Conquer Club

people will complain even then... further, if dice were not a factor, theyd complain about the drops not being random

This is a game based on dice, and made fun BECAUSE of the possibilites. If a 4 couldnt occasionally kill a 12, it would not be a fun game. And, not any more realisitc, because in real life, certainly 4 divisions, 4 platoons, or 4 men, can certainly defeat 12 grops of the same size... thats the point of the randomness.

Chess gives you the same odds every time...this does not, and never will...and therefore is an nice cross between poker and chess.

AAFitz wrote:
Chess gives you the same odds every time...this does not, and never will...and therefore is an nice cross between poker and chess.

I am interested how you come to that conclusion. This game seems far more like poker than chess.

well... I stink at chess

I can see where your going but it will take out the risk from a game and will make games predictable.

.....
Terrible.

Kotaro wrote:.....
Terrible.

Be nice it's not terrible it's just fundamentally flawed.

brutalsleeper wrote:

Kotaro wrote:.....
Terrible.

Be nice it's not terrible it's just fundamentally flawed.

In a game like that, there will be millions of games that never end, because all you can do is suicide, because you're both evenly matched.

My objection would be that it takes all the strategy out of the game. everyone will be doing the exact same thing and everyone will just BFI (brute force and ingnorance) their way through anything.

Geez, could a mod lock this already?

Or possibly merge with his other duplicate thread (that people started responding to). Or even merge it with the older "No Dice" threads (links in the duplicate thread IIRC).

Concise description:

• Create a game type in which dice do not affect it.

Specifics:

• When attacking a 4 for instance.. the player will lose 4 armies.. attacking a 2, the player loses 2.. etc etc

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Make People that complain about dice ( including myself ), not have that opportunity
• Really show the strategic skill of the players
• Add a fun new setting for players to be able to enjoy

Im not sure how much different coding and what not this would require from the big man, and whether or not it would be feasable.. feedback would be nice

yeah... incorporate this idea. as it would be an optional extra method of gameplay, its not affecting anoyone that does not want to play it!!!

PJDH wrote:No autoasalt and random each dice separately!!! Not all dice at once like now!!!

Are you kidding? You made the rank of General?

jammyjames wrote:yeah... incorporate this idea. as it would be an optional extra method of gameplay, its not affecting anoyone that does not want to play it!!!

no point adiing somethin no one wants

-deleted-

i want this implemented!!!!

Funny that nearly two years after I started this thread it still garners responses.

I still believe it would be a good option, and the original poll showed that the majority thought so as well.

Fruitcake wrote:Funny that nearly two years after I started this thread it still garners responses.

I still believe it would be a good option, and the original poll showed that the majority thought so as well.

yeah i made a thread an not got directed to yours... so i bumped your up

great idea, and it should definately get implemented

how about no dice as an option-you simply lose 1 for 1

what happens 2v2 ?

its a interesting idea I just dont think mechanically it would work.There too many bugsand issues .I also think this has been brought up several times b4 and rejected for the same reasons

That would wipe out about half the forum complaints.

Would be interesting for a "look" but it possibly wouldnt work well in a two player game as the first one to get a bonus of any type would win.

look around to find previous posts before you make your own..

link to the original topic:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=43095

How about a NO DICE option ? Let’s just eliminate the luck (good and bad) of the Dice so the best Strategists are more likely to WIN.

Proposed modified rules:

1. Attacking territory MUST have at least 2 more armies than defender, or can't attack.

2. Attacker always wins (makes sense - they have the larger force) but in doing so,
2A. Attacker loses armies equal to what defender had (let's call that #, D). It would be like having VERY
STEADY dice spins i.e for series of 3vs2 attacks it's like it went - split, win2, lose2, split, lose2, win2...
or split, split, split...)
OR 2B. Attacker loses D-1 or D-10% to give attacker some advantage (as current dice odds do.)
OR 2C. Attacker loses D if they had 2 more armies than Defender, D-1 if they had 4 more armies, D-2 if they
had 6 more armies... to create advantage for more overwhelming attacks - more realistic.
OR 2D. Attacker loses # of armies based on what’s most probable using actual Dice Odds…

2E. May need some special processing so that A3vsD1 spins don’t always reward Attacker with win. Maybe a counter so that when you attack 3vs1, you win 1, lose 1, win 1, win 1, lose 1, win 1,… to maintain 2/3 win advantage for Attacker, which is close to a actual dice odds…

Pros: 1- Attacking is pure SKILL. Everyone can accurately predict an entire campaign. Much more likely that
best strategist will win the game.
2 - No more complaints about the dice. (OK they must be random - but weirdly STREAKY at times)

Cons: 1 - Evenly matched players likely to stalemate.
Maybe put a limit on # of rounds and then at that point the most terrs wins with most armies as
tie-breaker.
2 – Some may think it’s a less robust game since no "character-building" by working to overcome bad
dice. But that’s why it’d be an OPTION (like nuclear or fog of war.)

Still lots of luck involved:
1. With initial territory placement.
2. With the timing of spoils, and whether you own spoil territories.

I know the dies are random but it does get a little annoying sometimes. How about if you could choose not to have dies in a game,
so as long as long as you had more troops you know you would win, it would just take the same amount from you as it takes from them.
Say you attack 8 to 4 they loose 4 you loose 4 you attack 10 to 3 they loose 3 you loose 3.
Just an idea.