Conquer Club

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:15 am**

Stalemate Solution - Armageddon

it would be an option in the game. a simple check box like the fog (Y/N)

what does it do?

simple if a game has Armageddon mode on then at round X (where X is a reasonable amount of rounds like 50-100) each teritory loses all of it's troops but 1.

i used to play like this with my friends but the difference was we had a card with armageddon and the player who had that card decided when to play it, instead of a fixed number of rounds.

let's say we have 3 people on classic. 1 has asia and oceania, 1 has europe and africa and the other north and south america. simple stalemate. the players know in round 50 armageddon comes and basically this means whoever goes first and has a bigger bonus when that round starts will have a huge advantage so my bet is they won't reach it in a stalemate because they'll try to get extra terits and extra bonuses in the last couple of rounds and thus break the stalemate. if they still are in a stalemate then removing all troops will surely force heavy attacking and breaking of bonuses.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:29 am**

Another solution would be to change the rate at which cards escalated, and start an exponential increase after a certain number of rounds.

Instead of 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20... (and then +5 each cash in)...

How about... 40, 45, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1250, 1500, 1750, 2000... or something?

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:33 am**

MrBenn wrote:Another solution would be to change the rate at which cards escalated, and start an exponential increase after a certain number of rounds.

Instead of 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20... (and then +5 each cash in)...

How about... 40, 45, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1250, 1500, 1750, 2000... or something?

that wouldn't work. and here's the explanation i put in another thread.

generally cards should have a high enough value in order to make a killing worth while. so you must lose less troops than the set value you'll get in order to safely go and kill somebody. usually if a game hits round 75 it means people will have anywhere from 200 to 3000 troops depending on map. let's assume 3 people have 200 troops and 5 bonus each. escalating starts. the cash in value will need to rise to at least the amount of troops a player has. which is impossible if the stalemate continues. so basically what escalating cards will do is keep the stalemate and increase the number of troops. in any game.

basically because the trade-in values rise by 5 it means the difference between current troops and cash-in value will grow bigger and bigger.

the only possible solution is that the cash value rises more than each player gets per 3 turns. so basically in our example with people that have 200 troops and get 5 bonus per turn it would take a steady rise of 50 troops after each cash-in in order to get the trade value to be at least equal to the number of troops a player has and even if cash values rise by 50 (50-100-150-200) this doesn't guarantee the break in the stalemate.

as said we have 3 players with 200 troops each.

player A cashes a set of 50 he has 250 troops. doesn't go for a kill cause 250vs200 is a close call and the next set is just 100 so he might not have enough for the 3rd guy.

player B cashes a set of 100. has 300 troops now. if he goes for the guy with 200 troops (player C) and remains with just 100 but gets a set it means he'll have250 to kill the last 250 of the player A. very risky so he doesn't do it.

player C cashes in 150 and has 350 now. same idea, he could go for the kill but it would be too much of a close call.

so even with a rise of 50 troops (10 times more than normal) stalemates will probably not end unless somebody takes a huge risk.

but i have a better solution. will post now as a new topic.

here it is: Armageddon

also the problem would be that you must have a unanimous vote to start those cards rolling in a stalemate. and what do you do if not all the people in the game are around to vote? i was in a 300 round stalemate that was down to 3 players. from the 3 that were already eliminated 2 had already quit the site so they couldn't vote.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:28 pm**

MrBenn wrote:Another solution would be to change the rate at which cards escalated, and start an exponential increase after a certain number of rounds.

Instead of 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20... (and then +5 each cash in)...

How about... 40, 45, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1250, 1500, 1750, 2000... or something?

I posted that idea a few days ago and still like it:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... sc&start=0

DiM, I don't believe that it won't work as you stated. My version is a transition from a stalemate into a possible end. Armageddon is a drastic change. That being said, I do like the Armageddon concept and am deciding on how to vote based off of how would you implement this? Would all games automatically have this? Would it be another preference when you create a game? Or would it be voted upon within the game? I'm leaning yes to Armageddon, but wnat to know your input first. Thanks.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:49 pm**

OK so every gets 1 man each and I cash in my escalating set for how many armies?

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:56 pm**

firth4eva wrote:OK so every gets 1 man each and I cash in my escalating set for how many armies?

