well i guess that you pay attention enough not to join freestyle or any other game mode you don't seem to play. If you don't pay enough attention to the games you join or if you're so scared to lose a little game because you don't want to give it a try and lose 20 points and learn, stop calling this game mode evil and for farmers. It brings a whole new strategy that all the trench players enjoy. Is adjacent forts evil because it's more complicated?
Andd yes, as far as I remember in the european risk board game is played "trench".
It seems as though you are looking to "ramp up the action" so to speak but I'm not in the mood. Sorry.
If you look back I myself never called the game mode "evil", I'm just posing a question to which a few players are prickling to. I can only guess that these players play trench and are taking the question personally but then again there are others who obviously play trench but aren't reacting so defensively.
Implying that I'm "scared", etc., because I pose the question of whether or not some
players are using trench mode to sweep up a few extra points seems a bit of an overreaction. I'm simply exploring a phenomenon. There is no way that a new mode of gameplay like this would not change the rank dynamics of CC to some degree and I'm looking to find out how severe this change actually is. The title is merely a hook, obviously.
maasman wrote:Escalating, fog, freestyle, adjacent, no spoils, chained, team games, probably others. Except for a slight variation on adjacent and escalating, all these settings were brand new to me when I joined. At home we had always played trench, escalating, free for all and a variation of unlimited adjacent fortifications, which was you could move any amount of armies 2 regions and you could do this as much as you want as long as those armies didn't move again. So to me personally, CC was totally foreign. I know that the new risk games have flat rate as more standard, so escalating would be a jump, and no spoils, while simple, requires a brand new strategy to learn. I also know that other people have their own house rules, which can make learning CC confusing for anyone who hasn't seen even half the settings offered here. Some settings take longer than others to learn obviously, but overall it would still make brand new players vulnerable to a large amount of abuses for the first 10 games or so for even the easiest of settings.
Again, I feel that any of these settings, while obviously different when taken to their extremes, still encompass the basic gameplay of the board game. Fog is just a matter of decripting game history/knowing a map, escalating cards involves preparing for sweeps(generalizing), adjacent forts involves more planning of movement of troops, etc., but the core gameplay remains the same. There should be some consideration for the relative strangeness of settings and the magnitude of the handicap that each produces for a player foreign to it.