Conquer Club

Posted: **Tue May 16, 2006 5:57 pm**

It seems to me that one interesting game mode would be doubles or triples games where each team is controlled by a single player. It seems to me it's a valid exercise in strategy, and I imagine the only thing standing in the way is the whole new leaf in programming that would be required. What thinks the peoples? This can of course be done by having multiple accounts, which in this case would not be unsportsmanlike, but of course unacceptable at CC for other reasons.

Posted: **Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:49 pm**

What would be cool is if there could be heads-up Risk matches. Say each player gets two colors and goes at it like that. thats the way we used to do it with the old board game if there were only two of us. Would be fun for callouts and such.

Posted: **Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:16 pm**

It should probably be Pot Limit.

Posted: **Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:53 pm**

Well at the moment aTwo Person Play Option is being considered, and is filed under 'Pending'.

--Andy

Posted: **Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:43 am**

i guess you could just multi against another multi.

Posted: **Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:20 pm**

that would kick ass,,

and auto login and no log out after 5 minutes would be a bonus as well

Posted: **Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:52 am**

I agree. It would be a great way of doing the propsed two player duels, much more interesting than a standard game with just two players.

Posted: **Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:44 am**

Call it "Going Maverick" or something.

Posted: **Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:13 am**

That would be pretty cool

Posted: **Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:20 pm**

I think single players would have an unfair advantage over teams.

Also would the player lose double the points?

Posted: **Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:54 pm**

I don't know about Dugcarr, but I was talking about each team being controlled by one player.

Posted: **Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:47 pm**

How many times have you been partnered with an idiot who doesn't understand the game and has cost you valuable points..... or worse teamed up with a deadbeat thus giving you very little chance of winning.

So how about having two colours that you control alternatively as though you had a multi account.

Peter

Posted: **Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:57 pm**

even better, allow two player, no points involved games.

Posted: **Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:04 pm**

even betterer-

No.

Posted: **Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:23 pm**

or most betterest:

make a multi and try to not get caught :roll:

Posted: **Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:54 pm**

superkarn wrote:Concise Idea: Make a new game type that allows doubles, triples, and quadruples to be played by two players.

Suggestion Idea: First off, I'm not a fan of 1v1 games, mostly because I feel that the dice play too big of a roll in determining the winner. Secondly I play a lot of team games with my friends (playing on the same team against random opponents). In team games, you and your partner(s) need to be in sync with each other to ensure optimal chance of winning. And who do you agree with most if not yourself
Which leads us to this suggestion. In the new game type, the settings would be pretty much the same as regular team games, except that team 1 is controlled by one player, and team 2 is controlled by another player. For example, in a triples game, the first player would control red, green, and blue, while the second player control yellow, pink, and cyan. Everything else would be the same including turn order (alternating), zone bonus (one color must control the whole zone to get the bonus), fortification (can't fortify across "teammates"), etc.

Specifics: Team games where team 1 is controlled by player 1 and team 2 is controlled by player 2.

Why it is needed: It allows people with no friends to be able to play team games
But seriously because more options is better. And this new game type will offer deeper strategy than playing regular 1v1 game. You are now controlling multiple armies instead of one army with multiple troops. Imagine playing a quadruples 1v1!

show

MOD EDIT: Copied OP from later topic as part of merge.

Posted: **Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:07 pm**

This would be easy on the game setup screen...

If Doubles is selected and 2 players - then a 2 player doubles match.
If Doubels is selected and 3 players - then a 3 player doubles match.
If Triples is selected and 2 players - then a 2 player triples match.

I like it.

C.

Posted: **Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:45 pm**

But how would that be team play then? Sorry, but my opinion is that if you want to play by yourself the play singles. Besides, the top players could easily take advantage of it. So, no.

Posted: **Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:22 pm**

if you want that ply singles plus if your teammate screws up you are losing points for something you did not do

Posted: **Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:28 pm**

RobinJ wrote:But how would that be team play then? Sorry, but my opinion is that if you want to play by yourself the play singles. Besides, the top players could easily take advantage of it. So, no.

It would be like in a "6" person doubles:
Player 1 has control over red and green
Player 2 has control over blue and yellow
Player 3 has control over teal and pink

I've played this on the board and it's a lot of fun.

Posted: **Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:02 pm**

Concise Idea: Make a new game type that allows doubles, triples, and quadruples to be played by two players.

Suggestion Idea: First off, I'm not a fan of 1v1 games, mostly because I feel that the dice play too big of a roll in determining the winner. Secondly I play a lot of team games with my friends (playing on the same team against random opponents). In team games, you and your partner(s) need to be in sync with each other to ensure optimal chance of winning. And who do you agree with most if not yourself

Which leads us to this suggestion. In the new game type, the settings would be pretty much the same as regular team games, except that team 1 is controlled by one player, and team 2 is controlled by another player. For example, in a triples game, the first player would control red, green, and blue, while the second player control yellow, pink, and cyan. Everything else would be the same including turn order (alternating), zone bonus (one color must control the whole zone to get the bonus), fortification (can't fortify across "teammates"), etc.

Specifics: Team games where team 1 is controlled by player 1 and team 2 is controlled by player 2.

Why it is needed: It allows people with no friends to be able to play team games :lol:

But seriously because more options is better. And this new game type will offer deeper strategy than playing regular 1v1 game. You are now controlling multiple armies instead of one army with multiple troops. Imagine playing a quadruples 1v1!

Posted: **Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:05 pm**

This has been suggested before - I'm not sure whether or not it got rejected or not - but I like the idea...

C.

Posted: **Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:07 pm**

oh, sorry, didn't see it in the official suggestion box

Found this . (It's under To-do, Gameplay, More Game Types)
But there are many suggestions there and they are quite general. Where as the one suggested here is specific. I hope it warrants its own thread

Posted: **Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:14 pm**

I like this idea a lot. But I don't think it will be passed because the XML could be confusing

Posted: **Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:19 pm**

Risktaker17 wrote:I like this idea a lot. But I don't think it will be passed because the XML could be confusing

Wha?! The XML has nowt to do with it!?!

C.

Conquer Club

[GP/UI] 2-player "team" games (Polymorphic)

[GP/UI] 2-player "team" games (Polymorphic)

HEADS-UP RISK

team games were 1 person can be 2 players on the same team?

doubles games for single players

[GP/UI] 2-player "team" games

[GP/UI] 2-player "team" games