Conquer Club

Posted: **Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:58 pm**

[MOD EDIT: This suggestion has been REJECTED. See here:

Subject: Maximum 12 Armies on any 1 Country

rdsrds2120 wrote:After some review, we feel that this suggestion wouldn't live up to the quality of gameplay settings we'd like to see on ConquerClub. I am going to give this an Admin Veto after 11 pages. Thanks for your input everyone,

BMO

-agentcom]

Concise description:

Could be an option for games, but I think it would be a great idea to stablish a maximum number of troops that you can put in one individual territory. For example, Say 20, under that rule, no territory on the map could have more than 20 armies. Maximun number could be stablished by the creator of the particular game.

Specifics:

Can be applied to every map easily and it should be an option. Battles of 50 vs 11 are absolutely decided, plus when you see a lot of troops on a territory you avoid it... as simple as that, that aspect of the game gets eliminated with this option.

When you change a set of spoils and you dominate a territory on the set (bold spoils) with the maximun number of troops, you lose the 2 extra troops cause it passes the maximun number.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

Much more strategy on deployment of troops
More even games with no decided battles
If you conquer an area you have to watch it constantly, cause could be another army with max number of troops attacking you say 20 vs 20... (not 98 vs 32 or something)
Much more strategic thinking on the managment of troops and reinforcements.
If you conquer an area will be much more difficult to maintain it until you get a safe number of troops to keep it.

Posted: **Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:06 pm**

Nooooooooo. Big armies are a huge part of the game, this would just ruin half the fun plus escalating would be moot. If max was 20v20 what's the point?!

.44

Posted: **Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:18 pm**

Well... the way I see it is that 20 vs 20 (or max number vs max number) is much more exciting than say 54 vs 19... plus it would be an option, not an absolute rule...

Plus, Strategy is the best part of the game, so the more strategy you put on the game, the better it gets... believe me, you feel a looot better when you win a 20 vs 20 battle than winning a battle of 65 vs 30, that outcome is absolutely obvious.

Posted: **Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:38 pm**

i dont understand how winning 20 vs 20 is more strategy then winning 65 vs 19.....

im pretty sure i didnt get 65 armies cause i got some kind of uber luck where the server glitches and i get an extra 45 armies on a random territory. where as 20 vs 20 i have lost more times then i would care to remember....

Posted: **Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:54 pm**

strategy in that kind of battles comes when you have to plan what will you do if you win, or lose the battle, you have to deploy troops accordingly before you decide to attack, but thats just one point... real strategy on this games is that you have to keep thinking on those territories, even if you have max number of troops, cause someone can still beat you. I'm sure you dont think if you can lose the territories where you have like 30 more troops than your opponents.

Escalating must would become even more interesting... you'll have to think were to put your troops, if you dont, sorry... troops lost.

of course you had to do something if you managed to have a lot of troops on your territory... but if you have them on some area border, you just stop thinking in that area cause you're safe on the area, and you keep them there, waisting them, instead of using them on the game... think of this: you have a maxed numbered area border, and you realize someone is actually getting ready to attack you getting close to the max number... you'll have to decide if you attack him to keep your border safe before he takes your territory.

that is absolutely rare on games with no troop limit... thats part of the strategy I'm talking about... another one is that you have to manage really well reinforcements (with exception of Unlimited)

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:26 am**

ok so your saying its more strategy because by limiting what i can place where i have more of a choice in what i place where???? im pretty sure thats broken... also i have had many occasions such as this.... escalating frestyle 8 man... 1 or 2 territories left with like 300 guys on it. be rather un fair if i turned in my 300 army set and couldnt deploy

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2009 3:06 am**

kcoenich wrote:Escalating must would become even more interesting... you'll have to think were to put your troops, if you dont, sorry... troops lost.

