Conquer Club

Concise description: This allows players to attack from more than one country at once. It confers no advantage other than the 2 armies will combine on the conquered territory if successful.

Specifics:

• Attack from country A
• If successful, advance with army from A and army from selected adjacent country B

Example: Alberta (6 red armies) and Britain (4 red armies) attack Colombia (2 blue armies). It is calculated as a 6vs2. Red win, taking no casualties. The 4 armies from Britain are also considered when selecting how many armies advance. Colombo is conquered and now contains 10 red armies, who can go on to further attacks.
The armies do not combine to produce additional dice. I.e. 2 red + 2 red vs 2 blue is still a 2 on 2 for dice, not 3 vs 2.
E.g. Alberta (2 red armies) and Britain (2 red armies) attack Colombia (2 blue armies). The dice rolled is a 2 vs 2, not 3 v 2.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Strategy; pull of that pincer manouevre you've always wanted.

IIRC some of the old RISK computer games had this. It makes it a whole bit easier and I'm not sure I'd use it. But I can see the idea being somewhat popular.

This seems like all this would do is allow you to get an extra fortification move during your turn. Doesn't really seem worth the effort, just to make the game easier.

This could make a big difference in both chained and adjacent fortification types, since it would allow you to efectively get a "free" extra fortification.

It seems in line with the risk theme, but would it be popular enough and offer enough of a strategy difference to be worth the extra time, crowding of the options lists, etc?

i think it removes strategy as you no longer have to make sure your armies are on the right tert and large enough to attack with.

great option for 8 years old though.

greenoaks wrote:i think it removes strategy as you no longer have to make sure your armies are on the right tert and large enough to attack with.

great option for 8 years old though.

Call it Risk Jr.

The real question is if Lack could code such a thing...


--Andy

From a dice standpoint, it's simply a matter of passing the total attacking armies, fairly easy if Lack codes it Object-Oriented style. Expanding the attack dialog to make combined attacks possible (you'd need 2 territory dropdown boxes), and the logic to have mutual exclusivity (similar to only being able to fortify what a territory is connected to) would take a considerable amount of time, but IS do-able.

PLAYER57832 wrote:This could make a big difference in both chained and adjacent fortification types, since it would allow you to efectively get a "free" extra fortification.

Which, as others have noted, effectively takes the strategic edge off adjacent and chained ...

AndyDufresne wrote:The real question is if Lack could code such a thing...

I am hoping the real question is whether he would code such a thing ...

(And that the answer would be no to such a question.)

The main problem to my mind is no that it diminishes the limitedness of limited forts (which it would), but that it would give an overwhelming advantage to the attacker, and thus in crease the "first mover advantage" to an unacceptable level.

The original game design of 3v2 dice with ties going to the defender, on which CC is based, is fundamentally (and very delicately) balanced, and whilst this suggestion does not change the way the dice work, it does mean that any random pair of 2 and 3 armies or more could get a free hit in.

Reject pls (regardless of how easy - I think it would be pretty difficult - it is to code)!

BENJIKAT IS DEAD wrote:The original game design of 3v2 dice with ties going to the defender, on which CC is based, is fundamentally (and very delicately) balanced, and whilst this suggestion does not change the way the dice work, it does mean that any random pair of 2 and 3 armies or more could get a free hit in.

You read the suggestion, jah?

Otherwise, I agree it does offer an advantage to the attacker/ potentially make the game "easier". This wouldn't be acceptable in limited forts, true. Currently, though, attacking with two large armies is a disadvantage with regard to following through. 'twould be interesting to see players encouraged to attack with more seperate armies at once, without the simple reason of utilising all your potential armies from territories still with 3.

Gah. This didn't make much sense. Hell, it can be shortened down to:

I'd like to see an option for mulitple attacks on a single territory at once, without removing the limits of fortification/ simplifying the game.

A lot of players will use 2 terits to attack a single place. Weaken it with one and take it with another, so you've got lots of available troops to keep moving. I don't like this suggestion. If it were implemented, someone could use the double attack and advancement to consolidate a lot of troops on their first turn, and I don't mean, in the same way as unlim forts would provide. They would be able to bring troops together into large piles and continue to attack. It seems that this possibility alone is enough to reject the idea. Going first already has enough of an advantage associated with it. this would make that a WHOLE LOT worse.

cicero wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:This could make a big difference in both chained and adjacent fortification types, since it would allow you to efectively get a "free" extra fortification.

Which, as others have noted, effectively takes the strategic edge off adjacent and chained ...

to be clear, I don't like the idea. I wasn't advocating it, just pointing out some considerations that had not been mentioned before.

TheSupremeCourt wrote:

BENJIKAT IS DEAD wrote:The original game design of 3v2 dice with ties going to the defender, on which CC is based, is fundamentally (and very delicately) balanced, and whilst this suggestion does not change the way the dice work, it does mean that any random pair of 2 and 3 armies or more could get a free hit in.

You read the suggestion, jah?

....

it can be shortened down to:

I'd like to see an option for mulitple attacks on a single territory at once, without removing the limits of fortification/ simplifying the game.

Yes I did read the suggestion, and to illustrate how it sucks I'll use the example of 1v1 Waterloo (my fav map/settings).

Each player has 34 territories on the drop, and thus 11 armies to deploy. When going first I average 5 territories taken. With your suggestion implemented this would rise to an average of around 11 or 12 (pls trust me to have done the maths correctly - I have already proven mathematically for myself that my "5" is corrrect based on the dice probs, and not just an experiencial thing). i.e. the player going second would have only 7 armies to deploy on their first turn.

As I said before, the first mover already has an advantage in almost every game type on CC, and anything that exacerbates that should be treated with extreme caution.

Timminz wrote:They would be able to bring troops together into large piles and continue to attack.

It'd be like a freestyle unlimited team game with 1 person.

BaldAdonis wrote:

Timminz wrote:They would be able to bring troops together into large piles and continue to attack.

It'd be like a freestyle unlimited team game with 1 person.

Indeed, thinking about it that way, by estimate above is probably too conservative!