Conquer Club

Max number of troops on each territory....

Suggestions that have been archived.

Moderator: Community Team

Re: How to limit stacking

Postby SirSebstar on Tue May 03, 2011 7:00 am

jonesthecurl wrote:I like this idea. It has to be an option at game set up not a general rule, so that if people like "infinite stack" they won't start or join an "army limit" game, just as you can avoid foggy or nuclear by simply not playing them.

obviously. but still correct. Option only.

Der sniffter, you add the same as I did, escalating? or is that your only concern?
Image
User avatar
Major SirSebstar
 
Posts: 6969
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:51 am
Location: SirSebstar is BACK. Highscore: Colonel Score: 2919 21/03/2011

Re: How to limit stacking

Postby nebsmith on Tue May 03, 2011 1:06 pm

The idea is to set the limit at an appropriate size for the type of game you want to play. So with escalating you either don't use a troop limit as an option or you set it high.
For small maps set a smaller limit. That is why I suggested using a multiple of the number of territories on the map as a limit, for one of the options.
What I am suggesting is a variable limit decided by the one who sets up the game.
Say between 5 and 20 times territories.
The limit to apply to the total troops of each player. So on a map with 50 territorries and the multiplier set at 10 no-one could have more than 500 troops in total.
I see the biggest problem being deciding what the limits of troops should be, does anyone have a suggestion for what to set them between?
Also maybe it shouldn't be variable, maybe a set multiple for all maps.
Image
Sergeant nebsmith
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 10:25 am
Location: London

Re: How to limit stacking

Postby sniffie on Tue May 03, 2011 3:31 pm

SirSebstar wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:I like this idea. It has to be an option at game set up not a general rule, so that if people like "infinite stack" they won't start or join an "army limit" game, just as you can avoid foggy or nuclear by simply not playing them.

obviously. but still correct. Option only.

Der sniffter, you add the same as I did, escalating? or is that your only concern?



maybe doubled that problem, sorry for that. But I think its the biggest problem within this suggestion. For exmaple

Log: next set: 50 troops
Player cashes: Player recieves 1 troops for cashing card A, card B and Card C.

I woul really feel "shitty" about it.

sniff
Corporal 1st Class sniffie
 
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: How to limit stacking

Postby nebsmith on Wed May 04, 2011 2:11 pm

I don't see that it matters where you get the troops from, normal reinforcements or a 50 set. The idea is to force some movement in a game. If you are in the situation you describe - 50 due, only able to take 1 - then you either use up some troops attacking in the previous round/s or you take the penalty for doing nothing.
Or you don't use a limited troop option in escalating games, which anyway tend to be decided more quickly, once someone gets the eliminate and cash stategy going.
Image
Sergeant nebsmith
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 10:25 am
Location: London

Re: How to limit stacking

Postby OliverFA on Thu May 05, 2011 6:36 pm

The problem that I see with this proposal is that the limit is rather arbirtary. I prefer to base the limit in things that make sense.
Welcoming the long awaited Trench Warfare Setting (Previously Adjacent Attacks).

My Maps:
Research and Conquer - Civilization meets Conquer Club

Best score: 2,346 - Best position: #618 - Best percentile: 4.87%
User avatar
Private OliverFA
 
Posts: 2295
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:30 am
Location: Somewhere in Spain

Re: How to limit stacking

Postby nebsmith on Fri May 06, 2011 7:28 am

any suggestion as to what to base any limits on ?
Image
Sergeant nebsmith
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 10:25 am
Location: London

Re: How to limit stacking

Postby OliverFA on Fri May 06, 2011 8:57 am

There are two types of suggestiong dealing with limits in armies, and both make sense in their own way. One is upkeep and the other is stack limit per territory. I suppose that stack limit per territory makes more sense in this thread. The "logic" is that territories can't fit an unlimited number of armies, they have some space after all, and that's the reason of limiting the number of armies per territories.
Welcoming the long awaited Trench Warfare Setting (Previously Adjacent Attacks).