No, escalating would NOT be more interesting, it would just be more IRRITATING! Having someone crash their stacks into you when you have 5 cards to cash on your next turn and you've survived with only one region left. "Oh dear, oops, looks like you can kiss goodbye to 100+ troops because the maximum you can deploy in 20 in your only region." It's not just escalating games that would suffer it's no spoils build games also. This option would just suck hard.

Bad idea, I'm voting this one down.

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2009 3:45 am**

kcoenich wrote:Concise description:
Could be an option for games, but I think it would be a great idea to stablish a maximum number of troops that you can put in one individual territory. For example, Say 20, under that rule, no territory on the map could have more than 20 armies. Maximun number could be stablished by the creator of the particular game.

If you had suggested a limit for what the territs could hold when it is not your own turn then I could have seen a strategic element being added. I might not want to use it but I could see the use for it. But having it as a constant limit is utterly stupid and would slow almost all games (that go past round 10 at least) to a crawl as very few territs would change owner. And unless you also play with unlimited reinforcements you would soon get a situation where every territ has 20 troops on them and then the strategy becomes one of who wants to deadbeat first...

Simply put I have to say no, no way to this.

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:24 am**

of course not... if you are left with only one territory, something really dumb happened to you that put you in that situation, plus, its not like some army of 100 will go and take all of your territories... (Again more strategy on the way you attack if you wanna put someone out of the game cause you have to plan things on a higher level)

and everyone would have to be really passive to be with all territories with max number of troops on them... the probability of that happening is really small, and at the end of that kind of battles (max vs max or similar) could have a lot of endings, either you lose nothing, or stay with only 1, or both armies get screwed... giving other players the chance to stay on the game, or win it...
all these mechanisms require a lot of strategy in every way... since you deploy troops, when you attack or defend, and at the time of reinforcements, making the game much more fun, even, and the player who wins the game will always the one who deserve to win... so ratings and scores totally get more acurate and you can see real quality of players.

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:43 am**

maybe at the end of your turn the troop count would be lowered to 20, this way you can still turn in for 500+ armies, but you must either use them, fort them, or lose them

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:47 pm**

but in some cases, a player's strategy is to gather a lot of troops on one territory, and then go on a hell march through enemy territory until they were exhausted.

It would be kind of unfair to cap off A lot of strategies that have to do with large numbers.

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:51 pm**

This works well with flat rate and no card games, because it forces players to attack. Stalemates, the bane of non-escalating games, would be dead under this rule.

*edit* This comes from personal experience. When my friends and I want to play a game that'll end quickly we play with a 12/territory limit and a modified flat rate (4 for mixed). I tried playing one game like that here but no one understood the point, and they just built up until everyone had 12 on every territory, then they gave up on the idea.

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2009 4:54 pm**

sinctheassasin wrote:but in some cases, a player's strategy is to gather a lot of troops on one territory, and then go on a hell march through enemy territory until they were exhausted.

It would be kind of unfair to cap off A lot of strategies that have to do with large numbers.

I havent seen that kind of strategy... plus it would take a lot of time to build up a large army to use that strategy...

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2009 4:58 pm**

the.killing.44 wrote:Nooooooooo. Big armies are a huge part of the game, this would just ruin half the fun plus escalating would be moot. If max was 20v20 what's the point?!

.44

You don't understand, he isn't saying ALL 20 but he is saying giving map makers the option of a max

Which I like!

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2009 5:03 pm**

errr, i stil dont think players should be allowed to restrict strategies at all.

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2009 5:31 pm**

sinctheassasin wrote:errr, i stil dont think players should be allowed to restrict strategies at all.

this doesn't restrict strategies at all.... It makes players to refine their strategies at a higher level. Better strategies make better players, more fair games, and deserved victories...

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:08 pm**

this doesn't restrict strategies at all.... It makes players to refine their strategies at a higher level. Better strategies make better players, more fair games, and deserved victories...

how are restricted games delivering more deserved victories? :-s

how is putting many troops on one territory not fair. they earned those troops, its the opponants fault if they cant counter attack at large numbers!