I was assuming the cards go back to Zero. Otherwise, even in flat rate, a mixed set will annihilate everyone.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:08 pm**

I was assuming the cards go back to Zero. Otherwise, even in flat rate, a mixed set will annihilate everyone.[/quote]

Then it has served it's purpose and the game is resolved.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:20 pm**

to make things clear. i already explained this in the first post.

armageddon will be an OPTION. just like fog of war or escalating or sequential. you select it at when you create the game. and if Armageddon is selected, regardless of other settings in round 100 all terits will be dropped to 1 army no matter how many they had. if it's an escalating game and you cash in 1000 armies and clean the map then so be it. game over. if it is no cards then you play your bonuses and try to kill anything that moves.

Posted: **Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:42 am**

How about instead of 1 make it 3.... Like the start of a game .... It would slow down the advancing army of the 1st player to go after Armageddon.... It would give every player that potential 2 dice Defend. If it is against 20 men it is possible to kill 10 or 12 of those advancing men and still give the game a sence of "ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN" Senario.

And Even if that 1st player Instead Fortifies all his troops... It wouldn't be a massive impenetrable wall ... yes it may start the build process again .. But that would be Foolish for any player at that point .. You could always add another ARMAGEDDON at Round 150.... Put that one should just end the game.....

You could also employ ...... A PLAGUE .... Imagine if at Whatever High Round.... Every Players Continent Preferrably in the Center or Random would now be Neutral... And If they don't Swat it it would Spread.... For example... You control North America..... After PLAGUE Praries And Midwest turn Neutral... Or any territ with only 1 man turns Neutral

Posted: **Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:43 am**

Armegeddon strongly favours the player whose go it is first. A type of sudden death sounds to me like it would work better - maybe after every round after a certain point, a player loses x armies a go (not going below 1) where x increases each round. That would break down large stacks and treat each player more equally, as it would be a more gradual descent.

Posted: **Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:54 pm**

Shanba wrote:Armegeddon strongly favours the player whose go it is first. A type of sudden death sounds to me like it would work better - maybe after every round after a certain point, a player loses x armies a go (not going below 1) where x increases each round. That would break down large stacks and treat each player more equally, as it would be a more gradual descent.

armageddon is sudden death and yes the first player has a big advantage but that's the whole idea. you know armageddon is coming in round 100 and you know X is going first, will you and the other players continue with the stalemate and give player X a big advantage or will you break the stalemate and try and finish the game or at least lower his advantage?

truth is in most cases armageddon won't be reached because nobody will be foolish enough to let a player gain such a big advantage and if they do allow it then they deserve to lose for their ignorance.

Posted: **Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:56 pm**

Keredrex wrote:How about instead of 1 make it 3.... Like the start of a game .... It would slow down the advancing army of the 1st player to go after Armageddon.... It would give every player that potential 2 dice Defend. If it is against 20 men it is possible to kill 10 or 12 of those advancing men and still give the game a sence of "ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN" Senario.

And Even if that 1st player Instead Fortifies all his troops... It wouldn't be a massive impenetrable wall ... yes it may start the build process again .. But that would be Foolish for any player at that point .. You could always add another ARMAGEDDON at Round 150.... Put that one should just end the game.....

You could also employ ...... A PLAGUE .... Imagine if at Whatever High Round.... Every Players Continent Preferrably in the Center or Random would now be Neutral... And If they don't Swat it it would Spread.... For example... You control North America..... After PLAGUE Praries And Midwest turn Neutral... Or any territ with only 1 man turns Neutral

that wouldn't work at all, sorry.

think of a stalemate where people have a bonus of 5. armageddon comes and each player has 3 troops on all terits. what will 5 troops do? you'll barely get 1-2 terits from the opponents and then the building will resume as normal. it won't work at all.

Posted: **Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:07 pm**

I like your idea Dim, but then again most of your ideas are good.

Posted: **Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:24 pm**

It's like in Worms

I like it, btw, a lot. At least there's a chance that neverending games will actually end without 1 person suiciding and probably getting a negative feedback for that from the player who got to be the target of suiciding.

Posted: **Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:47 pm**

Risktaker17 wrote:I like your idea Dim, but then again most of your ideas are good.

thanks.

