Conquer Club

This seems like a good option... I would definitely try a few games, and if there's a good possibility I'd like it and keep playing. It'd be a much slower game, but people already play no-cards adjacent, so that's not really an issue. It would require radically different strategies, which is why I like it so much. You could watch a group of armies advancing turn by turn. You couldn't take an area just by amassing one huge centralized force, instead it would be smarter to attack on all sides, to avoid counter-attacks... it might be more realistic in that respect.

A very emphatic yes to this idea.

One person could be a dick and run though and waste so many turns before elimination. It would be absolutely terrible for escalating games. It would result in massive stalemates where strategy does NOT prevail simply because you can never benefit from killing someone, and by the time on the OFFCHANCE you're able to strategically block off someone, by the time you're ready to kill the person they will have taken enough turns to cash.

The only thing this would accomplish would be massive stalemates in escalating games if played on the classic map... you'd need large maps such as World 2.1 to make it work... where people ditch many of their other territories in order to claim a bonus.

FabledIntegral wrote:One person could be a dick and run though and waste so many turns before elimination. It would be absolutely terrible for escalating games. It would result in massive stalemates where strategy does NOT prevail simply because you can never benefit from killing someone, and by the time on the OFFCHANCE you're able to strategically block off someone, by the time you're ready to kill the person they will have taken enough turns to cash.

The only thing this would accomplish would be massive stalemates in escalating games if played on the classic map... you'd need large maps such as World 2.1 to make it work... where people ditch many of their other territories in order to claim a bonus.

It would be a much slower game, especially on certain maps. But people play no-cards adjacent on Circus Maximus, so... I think it's okay for there to be slow game options.

Ditocoaf wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:One person could be a dick and run though and waste so many turns before elimination. It would be absolutely terrible for escalating games. It would result in massive stalemates where strategy does NOT prevail simply because you can never benefit from killing someone, and by the time on the OFFCHANCE you're able to strategically block off someone, by the time you're ready to kill the person they will have taken enough turns to cash.

The only thing this would accomplish would be massive stalemates in escalating games if played on the classic map... you'd need large maps such as World 2.1 to make it work... where people ditch many of their other territories in order to claim a bonus.

It would be a much slower game, especially on certain maps. But people play no-cards adjacent on Circus Maximus, so... I think it's okay for there to be slow game options.

You can still attack more than one territory per turn? If so, it would still be faster by tenfold.

Basically, when you capture a territory, you "just got it", so you can't really do anything with it.

Without this rule, you can move armies across asia, through enemy territory, conquering every region one by one. If you have "adjacent reinforcements" set, then things are really weird, imo: if you own asia, you can't move armies through it in a single turn, but if the enemy owns asia, then you can.

With adjacent attacks, things are set so that you can't move more than one region through enemy territory in a single turn. It makes for a much slower game, and much more careful tactics are needed. You can't just build up a giant army, then take over the entire world instantaneously. And if there are no enemies anywhere near Siam, it's safe... but if you leave it undefended, within a turn or two, it could be in huge danger.

You can actually see the enemy approaching your key territories, turn by turn. I think it makes for a much more interesting game.

I think this would be a nice option. Why don't you start a poll? It makes no sense to me that it's much easier to move your armies through an enemy territory than through your own territory.

EDIT: never mind...

FabledIntegral wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:One person could be a dick and run though and waste so many turns before elimination. It would be absolutely terrible for escalating games. It would result in massive stalemates where strategy does NOT prevail simply because you can never benefit from killing someone, and by the time on the OFFCHANCE you're able to strategically block off someone, by the time you're ready to kill the person they will have taken enough turns to cash.

The only thing this would accomplish would be massive stalemates in escalating games if played on the classic map... you'd need large maps such as World 2.1 to make it work... where people ditch many of their other territories in order to claim a bonus.

It would be a much slower game, especially on certain maps. But people play no-cards adjacent on Circus Maximus, so... I think it's okay for there to be slow game options.

You can still attack more than one territory per turn? If so, it would still be faster by tenfold.

yes, the idea is that each country can only attack once. but if you are allowed to attack from several different countries during your turn.

Ditocoaf wrote:Woah... I just realized that I've completely misread this idea. I thought that it meant that you couldn't attack with a territ you just conquered... but upon re-reading, it seems that all this would do is make it so no one country can attack more than once. Which is kind of pointless, because you don't often attack multiple targets from the same country in any given turn -- you zig-zag around advancing armies to the territ you just conquered.

so my "yes" vote changes to a "no", as this would not change the game very much at all.

....it seems you misread it when you re-read it lol. or maybe it wasn't clear...either way, the idea is that each country can only attack once AND the armies that advanced upon conquering a country cannot attack during said turn.

*EDIT*
oops...turns out that wasn't in the original. my bad . i'll edit my suggestion now.

well, people were just starting to talk and then this gets bumped down by tons of other suggestions. BUMPED AGAIN lol
(Plus i added a poll now )

n00blet wrote:(Plus i added a poll now )

I'm a douche.

I don't hate new ways, just crappy ways...