My Maps:
Research and Conquer - Civilization meets Conquer Club

Best score: 2,346 - Best position: #618 - Best percentile: 4.87%
User avatar
Private OliverFA
 
Posts: 2295
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:30 am
Location: Somewhere in Spain

Re: How to limit stacking

Postby nvrijn on Sun May 29, 2011 2:19 pm

Good concept, but I don't think this would be as effective as you hope. I've been in Fixed value Risk games which go on forever, as players swap the same 1 defender territory over and over to get their risk cards.

All this would do is force "No Spoils" games into that cycle. What would be systemic change would be the ability for the survivors to declare they ALL wanted a tie ... and have the game end and all the points calculated as if they were a team.

Just a thought
User avatar
Lieutenant nvrijn
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:06 am

Max Troops

Postby DoomYoshi on Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:36 am

Concise description:
  • Incorporate a troop maximum on territories, or across the board


There are many ways to implement this:
Specifics/Details:
  • XML update that allows smaller numbers of troops on specific territories (e.g. Downtown on Montreal can have a maximum stack of 25 troops since extra troops would cause unrest)
  • Option that allows a max stack sizep; would be an option at beginning of game [10, 20, 30, 50, 100, no limit] and would apply to all territories; would only come into effect at end of turn so it would need a new 'troop elimination phase'
  • a dynamic, calculated system in which the max number of troops is based on how many territories you have that form a single-chain; this mode would be off-limits for n00bs and would add a whole new element of cutting off supply lines

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
  • Let's be honest here: turn limits suck. Instead of stopping deadlocks, they cause players to stop attacking and just start stacking. You know what I call it when players stop attacking and just start stacking? I call that a motherfucking deadlock. So turn limits which were supposed to get rid of this problem actually made it worse. At first, I was thinking that if the turn limit was reached, a random thing determined the winner (from a pool of possibilities: most cards, most troops, most territories, highest deployment bonus, most successful attacks) then players wouldn't just shut down and stop playing. However, anytime something random is introduced, players complain.
  • Turn limits should be 'un-integrated'. They didn't do what they are supposed to do.
  • This will prevent deadlocks.
ā–‘ā–’ā–’ā–“ā–“ā–“ā–’ā–’ā–‘
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10715
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: Max Troops

Postby chapcrap on Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:06 am

Yes!! XML updates please!!
Lieutenant chapcrap
 
Posts: 9686
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Kansas City

Re: Maximum 12 Armies on any 1 Country

Postby Dukasaur on Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:01 am

Would be an interesting strategic option, yes.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant Dukasaur
Community Coordinator
Community Coordinator
 
Posts: 26964
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: Maximum 12 Armies on any 1 Country

Postby cairnswk on Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:19 am

I think it could be an option to explore as a type of gameplay, but i wouldn't want it on all games...it'd be horrendous not being able finish some games quickly....you might actually lose players from site due to longevity of games. :roll:
Image
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
User avatar
Private cairnswk
 
Posts: 11510
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Maximum 12 Armies on any 1 Country

Postby Vid_FISO on Thu Jan 03, 2013 4:51 pm

cairnswk wrote:I think it could be an option to explore as a type of gameplay, but i wouldn't want it on all games...it'd be horrendous not being able finish some games quickly....you might actually lose players from site due to longevity of games. :roll:


No-one is forced to play any map or settings that they dislike, except maybe in clan wars or certain tourneys where you play "away" and of course the option is there to decline an invite (or just do it for the team) or simply not enter tourneys where you are likely to face what you dislike (don't understand) most.

If it can be coded then why not give it a go, there will be tens or hundreds quite happy to take on any challenge and find where it works for them.

Maybe worth considering for the escalating scenario is to have a "troop bank" to reinforce from so that anyone that can't deploy fully at the start of the go can top up at the end?
User avatar
Major Vid_FISO
 
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:06 pm
Location: Hants

Re: Maximum 12 Armies on any 1 Country

Postby chapcrap on Thu Jan 03, 2013 6:00 pm

MOVED from Archives to Suggestions
Lieutenant chapcrap
 
Posts: 9686
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Kansas City

Re: Maximum 12 Armies on any 1 Country

Postby Lord_Bremen on Sat Jan 05, 2013 2:50 am

I think I caused this to be moved back, so here's the idea as I see it (this was successfully implemented on denizengames, which was a site pretty much the same as this one, where I played a while back):

When creating a game, you have the option of designating a pre-set stack limit (10/14/20/26 would be good options). This is OPTIONAL. If you do designate a stack limit, no territories can exceed that limit when you deploy/fortify. If you have more armies to deploy but all your territories are maxed, you lose the extra armies. This isn't a negative at all as some of the comments here seem to imply, it adds another strategic element - sometimes it's necessary to take a risk and spread yourself out in order to receive extra income. Assuming of course you survive until the next turn. Territories could go over the max with territory bonus from cards (if this is hard to code it's not particularly important, but this is how it was when I played it).

