correctly can give an unfair advantage. A few scenarios...

In scenario one, one player guesses correctly the turn skipper is not returning, and uses that to an advantage (not defending a border, attacking all out against a remaining player). The guy sitting there worrying about the turn skipping player gets screwed. Worse, the player that worried about the return might have even wasted armies attacking the skipper.

In scenario two, all players guess correctly the turn skipper isn't returning, and nobody is disadvantaged.

In scenario three, most players assume the turn skipper isn't returning, and attack each other, wearing ecah other down. Then the turn skipper returns, and suddenly has the most armies on the map.

As these simple scenarios illustrate - the games can get warped.

Of course, not providing deferred armies doesn't completely solve the problem. But it helps from two angles. First, its much more difficult for the turn skipping player to be the one that benefits from different scenario outcomes - and that's a good thing, because it's that player that is in the wrong. Second, it reduces the incentive to miss turns.

That's a great example of how assumptions can be harmful. Rather than guessing whether or not someone is coming back, think simply that they have missed a turn, or 2.

[mkohary]

The deferred troops rule needs to go. It's the dumbest feature of CC. Nothing provokes as much annoyance in other players than watching a turn missing player return and move into an advatnaged position *specically* due to the extra deployment. Happens all the time, and plenty of people skip turns on purpose. I would love to see the rule abolished. The benefits is supposedly provides (perhaps giving an incentive to keep playing games where a turn has been innocently missed) are far outweighed by how negative everyone feels about it

I agree, and obviously I disagree with those who feel the current rule is a "good compromise" or whatever. If you miss your turn, you shouldn't receive any troops - you didn't play the turn!

I would actually take it even farther: if you miss your turn, you drop the game. But I think I'm in the minority on that, so I'd be happy just to see deferred troops abolished.

[niMic]

Personally, I don't see why they should be given any troops for the missed turn at all.

[burntoast101]

I disagree - it's not enough to say players should simply be preferred for the deferred troops. The problem is this: when someone is missing turns, some players often assume that player is NOT returning. Because once someone starts missing turns, people make different judgements about whether that player will return, and guessing correctly can give an unfair advantage. A few scenarios...

In scenario one, one player guesses correctly the turn skipper is not returning, and uses that to an advantage (not defending a border, attacking all out against a remaining player). The guy sitting there worrying about the turn skipping player gets screwed. Worse, the player that worried about the return might have even wasted armies attacking the skipper.

In scenario two, all players guess correctly the turn skipper isn't returning, and nobody is disadvantaged.

In scenario three, most players assume the turn skipper isn't returning, and attack each other, wearing ecah other down. Then the turn skipper returns, and suddenly has the most armies on the map.

As these simple scenarios illustrate - the games can get warped.

Of course, not providing deferred armies doesn't completely solve the problem. But it helps from two angles. First, its much more difficult for the turn skipping player to be the one that benefits from different scenario outcomes - and that's a good thing, because it's that player that is in the wrong. Second, it reduces the incentive to miss turns.

That's a great example of how assumptions can be harmful. Rather than guessing whether or not someone is coming back, think simply that they have missed a turn, or 2.

My main problem on it is on small maps, with hard to come by bonuses. Some of my favorite maps are small ones like luxembourg or doodle earth. Oftentimes in three or four player maps, no one has a bonus, and if a player misses two turns,no one hits them, because its assumed they're out. It's like hitting a neutral. So they receive immunity and come back and plop down nine troops. It's impossible to break them, so they can wreak havoc. Maybe its an assumption, but I doubt you go out of your way to hit neutrals. Its a strategically unwise move.

[wolfpack0530]

I can see both sides of the argument, but am leaning toward abolishing defered troups. I can only speak for myself, so as a person with 100% turns taken, getting rid of defered troups would not hurt me at all.

That being said, i have been pretty lucky lately and have been in games where nobody is missing turns at all.

[Moop]

As a noob and someone who knew how to play risk(perhaps badly) so only had a quick skim of the instructions I had no idea about this deferred troop system. Its seems this system is only there to try and add more tactics when surely thats not needed, your giving people reasons to miss turns, 24HOURS of hanging around, its a pain in the arse, if there wasnt a tactical reason for missing shots then the amount of people missing them would reduce I would presume by a majority. If you miss your turn by accident well tough, if you know your playing games then you make sure you can play or you deal with what happens when your away. Surely that would be a fairer and faster system?

[owenshooter]

Its seems this system is only there to try and add more tactics when surely thats not needed

i think it is to accommodate the casual online gamers that have other things going on in their lives... afterall, the first page of the site reads:

Designed for the casual gamer, playing Conquer Club is not a time consuming process. You can take your turn in 5 minutes with your morning cup of coffee or in between classes.

deferred troops suck, but they are much better now than they were before when the person received them all at the start of their turn (talk about a tactic)... and as you play longer, you will learn how to deal with people that are missing turns deliberately or otherwise...-0

[Annie M]

I was surprised by the deferred troops rule, but i can see that it makes some sense. Maybe it could be an optional thing - so that when you start a game you can choose whether or not to have deferred troops?

[karelpietertje]

I was surprised by the deferred troops rule, but i can see that it makes some sense. Maybe it could be an optional thing - so that when you start a game you can choose whether or not to have deferred troops?

no. we have enough options already.
how come people keep saying this ?
if we would have as many options as there were suggestions for those, starting a game would take at least 30 minutes... not very fun for the casual gamer

[God Emperor Q]

The deferred troops rule needs to go. It's the dumbest feature of CC. Nothing provokes as much annoyance in other players than watching a turn missing player return and move into an advatnaged position *specically* due to the extra deployment. Happens all the time, and plenty of people skip turns on purpose. I would love to see the rule abolished. The benefits is supposedly provides (perhaps giving an incentive to keep playing games where a turn has been innocently missed) are far outweighed by how negative everyone feels about it

I agree. The deffered troops policy allows players to take a continent then reinforce their or their partners borders. You need to punish people who miss turns, not reward them.

[Thezzaruz]

Maybe its an assumption, but I doubt you go out of your way to hit neutrals. Its a strategically unwise move.

I would say that ignoring an opponent is the unwise move tbh.

[AgentSmith88]

I would say it's strategically unwise to play 3 and 4 player games on doodle earth and luxembourg. If you think there is much more than luck involved with those maps anyways you are delusional. It's all about the dice because there is little to no strategy to be had on such tiny maps. Any decent player will tell you that an opponent missing turns only hurts them about 1 in 100 times.

[AgentSmith88]

edit