Conquer Club

cool i like it ill play the test game

Awesome! That is now a total 6 brave souls willing to surge forward into the dark, unexplored forest known only as ADJACENT ATTACKS!
And so, we are now ready to commence our test game.
For those wishing to watch: Game 3389571
I will be sending pms to those who expressed they wanted to play in the test game shortly.

So lets be clear: The rule is,

After taking a territory, you cannot attack with it until the next round.
?

If you mean that "you cannot attack with that territory until the next round", then yes

Cool!!! I already joined it and am looking forward to play it.

i think it would be a nice addition to the site but i personally would never play it...

I want to share with you an important change in game dynamics due to this new rule. If you look at this image...



You can see that Alaska is undefended. It has only 1 army. The reason is that Kamchatka is owned by the same player, and as attacks can only be adjacent, Kamchatka serves as buffer and allows to remain alaska undefended.

I think it is a very interesting change in game dynamics.

Even more interesting will be if I get to Siam. Then no one would be able to take australia from me in a single turn because they can't attack Indoneisa without first owning Siam. this means that bottle necks become drastically more important than in a regular game, as do countries with a single border.

Yes. Bottlenecks are more important now, because they grant you a buffer turn.

But (and that's another change) at the same time, the strategy of acumulating lots of armies in Siam and then storming as much as you can of the map won't be possible, because from Siam only India and China can be reached in a turn.

So as we see, many differences in how the game is played.

Gaah... this is all so interesting to me, I really wish I still had the consistency to play a game...

Cyan managed to secure Australia. He has a stronghold that grants him some safety. But... he cannot project his power over all the map in just one turn...

That game looks like it will go on forever, especially since there are no cards.

lancehoch wrote:That game looks like it will go on forever, especially since there are no cards.

I think that longer games is something you can expect from limiting the amount of territories that armies can move to one per turn. Games with adjacent attacks are expected to take longer.

But I am not so sure that this game will take forever. There is one player who already owns Australia. And another with chances to get North America.

Oliver, can you take the screenshots with the color codes on please. To me it looked like Ditocoaf had all of NA and then deadbeated instead of you owning all of NA. And, yes people may own continents, but it will take a long time for each of you, you and sully, to break the other person's stronghold. By that time, who knows how many armies will be on the map.

lancehoch wrote:Oliver, can you take the screenshots with the color codes on please. To me it looked like Ditocoaf had all of NA and then deadbeated instead of you owning all of NA. And, yes people may own continents, but it will take a long time for each of you, you and sully, to break the other person's stronghold. By that time, who knows how many armies will be on the map.

Of course! I am sorry for not having done it from the begining. Please accept my apologies. I will take screenshots with colour codes from now on.



As I said, I think there is nothing bad with games taking longer. I think that is exactly one of the things that this option wants to achieve. Longer games more based in overall strategy and less in lucky strikes. One thing is clear. The player who likes fast games shouldn't play games with adjacent attacks neither no cards option.

IMHO it is a question of personal preference. I like slow games. Specially when "slow" means relying less in lucky events (such as cashing twice a 10 army set in flat rate, or the player that comes before you falling short to kill another player so you can do it with almost no effort and cash the next set) and more in overall strategy. I like luck to play a factor in my games to make them less boring, but not to be a too important factor.

I can definitely see what you are talking about. Also, nooblet, it looks like you will be the next casualty. Oliver, are you guys playing where if, hypothetically, sully loses China and India, can he attack China from Siam, not advance into China, and then attack India from Siam, or can he only take one back per turn?

lancehoch wrote:I can definitely see what you are talking about. Also, nooblet, it looks like you will be the next casualty. Oliver, are you guys playing where if, hypothetically, sully loses China and India, can he attack China from Siam, not advance into China, and then attack India from Siam, or can he only take one back per turn?

The rule is "a player can only attack from territories he owned at the begining of his turn".

So if sully lost China and India, he would be able to attack China from Siam, not advance, and attack India from Siam. He would not be able to attack China from Siam, advance and then attack India from China.

If you guys decide to get another game together, let me know. I would like to try this, I think I may have changed my opinion from earlier in the thread.

i think that is a dumb idea, because it lowers the potential of the player's turn and it does not follow any real rule.

Evan Thomas wrote:i think that is a dumb idea, because it lowers the potential of the player's turn and it does not follow any real rule.

OliverFA wrote:The rule is "a player can only attack from territories he owned at the begining of his turn".

Thanks for your constructive criticism Evan

lancehoch wrote:If you guys decide to get another game together, let me know. I would like to try this, I think I may have changed my opinion from earlier in the thread.

We talked about having a test game en Classic with escalating cards and another in World 2.1 with flat rate. Maybe you would like to join if N00blet agrees.

I've played this kind of game on a real board many times, and most of you who say that it would be long - you are absolutely right lol. The drop itself is not such a problem as much as it would be a problem playing with guys who are not ready to sacrifice themselves for sake of all. For instance red is the closest to green (and the only one who has enough armies to attack) who has just taken over europe, but red decides not to go after him but instead places his reinforcement on Peru and takes SA, allowing green to take his extra 5 and to basically take the game. Believe me, i've played this on map many times and this can be very fckn frustrating. but of course, dicks and aholes can join any tipe of game here so y'know...
i'm all for this option, takes a lot more tactics in this type of game to win it. just like any other setting, who likes the idea he will join the game, who does not, he will not. simple.

Who is up for another game of this type? Add your name to the sign up list:
lancehoch

sure

We have a standard and an escalating game setup. pw sent to lance and gunner, but there is room for one more. Any takers?

Remember we are employing the adjacent attacks rule ourselves! Please do not break this rule purposefully, even though the game will allow you to. I understand that you may slip up, but hopefully that stays to a minimum.