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:49 pm**

I never said putting a lot of troops on one territory isnt fair.... I say that stablishing a limit is absolutely possible and it would create excellent and more challenging and interesting games...
exactly because the game becomes more strategic and those who cant manage troops apropiately will be in deep trouble.

Posted: **Sat Apr 25, 2009 10:17 pm**

personally, i think games with players with over a thousand troops on each territ make very interesting battles, especiall when one decides to attack.

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:03 am**

to be honest you make no sense here... you are not arguing that this would restrict strategies but you are saying it makes the game more strategic..... i think you need to go get a dictionary and look up restrict.

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:14 am**

if its just an option, I think its a great idea.

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:01 pm**

jarrett155 wrote:to be honest you make no sense here... you are not arguing that this would restrict strategies but you are saying it makes the game more strategic..... i think you need to go get a dictionary and look up restrict.

yes, the game is more strategic, cause the strategy part of the game takes more importance... and it doesn't restrict strategies cause you have to create more functional strategies to win. thats not restricting strategies, its giving a chance of even more and better strategies...

And yes, it would be an option... so game creators put the max number of armies, there would be a "random" button or something to randomly generate the number, and the creator would just accept or decline the number proposed by the system.

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2009 3:41 pm**

I know what restrict means, its not letting an object or person go to their full potential.

what im saying is, belive it or not, some people, gather up a large number of troops, and then go on a rampage through 1's scattered along the map like a bread crumb trail.

another problem would be, what if 1 person reached the 20 troop limit? Nobody would be able to attack him without going against the odds. would this be a "refined strategy?"

as you know, when two forces in risk clash with equal numbers, the defender has the greatest odds of getting out alive... would this not be a dumb strategy, since in truth it requires no strategy at all?
what if the entire map had 20? games would be in a stalemate longer than if one troop had a hundred more than another. with this you might actually make games less strategic.

risk was invented so that you could have as many troops on a space as you desire.The instructions even states you can take pieces of another color if you run out of your own.

yes, the game is more strategic, cause the strategy part of the game takes more importance... and it doesn't restrict strategies cause you have to create more functional strategies to win. thats not restricting strategies, its giving a chance of even more and better strategies...

it is simply a matter of opinion whether or not a strategy is functional or not. i have won many games simply by crashing myself through the enemy like a plow.

how is risk ever not strategy, unless you have three year old just attacking 2v3... with this, are you encoureging strategies like this?

there actually arent that many strategies in risk, but those few arent ever forgotten with anybody playing.

maybe its simply a cook like you that needs to come up with a better strategy eh

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:07 pm**

sinctheassasin wrote:as you know, when two forces in risk clash with equal numbers, the defender has the greatest odds of getting out alive...

While I do agree with you in general this statement is not true. Probabilitywise the advantage swings to the attacker at 11v11 and upwards.

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:17 pm**

sinctheassasin wrote:risk was invented so that you could have as many troops on a space as you desire.The instructions even states you can take pieces of another color if you run out of your own.

how is risk ever not strategy, unless you have three year old just attacking 2v3... with this, are you encoureging strategies like this?

maybe its simply a cook like you that needs to come up with a better strategy eh

yeah, its true that in Risk you can have as many troops as you like in a territory, but its also true that in the suggested rules for EXPERT gameplay, there's exactly the option I'm proposing... actually they propose near 12 troops on any territory (maybe I'm wrong on the actual number)

of course risk is a strategy... but obviously you take more risk by attacking when you are on disadvantage (on troops or equally on troops and disadvantage with the dice) thats the risk you take in this gameplay.

One more thing... yeah, I'm actually a cook, so what? I quit playing on this site for near a year... and maybe I dont win a lot of games, here, but if you look at my ratings and the games I've won, you'd realize that all of them has been excellent games and it was me who made most part of the job to win...
And I've been playing Risk since I'm 8 years old... so don't question my opinion just for my rank...

Conquer Club

Max number of troops on each territory....

Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....

Re: Max number of troops on each territory....