Apparently I am a douche as well. I wanted to have one more thing specified. If I attack, but do not conquer country B from country A, can I still attack from country A to country C? Also, this would needlessly extend games. I just finished a game on Doodle in two turns by running through five countries of one player and six of another. If this were implemented I would have needed more than 11 turns to make the same move. Extending a Doodle game 9 extra turns seems pointless. What would happen if this were on World 2.1?

Okay, I like it again with the clarification.

To all those complaining that this would "needlessly extend games": nobody would force you to play this, just like nobody forces you to play "no cards" games. Sure, "no cards" games take a lot longer, but some people find them fun, myself included. I'm not concerned with getting as many points as fast as possible, and so longer games aren't only accpetable, I occasionally prefer them.

The strategy changes this would require would be very worth it, in my opinion. This is something I really want to see.

But... could the poll options be changed? Its never a good idea to insult the voters, and I have a feeling that this will make the idea look bad, and even encourage people to vote "no" in spite.

@ ditocoaf
i suppose that would be a good idea XD
i suppose i shouldn't assume people have a sense of humor lol

I'm glad someone thought this up. It creates an alternative style of risk more concerned with strategy than luck.
Thanks, nooblet.

Man, things get buried really fast in this forum. This has to be one of the better suggestions I've seen in a while, so I'd like to bring it to the front.

However, could I propose a change? I'd like the idea to be simplified as just:
Newly conquered territories cannot attack.
It's simpler to explain (and therefore more likely to be accepted as a game option), and it's not too different from what you have currently. Conquering multiple times from the same territory is rare enough that this doesn't really effect the game much. And in fact, because it's so rare, I think it would be interesting to see if people do it more once the "new territory" limitation is put in place. The rule would still stop people from snaking around to conquer an entire continent in a turn, and if they want to expand in multiple directions, they'll have to spread out their force from a single territory.

Ditocoaf wrote:Newly conquered territories cannot attack.

hmm.....that was one of the things i was toying with while thinking of this idea. i wasn't sure which one would be better....but i suppose that would be easier to explain. I'll edit the suggestion....again lol

bump for one of the better ideas to grace these pages in a while.

if we could get more people to vote....it'd be cool.....especially if they voted yes

I'm all for this idea.
It adds an extra level of strategy, for those looking for more challenge. (the randomness of dice, just isn't enough strategy sometimes)
Again to reiterate Ditocoaf's point, it would be an option to play, not a requirement, so don't worry it will slow things down too much, as you don't have to play.

I like the idea of a territory being able to attack multiple countries, but conquered terits not being able to attack further.

I would like to add a suggestion from same time risk, where you can do surge attacks. In same time risk, you could plan a move so if you take a territory and move x number of troops into, you can have the option(once per turn) of having all the remaining troops in the newly conquered terit continue on into another territory. You don't get control of the dice on the second half of the surge, so you would have to commit all troops from the newly conquered village in a battle to the death in the surge attack.

A attacks B, wins, moves 10 troops from A into B, B then attacks C till death or victory.(the number of troops moved from A to B would need to be decided before any dice are rolled.)

If this surge was properly limited (once per turn, or perhaps with cards{maybe cards get you a surge instead of troops?}) it would add an additional layer of strategy and speed up the process as you can take 2 in one turn.


Make sense? Tough, I explained it as best as I could.

Its ok but too far fetched from RISK which this site is based on..

kerntheconkerer wrote:Its ok but too far fetched from RISK which this site is based on..

Do you mean Richard Hand's idea, or the OP? Because the suggestion of this thread seems pretty simple to me... conquered territs can't attack that turn. Much less game-changing than, say, the Assassin variation.

Well, actually assassin is slightly based off of the real life board game. If you play with secret missions, some of the missions say eliminate all of the red armies or blue armies. So assassin does not really change the game all that much. Not being allowed to attack from a conquered territory would slow all games to a halt. Imagine Feudal Wars and AOR with this setting.

lancehoch wrote:Well, actually assassin is slightly based off of the real life board game. If you play with secret missions, some of the missions say eliminate all of the red armies or blue armies. So assassin does not really change the game all that much. Not being allowed to attack from a conquered territory would slow all games to a halt. Imagine Feudal Wars and AOR with this setting.

i actually had big maps like feudal war in mind with this setting. it would not slow games to a halt...rather, people would just need to develop radically different strategies. instead of setting up line of territories to conquer through, people would need to surround the intended victim. choke points would be of greater value, and positioning one's troops would be key.

kerntheconkerer wrote:Its ok but too far fetched from RISK which this site is based on..

i don't really understand how it's too far fetched....this is a just a new game type that will instigate new strategies. a truly far fetched idea, but one that i support, is that of "zombie neutral territories" (which has been passed and is under work as we speak)

n00blet wrote:i actually had big maps like feudal war in mind with this setting. it would not slow games to a halt...rather, people would just need to develop radically different strategies. instead of setting up line of territories to conquer through, people would need to surround the intended victim. choke points would be of greater value, and positioning one's troops would be key.

Huh? The bombardment would make it impossible to ever get to a castle with such slow movement. It would take you at least 3-4 turns to get to a castle once you've broken into hostile territory and by the time you got there you'd have no armies left...