Conquer Club

Little Witt wrote:that wouldn't work for some maps like City Mogul AoR 1 2 & 3 and some more maps, And the game would last for ever if this made it threw and made a update and what would happen if some on was playing a esc game and they turned in a set and the troop number was at 65 they had 12 on all of there territory's what could they do with there troops they had to deploy?

Little Witt

yeah it would only work on land maps,and would take awhile to play.esc wouldn't be an option for this variation as i stated in the opening post.

oh well,just thought i'd try because i used to love playing by these rules,and i'm getting tired of clueless players knocking me out of games early because they start an all out war for a region within the first few turns basically eliminating both of us.

thanks for input everyone,i can see it will go nowhere

maybe when you create the game, it could be an optioon called: strange, or does not work

zodiak wrote:To compensate for the obvious advantage of the defender

I stopped reading right around this line. The defender does not have an advantage if you are rolling 3 dice.

3 dice, 6x6x6, 216 rolling combination's.
2 dice, 36 different combination's.

Ties go to defender, only 2 dice count total.

Also, if we do this, what happens to this game?
Game 5408994

I recall trying a game with those stipulations (the 12-army limit) once. It was not very fun.

Bones2484 wrote:

zodiak wrote:To compensate for the obvious advantage of the defender

I stopped reading right around this line. The defender does not have an advantage if you are rolling 3 dice.

well with 12 attacking 12 the defender would not be outnumbered and would be at better advantage,and with 3 die they still do since they win ties....duh

zodiak wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:

zodiak wrote:To compensate for the obvious advantage of the defender

I stopped reading right around this line. The defender does not have an advantage if you are rolling 3 dice.

well with 12 attacking 12 the defender would not be outnumbered and would be at better advantage,and with 3 die they still do since they win ties....duh

False. 12 on 12, is almost exactly where the overall odds of the attacker winning the battle go above 50%. This suggestion, if implemented, would actually reduce the attacker's advantage, as the bigger the number of troops are, the more of an advantage the attacker has.

Timminz wrote:

zodiak wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:

zodiak wrote:To compensate for the obvious advantage of the defender

I stopped reading right around this line. The defender does not have an advantage if you are rolling 3 dice.

well with 12 attacking 12 the defender would not be outnumbered and would be at better advantage,and with 3 die they still do since they win ties....duh

False. 12 on 12, is almost exactly where the overall odds of the attacker winning the battle go above 50%. This suggestion, if implemented, would actually reduce the attacker's advantage, as the bigger the number of troops are, the more of an advantage the attacker has.

Read the post again,the defender would have better odds because the attacker could not stack up and attack with a 2-1 or 3-1 advantage.You just disagreed then agreed with the fact that the attacker was at a disadvantage to the defender.

Like i said i was just hoping for a rules variation option involving more strategy,but i guess it would be too involved for this game site and so far not very popular tho most seem not to understand the idea,my fault most likely .

vodean wrote:maybe when you create the game, it could be an optioon called: strange, or does not work

LMAO,sorry your not familiar with this rules variation which is not my original idea,but was in the rule book in an 80's release of the board game.

At least have a clue before you attempt to insult someone.

Conquerclub had a board game in the 80's? Sweet! I'm checking eBay!

ubersky wrote:Conquerclub had a board game in the 80's? Sweet! I'm checking eBay!

Nice try idiot,i'm sure everyone knows i'm talking about Risk.

My apologies if your really this retarded,i wouldn't want to insult the mentally challenged.

zodiak wrote:Like i said i was just hoping for a rules variation option involving more strategy,but i guess it would be too involved for this game site and so far not very popular tho most seem not to understand the idea,my fault most likely .

How often does insulting people generally convince them that your idea is a good one?

I have played this variation, and, in my opinion, it was horrible. It did not involve more strategy. It stifled strategy.

