Troop for Troop (also known as “no dice”)
Basically the “element of luck” has been over escalated or added to games of strategy to the point where strategy itself is adversely affected.
A natural element of luck exists in all games as in life; just by the actions of others and self, regardless of added luck features such as cards and dice (which tend to multiply upon each other)
I am putting forward the case of troop for troop as an option in Conquer Club in the most earnest fashion I can. I know it has been posted before, several times by both myself and by others only to be rejected as out of hand. And as out of the spirit of the game.
I would like to address this issue of unreasonable rejection (or knee jerk reaction) first.
As a site that has advanced options on game play like fog and trench not to mention deployment and team play and style and object of play, it is incredible that the troop for troop option has not been explored long, long ago; given its use in play around the world. Admittedly, it is not wide spread but it is well known.
The spirit of the game is encapsulated in winning a 6 player chess game, adding the extra feature of using or manipulating another player against yet another. (Also adding to natural luck factors). In other words, the spirit of the game is to be the ultimate General. The dice actually detracts from this model and does not really add to it.
To be clear on the knee jerk reaction I am NOT advocating the removal of dice, but the addition of the option of removing them in a troop for troop replacement.
For those not familiar with troop for troop, it works like this:
All territories start with 1 troop and not 3 (to avoid thinning by players playing first and elimination thereafter). Players then have a first round deployment where no player can attack but can deploy their 3 or applicable troops anywhere on their territories. Then the game continues as per normal in the second round.
So to take a territory you need two more troops than the defender, eg 5 vs 3 = 3 off both and 1 troop on the attacking territory and one on the defeated territory, now both belonging to the attacker. Obviously any additional/surplus troops of the attacker can be advanced or divided between the territories, as the player sees fit.
This way, players can plan attacks more accurately and not have to change strategies mid attack due to excessive luck either way on the dice (it is also not fun to win a game due to having too much luck).
This current necessity to change strategies in the dice format on CC has radically altered games and moods in many games I have witnessed. “f*ck the Dice!” is a common CC curse, and a justified one!
In low numbers, up to about 12 in extreme cases but reasonably at 7 to 9 against 3, the outcomes of two identical games with the double against going in opposite favor is radically different. So much so, that the luckiest player is most often the winning player.
In large maps it is possible to factor against excessive luck but is still frustrating and game changing, but in smaller maps the luck is nearly always the deciding factor, especially in the race for bonuses. The same is true of run games where there are lots of neutrals the luckiest gets to the bonuses first.
Having played a few of your maps in real life using troop for troop some of the neutral numbers will have to be adjusted to accommodate for the 1 troop start position, but not much and a lot not at all.
I am very serious about getting this option added as a feature due to my passion for the game and need to have a more balanced option for players of like mind (of which there are many) and am going to lobby players on this issue until we have reasonable solution.
The dice could still be used for ease of programming use; just set at 1 for 1.
I am certain it will add to your already comprehensive site and will win players from competitor sites and keep players that have come to loath the dice in the game.