Posted: **Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:48 pm**

amazzony wrote:It's like in Worms I like it, btw, a lot. At least there's a chance that neverending games will actually end without 1 person suiciding and probably getting a negative feedback for that from the player who got to be the target of suiciding.

exactly like worms, except the water isn't rising :lol:

Posted: **Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:17 pm**

DiM wrote:
that wouldn't work at all, sorry.

think of a stalemate where people have a bonus of 5. armageddon comes and each player has 3 troops on all terits. what will 5 troops do? you'll barely get 1-2 terits from the opponents and then the building will resume as normal. it won't work at all.

It wouldn't be 5... it would be Bonus amount (5 - Depending on map) + Your normal for having certain amount of Territs (3 or more).....Then you deploy and you have 8 plus the 3 on the map.....11 against 3 basically..... but since it all depends on the map.....If you got to Round 100 and Most of the maps have decent amount of bonuses then it would probably be more........ not to mention that if they started to BUILD again... it would be pretty pointless.... AND your idea is a Deterrant anyway... If you reach the 90's ... someone is gonna try to break it cause of the massive advantage the 1st payer still has

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:06 am**

have you considered a troop cap?
it would be a maximum number of armies that could exist on a single territ
it would limit troop buildup, without vastly changing armies around.

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:09 am**

4V4T4R wrote:have you considered a troop cap?
it would be a maximum number of armies that could exist on a single territ
it would limit troop buildup, without vastly changing armies around.

But if let's say that cap is 100, then it will still be a stalemate (assuming it is not Escalating, as stalemates in Escalating are very rare). Most stalemates I have been in didn't have territories with more then 50 armies. You can even have a stalemate with 20 armies only on key-territories. Also then nobody will break them because that leaves the 3rd player the advantage.

Posted: **Wed May 14, 2008 6:30 pm**

I like armageddon idea, i say we impliment it! it would be cool if we could select the armageddon turn as well... in terms of tournament creation, It would be very interesting if you had a 5 round armageddon, every 5 rounds they are reset... VERY interesting gameplay indeed, it would make stacking completely useless and add a whole new element to the game...

but of course just the general 50 round is cool too

great idea!

Posted: **Tue May 20, 2008 12:00 pm**

I like it... i would like to suck it and see though. So it being an option works ideally.

NB. I know you have seen this DiM but this idea could do with some support too perhaps: End Stalemates in Escalator

I is not the cure-all solution which this is but it may work too.

Posted: **Tue May 20, 2008 3:36 pm**

What if we don't believe in armageddon, so call it something else? Like the destruction of the universe due to severe contraction of mass?

Posted: **Tue May 20, 2008 9:25 pm**

LOL dim about the water rising... you give me a good idea... how bout we have every coast territory submerged by water in THIS game?
Just Kidding...

Worms rules by the way ;-)

Isn't there a worms armagedon game anyways ;-D

Posted: **Tue May 20, 2008 10:00 pm**

I got an idea.

When cards are used, the territory on the cards automatically gets reset to a neutral 1. (After Armageddon is activated, of course)

Example: (Classic Map)
Red owns Middle East with 500 armies on it.
Blue owns the entire continent of Oceania, with 500 armies on Indonesia, and 1's everywhere else.
Green owns India, with 500 armies on it.

Red plays a set of Middle East, East Australia, and India.
Middle East reverts to a neutral 1.
India reverts to a neutral 1.
East Australia reverts to a neutral 1, and this also means blue's continent bonus is broken.

This would add a lot of strategy to the game, and discourage huge stacks, because your 1000 army stack could be wiped out in one turn. You would also have to carefully deploy your armies, or you could end up killing your own army with cards if you're not careful.

The downside to this is that it cannot be used in games without cards.

Posted: **Wed May 21, 2008 12:52 am**

This idea is a good one but wont the player going next be at a HUGE advantage?

Conquer Club

[GO] Stalemate Solution - Armageddon

[GO] Stalemate Solution - Armageddon

Re: Stalemate Solution - Armageddon

Re: Stalemate Solution - Armageddon

Re: Stalemate Solution - Armageddon

Re: Stalemate Solution - Armageddon

Re: Stalemate Solution - Armageddon

Re: Stalemate Solution - Armageddon