Conquer Club

If your opponent has 40 sitting in western Europe then you should be able to come from the other side and mess with his territories. Assuming you have territories on the other side. I think it would take a different strategy to play this way, naturally it wouldn't be everybody's cup of tea.

3seven1 wrote:If your opponent has 40 sitting in western Europe then you should be able to come from the other side and mess with his territories. Assuming you have territories on the other side. I think it would take a different strategy to play this way, naturally it wouldn't be everybody's cup of tea.

I doubt it would be anyones, I definitely wouldn't even consider playing this option.
Ever

Ok, that's one person out of ?? total players on this site. What does everybody else think?

3seven1 wrote:Ok, that's one person out of ?? total players on this site. What does everybody else think?

It's been here for 2 days and no one has commented because it is so flipping stupid !

LOCK 'ER DOWN

I would never play this option and I definitely think that I am with the majority of the people on this site

misterman10 wrote:LOCK 'ER DOWN

I would never play this option and I definitely think that I am with the majority of the people on this site

QFT

Why lock it down? Why not just stop replying to it?

I want to bring back this old post because I think this was one of the best ideas anyone has had in a while. I wish we could hear lacks opinion on it, or at least some opinions of the people, because so far its just been one guy who really doesn't like this idea.

And he doesn't seem to understand how it works. Talking about having 40 armies on one territory, you wouldn't do that on this setting, because that would leave you few places to attack. Different settings call for different strategies, you're just thinking in the strategy you do for normal escalating games where you deploy a whole bunch on one spot and plow through the map. Not much thought into that, not much of a strategy. But it works.

In this mode that doesn't work. You will have to use a new strategy to both attack and defend yourself. Deploy to different spots so you can attack from them both. And people concerned about the ending being slow it really wouldnt be that slow. No, you cant deploy all your armies to one spot and finish him off in one turn, But if you deploy to a couple spots, you probably surround him, you can attack most of his territories, It will only add a couple rounds to the endgame.


For those of you who still don't understand exactly how this mode will work. Very simply, it just means that in one turn, you cannot attack from a territory that you conquered that same turn. Thats it.

keep ur head up 3seven1...people love to bash what they cant understand. I know exactly where ur comin from and if you take a look at my thread, which was based off of Risk II for the PC, u'll clearly see the majority of people in favor for it.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23873

We gotta stick together, so take the poll, comment, and promote.

I play this way with Risk 2210 AD. This game has commanders, water territories and space territories. You take turns in "years", after all players take their turns the games moves on to the next year. By only being able to attack territories that you are touching and not continuing attacks past that, it creates a certain strategy that is very useful in this type of play. I don't mind that this option isn't liked by everybody, that doesn't matter to me. I'll just play that way when we play the actual board game. It was simply a suggestion to see what others thought...it appears as thought most people act like little kids, "I DON'T LIKE IT, IT'S STUPID, STOP SUGGESTING THIS IDEA, NOOB" So that's fine, a simple addition to my ignore list and that proble is gone.

Basic idea: Instead of being able to conquer from one country, advance, conquer another country, advance, and so on, one can only attack from the countries they start the turn with.
Meaning, Newly conquered countries cannot attack for the duration of the turn they are conquered on.

Specifics: At the start of a turn, you can deploy as normal. Once the attacks start though, a country can only conquer adjacent (or, for bombarding territories, countries within their range) territories for the entire turn. More than one country can attack per turn. So, no country that has been conquered during any given turn can attack during that turn...e.g. if Country A attacks Country B during Turn X, Country B cannot attack until the next turn. (Thanks to Ditocoaf and OliverFA for notifying me of this specification not being included in the idea description)

There is one adopted exception to the rule: the "killer neutral" territories. These are territories that automatically revert back to neutral armies if owned by a player at the start of their turn (ex. the Missile Launch territory of Arms Race!). For these territories, it has been decided that the most logical solution is to enable those territories to be attacked through, but only to adjacent (or bombardment) territories. To continue the Missile Launch example, this would mean that players who own the Warhead at the start of their turn can conquer the Missile Launch territory and then bombard from it as normal. On maps like The Citadel, where the killer neutral borders regular territories, one would be able to attack through it. This means that if one started on Grimsley Hall, they could conquer The Parade Deck, and then attack any and all of the adjoining territories on that same turn, but not being allowed to attack from those until the next turn. This exception is to avoid unwinnable games and stalemates.

This will improve the following aspects of the site: I think it would add a nice new option for players looking for new ways to play Risk. Think about it: it would be far harder to win based solely on a string of lucky dice. Fortifications and deployments would have to be carefully planned and executed in order to ensure that one would have a strong enough influence in all parts of the map that are of concern to them. Also, even if one's opponent had a large stack of armies, say, 100 armies, on Indonesia, it wouldn't be any concern for the player who is vying for control in Europe. I think this would add a very interesting aspect to the gameplay. Lastly, I don't think this should be made the ONLY way of attacking: I think it should be made an option, like adjacent fortifications. Anyways, Give me your feedback please! I'd like to know what other people think about my idea

n00blet wrote:Also, even if one's opponent had a large stack of armies, say, 100 armies, on Indonesia, it wouldn't be any concern for the player who is vying for control in Europe.

