Conquer Club

When my friends and I used to play on an actual board game, we used to set a limit to the escalating bonus cards. Usually we set it to 30-50 max. Because once it goes above that, most of the time the next person would just win.

I'm not asking for a cap for all Escalating. Just an option to set a cap. Maybe set it to 0 for unlimited (currently is).


ps great site, I just recently heard about it, and been playing it every day =)

i like the idea of an option too because while it's fun to have an obscene amount of armies given by turning in cards, i'd like longer drawn out battles with you getting more armies by holding continents and countries.

p.s. - i'm also new to the site and great job, love it

i suggest fixed rate cars for you if you like the build up holding conts thing.. if your playing escalateing chances r it will never get past the 35 mark.. its usually over by than

well here's my last game:

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=45570

as you can see in the game log the last person (isodice) got 70 armies. i'm not saying that's not fair in and of itself, i'd just like another option, if possible.

fine for an option

The thing I don't like about flat rate is that... it's flat rate

In the beginning I like escalating because it starts off small. So the first person to turn in cards don't become a powerhouse (if they play it right). But towards the end, it'd be nice to have it becomes "flat rate". So that it's anybody still have a chance of winning regardless of who turns in the cards first.

I guess I'm asking for the best of both worlds.

Yeah i see what your saying... could be an intresting option.. i also like options like cards go 2 4 6 8 10 12..ect and like 4 8 12 4 8 12.. al kinds of variations i have tried at home

HighBorn wrote:i suggest fixed rate cars for you if you like the build up holding conts thing.. if your playing escalateing chances r it will never get past the 35 mark.. its usually over by than

I've been in a good many games, where we hit 50 men. Which is why I'm starting to dislike escalateing games. Takes away from the skill of the game IMO.

I understand.. escalateing is just a domino effect waiting to happen.. i like all different kinds and try to improve my skill with all options avlaible to me

HighBorn wrote:Yeah i see what your saying... could be an intresting option.. i also like options like cards go 2 4 6 8 10 12..ect and like 4 8 12 4 8 12.. al kinds of variations i have tried at home

Ooh, different incremental amounts is interesting too.

with escalating games, you can get awesome come from behind victories

Pilate wrote:with escalating games, you can get awesome come from behind victories

I mostly agree. I don't know if its awesome all of the time, but with escalating, if you can keep yourself in the game, you can come back from behind to win. And usually the games don't go awfully long with the escalating cards. But it might be all right to have the option of a cap to the armies, and still keep the option of no cap.

I once played a game in the home version where me and another person were basically just toying with our friend, we trapped her in Afghanistan and kept leaving her there with only one territory, and we would let her get cards by leaving one space with one army, and the cards got so high we ended up inventing a new unit to count as 50 armies, and still ran out of room... it was crazy.

Now that sounds like a particularly cruel game of risk for the chick lol

indeed, but you should know, i vaguely remember you being there, somewhere... I think it was... Yes it was, you were in Afghanistan...

HAHAHA!!!

Pfft. You're juss lucky Caleb was there. Remind me what usually happens when it's juss you and me? No Caleb around to protect your backside???
Yea... That's right.

when caleb isn't there i get first instead of second.

When other people are there to ally with you. Cheapness. We'll see when you come to visit. One game of juss me and you. With neutrals. That's right. I'll stomp you. That's right.. I said it.

As of right now, another idea that is 'Pending' regarding cash-ins is 'Ascending +1/Player Specific'.


--Andy

I think once the bouses get to 250 it shoud go back to 4 again, or something like that.

joshybosh wrote:I think once the bouses get to 250 it shoud go back to 4 again, or something like that.

I was going to suggest something similar, but at a much earlier point. Somewhere in the 30-50 mark, drop the army bonus back down to 4, or even make it a random drop somewhere in that range so you don't know if your cards are going to get you a block of armies or a piddly four...

yes, I like more options, could leave escalating as it is, however, you could have another option where any and all players who cash in their cards gets 4, then 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, and cap that to like 25, so if a player cashes in his 1st set of 4, then I would cash in for 4, not 6, understand? i would only get 6 when i cashed in my 2nd set of cash and same for all. i like this to be an option, agreement with marv, who i think 1st suggested this way back.

also, I would like as an opition, if you cash in a set of cards, for anyone, 4,5,6,7,8,9, etc, unlimited, so 1st player cashes in for 4 cards, now i got a set of cards next and cash in, it would be 5, next guy 6, just increments on only one, hope this is implemented as well.

happy holidays all.

I quite like the idea of having a cap on the number of bonuses in esc games...sometimes it can be fun if you have held on through the game by our teeth and suddenly you find yourself in the card position with trades worth 50...but sometimes it can be a bit unfair...the other players have been steadily winning throughout, and just because you now have a decent trade you get to win when either one of them deserved it more...the escalating cards sometimes just bring a bigger element of luck into games that were strategically won by someone else. Maybe a cap at say 30/40/50 bonuses, so once that stage is reached players just receive that many armies for each trade after...
Also, having a drop from 30 armies to 4 armies for a trade is a bit unfair...imagine playing an awesome game...u hang on for a trade, and just after your opponent has received 30 armies for his trade, you receive 4 because you were the unlucky one to hit the trade limit, and so you basically lose because they have broken through your defences with the massive 30, and now you have 4 armies to try combat!! Barely fair gameplay!lol!!

I must be the only crazy one on here who thinks you are all crazy to try to limit escalating. Flat rate is a limited card system play that if you dont like the idea of having a card set go to 50 or 100 or 200 if you make it that far. Games are stupid when no one will kill anyone because they will get a measly 10 units after losing 100 or 200 or Ive seen 1000's needed to kill someone else with a 1000 units. And then what? Ya, you lose to the 3rd guy with a 1000 units who no one attacked.

I think escalating need to escalate faster. After they hit 100 they should go up by 10 or 20 units. Then after 500 maybe increase by 50 or more. At 1000 they should increase by like 500 poof game over Who wants to play in a locked up game for months (or even years) where the winner is determined by the only 2 people to not miss 3 turns?

Summary: You want a long ass game play flat rate, or better yet No Card (theres a snore fest)
You want a fast strategic game play escalating. Thats what most the pros play, because it is exciting! I vote to make it more exciting!

but it would ruin the fun for ppl who are playing build-up games...
and I'm joining one soon...