Trench Warfare

by **OliverFA** on Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:35 pm

A better alternative to the forfeit option is to introduce a "Domination Victory" option. With this option, when a player owns x% of regions and x% of the troops, that player would be declared winner.

by **chapcrap** on Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:04 pm

OliverFA wrote:A better alternative to the forfeit option is to introduce a "Domination Victory" option. With this option, when a player owns 75% of regions and 75% of the troops, that player would be declared winner.

OliverFA swoops in for the win!!

pearljamrox2 wrote:DAY 3 OF MY SNAPSHOTS NOT WORKING. IRRITATING!

Pull your head out and download the new version of BOB, goober. viewtopic.php?f=527&t=161049

by **bad-brains** on Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:35 pm

Like it!

But.. makes it really lonely when a player bails a 2 player game.

Normally I could take nearly everything in those games in.. 2 moves. But not in trench.

Maybe change the rules for those games? Like one missed turn.. or two.. before kicking a player?

Then again, I've only played trench once. So wait and see :?:

by **WorldCup4James** on Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:00 pm

i suggest clearly indicating a game has Trench by having a bold, red font. This is because the Trench setting offers such a massive change in strategy and game dynamics, incomparable to any of the other settings, and this certainly will limit the number of instances in which players accidentally join a Trench game.

It also will serve as a help for players jumping from game to game to game taking turns so that they can easily distinguish between which games are Trench and non-trench. The red color would be easily distinguishable in the peripheral vision and therefore make it less likely a player will accidentally apply an incorrect strategy.

by **chapcrap** on Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:08 pm

I disagree with making Trench stand out. Did CC make Freestyle stand out? No. Why do it for trench?

by **SimplyObsessed** on Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:21 pm

I wouldn't like it red either, not easy on the eye. People should just be careful when joining games.

by **EagleofGreenErth** on Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:44 am

How about an option to disable the trench effect once its clear that a player has lost? Require both sides to vote/agree for it to be disabled... I dont know how to prevent abuse of this for medal grabbing tho (ex- immediately vote to disable)

by **Mr_Adams** on Thu Apr 12, 2012 2:32 am

This sounds disgusting...

def a no cards game

by **Great-Ollie** on Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:23 pm

Great update! Thanks for something new CC!

by **eddie2** on Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:57 pm

if you make silver in the time period will it give you auto entry :lol:

by **AndyDufresne** on Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:19 pm

eddie2 wrote:if you make silver in the time period will it give you auto entry

Unfortunately not, but you can be among the first to get silver or gold...and have some bragging rights still!

Looks like 27 players, as of this post time, have earned a spot in the Conquer Cup III lottery!

Best of luck, hopefully more will continue to earn the medal by May 1st!

--Andy

by **EagleofGreenErth** on Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:27 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:
eddie2 wrote:if you make silver in the time period will it give you auto entry

Unfortunately not, but you can be among the first to get silver or gold...and have some bragging rights still!

Looks like 27 players, as of this post time, have earned a spot in the Conquer Cup III lottery!

Best of luck, hopefully more will continue to earn the medal by May 1st!

--Andy

I'm one of those but I already preregistered. :/

by **AndyDufresne** on Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:32 pm

If the lottery winner is already pre-registered, we can probably bump your registration to Conquer Cup IV I assume. We'll cross that bridge if we need to on May 1st!

--Andy

by **eddie2** on Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:35 pm

just to double check as lost the post will the players who have played this setting for the past 2 years be getting unique defeats against all we have before the issue of this option like with other medals.

by **Pirlo** on Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:39 pm

eddie2 wrote:just to double check as lost the post will the players who have played this setting for the past 2 years be getting unique defeats against all we have before the issue of this option like with other medals.

I think some mod (maybe Gilligan) said no because it's so hard to check and find those people.

Q: how could anyone play this setting for two years when it came up a week ago only anyway?

by **AndyDufresne** on Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:44 pm

Pirlo wrote:
eddie2 wrote:just to double check as lost the post will the players who have played this setting for the past 2 years be getting unique defeats against all we have before the issue of this option like with other medals.

I think some mod (maybe Gilligan) said no because it's so hard to check and find those people.

Q: how could anyone play this setting for two years when it came up a week ago only anyway?

Unfortunately the medal isn't going to be issued retroactively, because it would be difficult to trackdown the games, but even more difficult would be to determine if 'rules' of engagement were really followed!

Some players have been playing this with a sort of 'Players Rules of Engagement'...there were a number of callouts and a couple of tournaments exclusively with players playing on the honor system!