I see that you're relatively new here, and as such haven't had the chance to experience the full extent of the various strategic options available on Conquer Club. Maybe you should try playing a bigger variety of styles, and maps, before you decide you know what strategic variant are "too involved for this game site".

Good luck, and have fun!

zodiak wrote:

ubersky wrote:Conquerclub had a board game in the 80's? Sweet! I'm checking eBay!

Nice try idiot,i'm sure everyone knows i'm talking about Risk.

My apologies if your really this retarded,i wouldn't want to insult the mentally challenged.

I get it now. the insults are a deflection. Now that you see it's not likely to be implemented, you've started insulting people, so that when this is over, you can go away telling yourself, "What do those idiots know anyway? Hrmph!"

I'm okay with the insults now. Whatever will help you deal with this difficult time.

zodiak wrote:

ubersky wrote:Conquerclub had a board game in the 80's? Sweet! I'm checking eBay!

Nice try idiot,i'm sure everyone knows i'm talking about Risk.
My apologies if your really this retarded,i wouldn't want to insult the mentally challenged.

I had some counter-insults lined up, but will refrain.

If I offended, I apologize. I had not intended to be insulting, but merely chose to act upon a whimsical opportunity for comedic interlude. Forgive my garish lack of tact and obvious rude behavior, what with inserting myself into your discussion thread uninvited.

I shall leave you to your.. umm.. whatever it was you were doing.

Timminz wrote:

zodiak wrote:

ubersky wrote:Conquerclub had a board game in the 80's? Sweet! I'm checking eBay!

Nice try idiot,i'm sure everyone knows i'm talking about Risk.

My apologies if your really this retarded,i wouldn't want to insult the mentally challenged.

I get it now. the insults are a deflection. Now that you see it's not likely to be implemented, you've started insulting people, so that when this is over, you can go away telling yourself, "What do those idiots know anyway? Hrmph!"

I'm okay with the insults now. Whatever will help you deal with this difficult time.

I answered an insult with an insult not because i'm pissed that an idea will get rejected,i could really care less.But belittling people on here seems to be the norm that i see in the forums anyway.It was just a simple suggestion that most misread .

Sorry but i disagree i find it more strategic than throwing a gazzillion armies on one territory and getting lucky on the rolls and matches.

What i meant by too involved was the time taken to play it,maybe not a good choice of words but not meant as an insult to the site.

But you go ahead with your half assed assumptions of me if it makes ya feel good.

ubersky wrote:

zodiak wrote:

ubersky wrote:Conquerclub had a board game in the 80's? Sweet! I'm checking eBay!

Nice try idiot,i'm sure everyone knows i'm talking about Risk.
My apologies if your really this retarded,i wouldn't want to insult the mentally challenged.

I had some counter-insults lined up, but will refrain.

If I offended, I apologize. I had not intended to be insulting, but merely chose to act upon a whimsical opportunity for comedic interlude. Forgive my garish lack of tact and obvious rude behavior, what with inserting myself into your discussion thread uninvited.

I shall leave you to your.. umm.. whatever it was you were doing.

Seems i misunderstood you,i apologize for my insult

hope you accept

zodiak wrote:

Timminz wrote:

zodiak wrote:

ubersky wrote:Conquerclub had a board game in the 80's? Sweet! I'm checking eBay!

Nice try idiot,i'm sure everyone knows i'm talking about Risk.

My apologies if your really this retarded,i wouldn't want to insult the mentally challenged.

I get it now. the insults are a deflection. Now that you see it's not likely to be implemented, you've started insulting people, so that when this is over, you can go away telling yourself, "What do those idiots know anyway? Hrmph!"

I'm okay with the insults now. Whatever will help you deal with this difficult time.

I answered an insult with an insult not because i'm pissed that an idea will get rejected,i could really care less.But belittling people on here seems to be the norm that i see in the forums anyway.It was just a simple suggestion that most misread .

