Max number of troops on each territory....

[zodiak]

that wouldn't work for some maps like City Mogul AoR 1 2 & 3 and some more maps, And the game would last for ever if this made it threw and made a update and what would happen if some on was playing a esc game and they turned in a set and the troop number was at 65 they had 12 on all of there territory's what could they do with there troops they had to deploy?

Little Witt

yeah it would only work on land maps,and would take awhile to play.esc wouldn't be an option for this variation as i stated in the opening post.

oh well,just thought i'd try because i used to love playing by these rules,and i'm getting tired of clueless players knocking me out of games early because they start an all out war for a region within the first few turns basically eliminating both of us.

thanks for input everyone,i can see it will go nowhere

[vodean]

maybe when you create the game, it could be an optioon called: strange, or does not work

[Bones2484]

To compensate for the obvious advantage of the defender

I stopped reading right around this line. The defender does not have an advantage if you are rolling 3 dice.

[Kotaro]

3 dice, 6x6x6, 216 rolling combination's.
2 dice, 36 different combination's.

Ties go to defender, only 2 dice count total.

Also, if we do this, what happens to this game?
Game 5408994

[Timminz]

I recall trying a game with those stipulations (the 12-army limit) once. It was not very fun.

[zodiak]

To compensate for the obvious advantage of the defender

I stopped reading right around this line. The defender does not have an advantage if you are rolling 3 dice.

well with 12 attacking 12 the defender would not be outnumbered and would be at better advantage,and with 3 die they still do since they win ties....duh

[Timminz]

To compensate for the obvious advantage of the defender

I stopped reading right around this line. The defender does not have an advantage if you are rolling 3 dice.

well with 12 attacking 12 the defender would not be outnumbered and would be at better advantage,and with 3 die they still do since they win ties....duh

False. 12 on 12, is almost exactly where the overall odds of the attacker winning the battle go above 50%. This suggestion, if implemented, would actually reduce the attacker's advantage, as the bigger the number of troops are, the more of an advantage the attacker has.

[zodiak]

To compensate for the obvious advantage of the defender

I stopped reading right around this line. The defender does not have an advantage if you are rolling 3 dice.

well with 12 attacking 12 the defender would not be outnumbered and would be at better advantage,and with 3 die they still do since they win ties....duh

False. 12 on 12, is almost exactly where the overall odds of the attacker winning the battle go above 50%. This suggestion, if implemented, would actually reduce the attacker's advantage, as the bigger the number of troops are, the more of an advantage the attacker has.

Read the post again,the defender would have better odds because the attacker could not stack up and attack with a 2-1 or 3-1 advantage.You just disagreed then agreed with the fact that the attacker was at a disadvantage to the defender.

Like i said i was just hoping for a rules variation option involving more strategy,but i guess it would be too involved for this game site and so far not very popular tho most seem not to understand the idea,my fault most likely .

[zodiak]

maybe when you create the game, it could be an optioon called: strange, or does not work

LMAO,sorry your not familiar with this rules variation which is not my original idea,but was in the rule book in an 80's release of the board game.

At least have a clue before you attempt to insult someone.

[ubersky]

Conquerclub had a board game in the 80's? Sweet! I'm checking eBay!

[zodiak]

Conquerclub had a board game in the 80's? Sweet! I'm checking eBay!

Nice try idiot,i'm sure everyone knows i'm talking about Risk.

My apologies if your really this retarded,i wouldn't want to insult the mentally challenged.

[Timminz]

Like i said i was just hoping for a rules variation option involving more strategy,but i guess it would be too involved for this game site and so far not very popular tho most seem not to understand the idea,my fault most likely .

How often does insulting people generally convince them that your idea is a good one?

I have played this variation, and, in my opinion, it was horrible. It did not involve more strategy. It stifled strategy.

I see that you're relatively new here, and as such haven't had the chance to experience the full extent of the various strategic options available on Conquer Club. Maybe you should try playing a bigger variety of styles, and maps, before you decide you know what strategic variant are "too involved for this game site".

Good luck, and have fun!

[Timminz]

Conquerclub had a board game in the 80's? Sweet! I'm checking eBay!

Nice try idiot,i'm sure everyone knows i'm talking about Risk.

My apologies if your really this retarded,i wouldn't want to insult the mentally challenged.

I get it now. the insults are a deflection. Now that you see it's not likely to be implemented, you've started insulting people, so that when this is over, you can go away telling yourself, "What do those idiots know anyway? Hrmph!"

I'm okay with the insults now. Whatever will help you deal with this difficult time.

[ubersky]

Conquerclub had a board game in the 80's? Sweet! I'm checking eBay!

Nice try idiot,i'm sure everyone knows i'm talking about Risk.
My apologies if your really this retarded,i wouldn't want to insult the mentally challenged.

I had some counter-insults lined up, but will refrain.

If I offended, I apologize. I had not intended to be insulting, but merely chose to act upon a whimsical opportunity for comedic interlude. Forgive my garish lack of tact and obvious rude behavior, what with inserting myself into your discussion thread uninvited.

I shall leave you to your.. umm.. whatever it was you were doing.

[zodiak]

Conquerclub had a board game in the 80's? Sweet! I'm checking eBay!

Nice try idiot,i'm sure everyone knows i'm talking about Risk.

My apologies if your really this retarded,i wouldn't want to insult the mentally challenged.

I get it now. the insults are a deflection. Now that you see it's not likely to be implemented, you've started insulting people, so that when this is over, you can go away telling yourself, "What do those idiots know anyway? Hrmph!"

I'm okay with the insults now. Whatever will help you deal with this difficult time.

I answered an insult with an insult not because i'm pissed that an idea will get rejected,i could really care less.But belittling people on here seems to be the norm that i see in the forums anyway.It was just a simple suggestion that most misread .

Sorry but i disagree i find it more strategic than throwing a gazzillion armies on one territory and getting lucky on the rolls and matches.

What i meant by too involved was the time taken to play it,maybe not a good choice of words but not meant as an insult to the site.

But you go ahead with your half assed assumptions of me if it makes ya feel good.