Couldn't said person attack and move 99 to China, attack and move 98 to Afghanistan, attack and move 97 to Ukraine?

Bones2484 wrote:

n00blet wrote:Also, even if one's opponent had a large stack of armies, say, 100 armies, on Indonesia, it wouldn't be any concern for the player who is vying for control in Europe.

Couldn't said person attack and move 99 to China, attack and move 98 to Afghanistan, attack and move 97 to Ukraine?

That's a good point. This idea is better than I had first assumed. Still not very good, IMO, but better than I thought.

It would make you think more about attacks and planing for future rounds. But I don't think it will get passed.

Bones2484 wrote:

n00blet wrote:Also, even if one's opponent had a large stack of armies, say, 100 armies, on Indonesia, it wouldn't be any concern for the player who is vying for control in Europe.

Couldn't said person attack and move 99 to China, attack and move 98 to Afghanistan, attack and move 97 to Ukraine?

i'm sorry, maybe it wasnt clear. armies that are advanced cannot attack during the turn that they are advanced in. in other words, that set of armies can only attack once per turn, no matter what country they are on

That sounds like it would make a kill-run, almost impossible to make. I wouldn't play it.

It could be an interesting tweak to the gameplay...

But I fear that it would make the Drop even harder to beat if you're on the receiving end of a crapy one.

C.

Timminz wrote:That sounds like it would make a kill-run, almost impossible to make. I wouldn't play it.

well, the point of this setting would be to eliminate kill-runs....so I wouldn't expect it to be for everyone, but rather for some looking for a new way to play. Personally I think it would result in some exiting new strategies.

yeti_c wrote:It could be an interesting tweak to the gameplay...

But I fear that it would make the Drop even harder to beat if you're on the receiving end of a crapy one.

C.

That is true....But that is a problem no matter what game type. This one might make it a bit more unfair (possibly unwinnable depending on the dice and drop) should something like a player starts with a continent occur, but that happens anyways. In fair games, I think it would be a fun option.

I play a lot of my no cards 1v1 games like this already... it's very effective.

bump. anyone else....? if you like the idea, please say so

This seems like a good option... I would definitely try a few games, and if there's a good possibility I'd like it and keep playing. It'd be a much slower game, but people already play no-cards adjacent, so that's not really an issue. It would require radically different strategies, which is why I like it so much. You could watch a group of armies advancing turn by turn. You couldn't take an area just by amassing one huge centralized force, instead it would be smarter to attack on all sides, to avoid counter-attacks... it might be more realistic in that respect.

A very emphatic yes to this idea.

One person could be a dick and run though and waste so many turns before elimination. It would be absolutely terrible for escalating games. It would result in massive stalemates where strategy does NOT prevail simply because you can never benefit from killing someone, and by the time on the OFFCHANCE you're able to strategically block off someone, by the time you're ready to kill the person they will have taken enough turns to cash.

The only thing this would accomplish would be massive stalemates in escalating games if played on the classic map... you'd need large maps such as World 2.1 to make it work... where people ditch many of their other territories in order to claim a bonus.

FabledIntegral wrote:One person could be a dick and run though and waste so many turns before elimination. It would be absolutely terrible for escalating games. It would result in massive stalemates where strategy does NOT prevail simply because you can never benefit from killing someone, and by the time on the OFFCHANCE you're able to strategically block off someone, by the time you're ready to kill the person they will have taken enough turns to cash.

The only thing this would accomplish would be massive stalemates in escalating games if played on the classic map... you'd need large maps such as World 2.1 to make it work... where people ditch many of their other territories in order to claim a bonus.

It would be a much slower game, especially on certain maps. But people play no-cards adjacent on Circus Maximus, so... I think it's okay for there to be slow game options.

Ditocoaf wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:One person could be a dick and run though and waste so many turns before elimination. It would be absolutely terrible for escalating games. It would result in massive stalemates where strategy does NOT prevail simply because you can never benefit from killing someone, and by the time on the OFFCHANCE you're able to strategically block off someone, by the time you're ready to kill the person they will have taken enough turns to cash.

The only thing this would accomplish would be massive stalemates in escalating games if played on the classic map... you'd need large maps such as World 2.1 to make it work... where people ditch many of their other territories in order to claim a bonus.

It would be a much slower game, especially on certain maps. But people play no-cards adjacent on Circus Maximus, so... I think it's okay for there to be slow game options.

You can still attack more than one territory per turn? If so, it would still be faster by tenfold.

Basically, when you capture a territory, you "just got it", so you can't really do anything with it.

Without this rule, you can move armies across asia, through enemy territory, conquering every region one by one. If you have "adjacent reinforcements" set, then things are really weird, imo: if you own asia, you can't move armies through it in a single turn, but if the enemy owns asia, then you can.

With adjacent attacks, things are set so that you can't move more than one region through enemy territory in a single turn. It makes for a much slower game, and much more careful tactics are needed. You can't just build up a giant army, then take over the entire world instantaneously. And if there are no enemies anywhere near Siam, it's safe... but if you leave it undefended, within a turn or two, it could be in huge danger.

You can actually see the enemy approaching your key territories, turn by turn. I think it makes for a much more interesting game.