This obviously goes best with constant or no cards, and it makes for some very fun games. Basically it adds a defensive element - you can stick a max army or two on the border and feel pretty secure. If there's specific maps with triggers this would be problematic on, then just disable it for them (or trust people to be smart enough not to create such games). I've had quite a few fun games where every maxes and then you have trench-style warfare with each side moving up one territory at a time. Not for everyone obviously, but it's not meant to be.
Major Lord_Bremen
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Chicago
2

Re: Maximum 12 Armies on any 1 Country

Postby Lord_Bremen on Sat Jan 05, 2013 2:59 am

Also it's worth noting that this is an official risk option: http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/RiskCollector's40thAnniversaryEdition.PDF (page 16).
Major Lord_Bremen
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Chicago
2

Re: Maximum 12 Armies on any 1 Country

Postby greenoaks on Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:01 am

chapcrap wrote:MOVED from Archives to Suggestions

move it to rejected ;)
User avatar
Sergeant greenoaks
 
Posts: 9977
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:47 am

Re: Maximum 12 Armies on any 1 Country

Postby Lord_Bremen on Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:25 am

greenoaks wrote:
chapcrap wrote:MOVED from Archives to Suggestions

move it to rejected ;)


If you don't like it, then don't play games with it. What possible reason is there to stop other people from using an option they enjoy? This doesn't take away anything from anyone who wants to play an unlimited game instead. Or at least don't troll my thread.
Major Lord_Bremen
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Chicago
2

Re: Maximum 12 Armies on any 1 Country

Postby greenoaks on Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:56 am

Lord_Bremen wrote:
greenoaks wrote:
chapcrap wrote:MOVED from Archives to Suggestions

move it to rejected ;)


If you don't like it, then don't play games with it. What possible reason is there to stop other people from using an option they enjoy? This doesn't take away anything from anyone who wants to play an unlimited game instead. Or at least don't troll my thread.

this does take away.

  • there is a limited amount of resources available to implement features so players indicating whether they like or DISLIKE a potential option is important.
  • there are a limited number of players, the more options we have the more fragmented the community becomes. that means it is harder to start games and the ones that do take longer to fill.

this option is a waste of resources. it adds very little to the site and there are many, far better suggestions out there.
User avatar
Sergeant greenoaks
 
Posts: 9977
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:47 am

Re: Maximum 12 Armies on any 1 Country

Postby Lord_Bremen on Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:07 pm

Have any of you guys even tried this option? In normal risk, the strategy is simple - you just put all your armies on one place and the game generally ends in one turn in a massive attack. That's not particularly innovative and it doesn't take much effort. If there's a stack limit, you can't do that anymore, so it adds entirely new types of strategies that are simply not viable otherwise. If it's not possible to kill everyone in one turn (due to stack limits), that means you have to plan ahead, not only to what you can capture but as to whether you will be able to hold it. Games don't end in one big battle so there's a lot more strategy and much more room for comebacks.

There are thousands of players on here and tons of variations/maps. Either this will be popular and lots of people will join these types of games (that would be a good thing), or it won't be and people will stick to regular games. It's not as if there is any lack of players joining - I managed to fill four 8 player games (with non-standard options) in less time than it takes to run a single turn.

If it's hard to program then it's obviously up to those guys when/if they implement regardless of whether this is approved. But that's a reason to be indifferent (or even cheerlead for some other suggestion, though pretty much all of those at the moment seem to be cosmetic), not to actively oppose this. Especially considering that this is a variant straight from the actual Risk rulebook.
Major Lord_Bremen
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Chicago
2

Re: Maximum 12 Armies on any 1 Country

Postby spiesr on Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:37 am

Before this option can really be considered for implementation I think somebody should test this on all maps. Simply put, I fear that there might be map and settings combinations where this leads to endless stalemates. As such, some maps (I have no idea which ones though) should probably be banned from use with this option if such a thing were ever implemented.