--Andy

by **Pirlo** on Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:54 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:
Pirlo wrote:
eddie2 wrote:just to double check as lost the post will the players who have played this setting for the past 2 years be getting unique defeats against all we have before the issue of this option like with other medals.

I think some mod (maybe Gilligan) said no because it's so hard to check and find those people.

Q: how could anyone play this setting for two years when it came up a week ago only anyway?

Unfortunately the medal isn't going to be issued retroactively, because it would be difficult to trackdown the games, but even more difficult would be to determine if 'rules' of engagement were really followed!

Some players have been playing this with a sort of 'Players Rules of Engagement'...there were a number of callouts and a couple of tournaments exclusively with players playing on the honor system!

--Andy

got it.. thanks for clarification!

*hands bananas in return

by **Kaskavel** on Fri Apr 13, 2012 2:09 pm

I wonder if anyone has noticed that we just invented, for the first time in CC I think, a setting that allows 1 vs 1 stalemates to occur. Has anyone noticed as well, or is it just me?

by **eddie2** on Fri Apr 13, 2012 2:11 pm

never came across a stalemate there is always a way round it

by **ManBungalow** on Fri Apr 13, 2012 2:13 pm

Q.
Can New Recruits play trench games ?

by **Gillipig** on Fri Apr 13, 2012 2:15 pm

Kaskavel wrote:I wonder if anyone has noticed that we just invented, for the first time in CC I think, a setting that allows 1 vs 1 stalemates to occur. Has anyone noticed as well, or is it just me?

Stalemates can be prevented with round limit. Might be a good idea to use round limit when you play trench. Even on 1v1.

by **AndyDufresne** on Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:09 pm

ManBungalow wrote:Q.
Can New Recruits play trench games ?

New Recruits are blocked from Trench games.

Gillipig wrote:
Kaskavel wrote:I wonder if anyone has noticed that we just invented, for the first time in CC I think, a setting that allows 1 vs 1 stalemates to occur. Has anyone noticed as well, or is it just me?

Stalemates can be prevented with round limit. Might be a good idea to use round limit when you play trench. Even on 1v1.

Round Limits in general are handy, even if you only use the 50 or 100 to just save you from getting stuck in endless games.

--Andy

by **Kaskavel** on Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:22 pm

eddie2 wrote:never came across a stalemate there is always a way round it

You have a stack of 80, opponent has a stack of 78 and there is a single area in between. One of the players gets 32 troops per turn, the other one gets, lets say, 34 troops per turn. All the map has been conquered and there is this single "boarder". Or, you can imagine, 2-3 of those "boarders" around the board. Both players should conquer the boardering region(s) without advancing their stacks. At the end of time, one of the players will have 3400 troops, the other one 3200, but still, the stronger player cannot advance, because he will lose to the opponent's attacking advantage.

by **Pirlo** on Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:48 pm

Kaskavel wrote:
eddie2 wrote:never came across a stalemate there is always a way round it

You have a stack of 80, opponent has a stack of 78 and there is a single area in between. One of the players gets 32 troops per turn, the other one gets, lets say, 34 troops per turn. All the map has been conquered and there is this single "boarder". Or, you can imagine, 2-3 of those "boarders" around the board. Both players should conquer the boardering region(s) without advancing their stacks. At the end of time, one of the players will have 3400 troops, the other one 3200, but still, the stronger player cannot advance, because he will lose to the opponent's attacking advantage.

I noticed this tactical problem.. even in dubs not only 1v1.. but I can imagine it's even worse in 1v1 as you dun have a partner to which you can pass troops when he gets in the right position to get the attacker's advantage!

by **pmchugh** on Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:55 pm

Pirlo wrote:
Kaskavel wrote:
eddie2 wrote:never came across a stalemate there is always a way round it

You have a stack of 80, opponent has a stack of 78 and there is a single area in between. One of the players gets 32 troops per turn, the other one gets, lets say, 34 troops per turn. All the map has been conquered and there is this single "boarder". Or, you can imagine, 2-3 of those "boarders" around the board. Both players should conquer the boardering region(s) without advancing their stacks. At the end of time, one of the players will have 3400 troops, the other one 3200, but still, the stronger player cannot advance, because he will lose to the opponent's attacking advantage.

I noticed this tactical problem.. even in dubs not only 1v1.. but I can imagine it's even worse in 1v1 as you dun have a partner to which you can pass troops when he gets in the right position to get the attacker's advantage!

I noticed this pretty quickly, the stalemates broke up in no time because of other factors but the problem is there.