Sorry but i disagree i find it more strategic than throwing a gazzillion armies on one territory and getting lucky on the rolls and matches.

What i meant by too involved was the time taken to play it,maybe not a good choice of words but not meant as an insult to the site.

But you go ahead with your half assed assumptions of me if it makes ya feel good.

I understand that you might not value my opinion on the subject. Perhaps some more opinions on the matter might help. Here are 4 threads that I just found with a quick, and easy search.

Subject: Armies per Territory Limit
Subject: Maximum armies per territory
Subject: Limit armies per territory
Subject: Maximum Army Limit

The Part Of The Form That You Deleted When You Started This Thread wrote:Search for previous suggestion or bug reports and check stickies before posting something "new".

I would probably not use this option.

Timminz wrote:

zodiak wrote:

Timminz wrote:

zodiak wrote:

ubersky wrote:Conquerclub had a board game in the 80's? Sweet! I'm checking eBay!

Nice try idiot,i'm sure everyone knows i'm talking about Risk.

My apologies if your really this retarded,i wouldn't want to insult the mentally challenged.

I get it now. the insults are a deflection. Now that you see it's not likely to be implemented, you've started insulting people, so that when this is over, you can go away telling yourself, "What do those idiots know anyway? Hrmph!"

I'm okay with the insults now. Whatever will help you deal with this difficult time.

I answered an insult with an insult not because i'm pissed that an idea will get rejected,i could really care less.But belittling people on here seems to be the norm that i see in the forums anyway.It was just a simple suggestion that most misread .

Sorry but i disagree i find it more strategic than throwing a gazzillion armies on one territory and getting lucky on the rolls and matches.

What i meant by too involved was the time taken to play it,maybe not a good choice of words but not meant as an insult to the site.

But you go ahead with your half assed assumptions of me if it makes ya feel good.

I understand that you might not value my opinion on the subject. Perhaps some more opinions on the matter might help. Here are 4 threads that I just found with a quick, and easy search.

Subject: Armies per Territory Limit
Subject: Maximum armies per territory
Subject: Limit armies per territory
Subject: Maximum Army Limit

The Part Of The Form That You Deleted When You Started This Thread wrote:Search for previous suggestion or bug reports and check stickies before posting something "new".

Thanks for the links and for showing me for the lazy person i am

Seriously tho i looked 2 years ago when i first started playing and didn't find it so assumed it hadn't been brought up.Must have missed the one from 2006.
Looks like it will never happen,and don't understand why anyone would vote "no" on something that they would have the "option" not to play.

Just liked the idea of playing this on here,would be alot easier than getting everyone i know who plays together on the same day ,plus ya gotta figure out who's bringing the beer and weed and so on.

oh well sorry i brought it back up,and no hard feelings i hope.

oh,and i do value your opinion,i just don't agree with it.

you got to stop posting and let this thread die like it should.

haggispittjr wrote:you got to stop posting and let this thread die like it should.

Listen to your own advice,i answered the last posts to me and now have to answer yours soooo......STFU!

Gravedig........


I was looking to see if this had been proposed, or if I needed to start a new thread. I think that having the option of a troop limit would be awesome. Combining this with the adjacent reinforce and incremental spoils makes the game all the more about positioning yourself for future turns rather than just making kamikaze runs across the board after massive trade ins. I personally love the 12 troop cap on the original board, but admit that on bigger boards that would probably not work well. Each map could have its own unique cap when the option was selected or there could be several different cap limits to choose from when starting the game. Either way, if you do not like the caps, then do not play them. If you do, then enjoy them.

<DELETE ME>


Option to limit the number of troops per square:


Specifics:

• When this option is selected upon creation of a game, the number of troops that can be placed on a square is limited to a given number (say 12, or some other fixed or a choice of fixed numbers). Users could not place (via direct bonuses to that square or via deployment) more troops than that maximum on any square.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• This will prevent stalemate troops build ups and other add another dynamic to the game.