(Yes I have played with this option in real life.)
User avatar
Captain spiesr
 
Posts: 2809
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:52 am
Location: South Dakota

Re: Maximum 12 Armies on any 1 Country

Postby chapcrap on Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:24 am

spiesr wrote:Before this option can really be considered for implementation I think somebody should test this on all maps. Simply put, I fear that there might be map and settings combinations where this leads to endless stalemates. As such, some maps (I have no idea which ones though) should probably be banned from use with this option if such a thing were ever implemented.

(Yes I have played with this option in real life.)

What scenarios would this not work with?
Lieutenant chapcrap
 
Posts: 9686
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Kansas City

Re: Maximum 12 Armies on any 1 Country

Postby Lord_Bremen on Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:54 am

spiesr wrote:Before this option can really be considered for implementation I think somebody should test this on all maps. Simply put, I fear that there might be map and settings combinations where this leads to endless stalemates. As such, some maps (I have no idea which ones though) should probably be banned from use with this option if such a thing were ever implemented.

(Yes I have played with this option in real life.)


What do you guys mean by stalemate? You eventually have to attack or you won't be able to place new armies. Games can go longer if everyone digs in, but that's not really a problem. I suppose if you had a really narrow choke and unlimited fortification (not a particularly good combo with stack limits) you could have an issue until someone got lucky. But that seems unlikely.
Major Lord_Bremen
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Chicago
2

Re: Maximum 12 Armies on any 1 Country

Postby aad0906 on Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:17 pm

chapcrap wrote:
spiesr wrote:Before this option can really be considered for implementation I think somebody should test this on all maps. Simply put, I fear that there might be map and settings combinations where this leads to endless stalemates. As such, some maps (I have no idea which ones though) should probably be banned from use with this option if such a thing were ever implemented.

(Yes I have played with this option in real life.)

What scenarios would this not work with?


It will stop people from going through the pinnacle in Clandemonium, so that could be fun. The deeplands would also be much easier to hold.
User avatar
Major aad0906
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 8:15 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Re: Maximum 12 Armies on any 1 Country

Postby Kaskavel on Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:52 pm

I think this is an excellent idea.
1. I ve already played such games with mc05025 after agreement. It was a success.
2. The option may only influence first round under such settings. A manual hive 1-1 is gamble, a manual restricted to 10 hive 1-1 is wonderful and does not influnce the game later.
3. A restricted to 4 game may also make sence, knights for example. It does not need to be a big number.
4. The game will, under some settings, resemble a trench game too much.
5. Maps with objectives gets very much more fun and strategy.
6. Maps with few interesting points also get boosted. Imagine surrounding an enemy oasis with stacks in oasis map.
7. Yes. Almost any suggestion does not work well, or even destroys the game, in combination with some other settings. People should stop imagining what kind of settings may make a new suggestion unworkable. Get used to it. The more options we add, the more weird combinations will be available. For example, we already added trench to the site. You cannot play 8 man escalating trench is most maps. Yes, if we add max armies, we will also not be able to play some escalating games. So what? This does not mean the suggestion is invalid. Combine it with workable settings. This would not be the first time, nor will it be the last one. Like you dont play escalating hive 8 players, like you dont play Antartica nuclear (some gamblers like to do so though), like you dont play escalating trench multiplayer, just dont play limited armies escalating also, it is not that difficult. The suggestion forum is not a place where we come, read suggestions and pretend to be clever by finding out which combination of settings will make the suggestion unplayable. You are not clever by doing that, you are not the only one understanding that some combinations get weird, irrelevant or self defeating, you are not clever by mentioning that again and again and you are are not contributing to the site this way. The same arguments have been made again in the past. Fog? What is the point of that in doodle 1 vs 1? Trench? What is the point in killer neutral maps or in big escalating games? Those worked though. Either we avoid some settings or we fix some specific problems (like the killer neutrals above).
I vote for the suggestion with enthusiasm
Colonel Kaskavel
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:08 pm
544

PreviousNext

Return to Archived Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users