Conquer Club

It's been suggested and rejected.

firth4eva wrote:It's been suggested and rejected.

im not saying that every one should play with out dice but that if people want to that thay have the choise not to;)

I think the idea is decent and would definitely use it, because my dice have been awful of late.

this would be a cool idea if it made any sense at all.

firth4eva wrote:What about no territories either? That would be great.

circus max

[MOD EDIT: The reason this is REJECTED is the possibility of unbreakable stalemates. See here, here and here. Feel free to continue the discussion here, but unless these difficulties can be overcome, this will not be implemented. If you see a thread that should be merged here, please inform a moderator. -- agentcom]

I have often played without dice. The simple rule is, to attack, you must have at least 1 more than the defence to win (obviously).

Now this seems very simple on the surface, but does make for very strategic games, however, playing with escalating cards never really works, flat or no cards is best.

The main advantage being it takes all random result from the dice out of the equation.

No doubt someone has suggested this before, but I rarely read the forum, so apologies if I am thrashing a dead topic. Further apologies if I have posted this in the wrong place.

Good luck to you all.
_____________________________________________________________

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.

And if you have the requisite more than one more pieces, how many do you lose by attacking?

No randomness, no fun. I'd rather play Chess then.

*shaking my head in disbelief*

I think you are looking for a Diplomacy website. I don't think that would work for this one.

Coleman wrote:I think you are looking for a Diplomacy website.(

now, THAT is funny... i had that game on the original atari system... i burned the graphics into our tv and eventually fried the system out, because i could never finish a game and turn it off!! that was before a such thing as SAVING games (kids are spoiled today). i wonder if there is really a "diplomacy" game site. i haven't thought of that game in ages!!! coleman, THANKS!!!-0

And if you have the requisite more than one more pieces, how many do you lose by attacking?

You both lose the same amount. So if 5 attack 3, 1 moves in, as 3 are lost by both parties. What this means is you really have to think about every position on the board.

In fact, all the games I have played have never really laster much longer than a no cards game.

I would also put it forward, as so very many seem to have a problem with the 'random' dice here, so get rid of the dice for those that want.

Good idea Fruitcake

I would also put it forward, as so very many seem to have a problem with the 'random' dice here, so get rid of the dice for those that want.

Amen to that.

Thanks for the support Audax. Seriously, it is a good game for those that find the way the dice roll here a little odd. I must admit to that myself QED I put this idea forward.
_____________________________________________________________

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.

Moved over to suggestions forum. It seems like I've heard of this one before but can't find the thread.

The only real big problem I see with this is the attacking and moving first advantage would be pretty big.

The only games where I feel like this works is where everyone moves at the same time after secretly making up moves, which is probably too much new coding to consider and would change the nature of the game quite a bit with no dice on.

Coleman wrote:The only real big problem I see with this is the attacking and moving first advantage would be pretty big.

The only games where I feel like this works is where everyone moves at the same time after secretly making up moves, which is probably too much new coding to consider and would change the nature of the game quite a bit with no dice on.

But would it (taking classic as an example) - yes you'd get a 6 to start with - but you lose 3 - and leave a 2 and a 1 somewhere - that would be easy to conquer for player 2...

C.

That still is quite imbalanced. The only reason it works in Diplomacy is you only have 1 army per territory and there are all these weird movement rules.

Been requested and rejected TONS OF TIMES!

You know, instead of playing dice, we should do rock paper scissors agianst the defender. That'd make things at least fair and not so random...

[MOD EDIT: The reason this is REJECTED is the possibility of unbreakable stalemates. See here, here and here. Feel free to continue the discussion here, but unless these difficulties can be overcome, this will not be implemented. If you see a thread that should be merged here, please inform a moderator. -- agentcom]

With all the angst about dice, surely a no dice game should be an option.

The rules are simple. Both attacker and defender lose the same amount of armies. So the attacker has to have at least 2 more armies than the defender, simple example: 3 attackers against 1 defender, both lose 1, the attacker moves 1 army in.

This seems, on the surface to favour the first turn in a game, however, it does not. See the board in your minds eye. Now, the first attacker gets 3 armies, to take a terry, a minimum of 2 would have to be placed on the attacking terry (3 loss each, 1 moves in, 1 left behind) this leaves 1 spare...placement...wherever. Now the next takes the turn. They then have the option, take the easy singles (if they can) or attack elsewhere with the same result as above.

Now as the game progresses, obviously, one has to really look at the whole board strategically, for to break someone else, may leave you with too few defenders elsewhere, and under threat from another player, so strategic thinking plays a far greater part. It also brings forward planning more into the equation, it may well be worth just reducing on one turn, to set up for an assault the following.

The immediate question many have, with two player games is: So what happens if the first player just attacks every other terry on the first go? Well, it is simple, every terry then has a single unit left (3v3), and both lose 2, so no Terries taken bar the original where 4 were placed). But then the second player has easy targets to grab and build. They get the 4 income, and could take 2 terries with these (4+1 so 5 on a terry, takes 1, loses a single, moves 3 in, takes another moves 1 in), and so on and so on.

By playing this way, it takes a huge element of luck out of the equation (you could still play with cards as well to add that frisson of that luck if you wanted).

Negatives: It does often mean a longer game with multi players (2 player games still remain fairly fast). However, many no card games I have played seem to go on for weeks

Positives:
No crazy dice runs, so less forum threads about the dice.
More strategic thinking
More lifelike as the largest force always wins the battle, but the defence has to be considered with a more measured approach...no more leaving 6 armies defending when there are 8 armies 2 Terries away with say 3 income coming, and hoping the dice roll for you.

I am not saying lets convert, I am putting forward the motion that this is an option cc could offer.

Please give this your support. If you still want to play with dice, great!

[quote=chapcrap]For a slightly different spin on this, see this post: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... d#p3988290[/quote]

Got my support Fruitcake..I would love to see a no dice game.

Where is the poll?

Audax

In a 2 player game, if the first player gets 4 to start, then unless the map is so skewed that both players are directly opposite, he'll be able to find four territories to take with no chance of losing them the next round. Many places you wouldn't even need to deploy: if you have two territories next to one, you'll take it. Try applying this to any game you've just started, and see how many you can take over. It'll be a lot more than you could take with dice.

so if I get this right...

4 vs 3 - 3 vs 2 - 2 vs 1- ....? If it ever becomes 2 vs 1 the attacker cant take the territory?

what about in games like 2.1 or maps where players get 5+ men, they could place a 2, a 2 and a 1 and guarantie that they take 2 areas for sure, this cuts their opponent down to 4 guys per round (an even bigger effect in world 2.1)