Conquer Club

Ok, lets picture a game on feudal. Your first turn, you can bombard all the surrounding territories down to 1, then you can take out 1 territory, then it all stops. Then your next turn you might be able to take 2. Then you get bottlenecked because you cant really attack spread out and you have these two 10s to worry about. Then trying to find the other guys, you might have to cross norther plains, one territory at a time. Then 20 turns later, you run into them. Maybe you knock down their front army. if you then have to go into their realm you have to take them one territory at a time. They still have a castle to build up 5 armies per turn that you cannot do anything about, but they can bombard you without fear of retribution for a while. finally 40 or so turns into the game, you may have taken a second castle. Repeat this process up to 4 or 6 times for a large game. Then what?

lancehoch wrote:Ok, lets picture a game on feudal. Your first turn, you can bombard all the surrounding territories down to 1, then you can take out 1 territory, then it all stops. Then your next turn you might be able to take 2. Then you get bottlenecked because you cant really attack spread out and you have these two 10s to worry about. Then trying to find the other guys, you might have to cross norther plains, one territory at a time. Then 20 turns later, you run into them. Maybe you knock down their front army. if you then have to go into their realm you have to take them one territory at a time. They still have a castle to build up 5 armies per turn that you cannot do anything about, but they can bombard you without fear of retribution for a while. finally 40 or so turns into the game, you may have taken a second castle. Repeat this process up to 4 or 6 times for a large game. Then what?

in the beginning, it would be pretty slow. but as people would begin to realize that crossing the northern plains would be a bad idea, they would instead go for the rebel realm or the realm of might. it would make the game a lot longer, but if it was played with unlimited fortifications (which would make sense, being able to travel through your own territories would be a lot easier than attacking through enemies), it would speed up considerably.
i understand how some people wouldn't want that delay, and how it could possibly run into problems with no cards and adjacent fortifications, depending on the map, but that would be the choice of the game maker.

but besides, winning a 120 round game against 6 people is about as great a feeling as they get

lancehoch wrote:Ok, lets picture a game on feudal. Your first turn, you can bombard all the surrounding territories down to 1, then you can take out 1 territory, then it all stops. Then your next turn you might be able to take 2. Then you get bottlenecked because you cant really attack spread out and you have these two 10s to worry about. Then trying to find the other guys, you might have to cross norther plains, one territory at a time. Then 20 turns later, you run into them. Maybe you knock down their front army. if you then have to go into their realm you have to take them one territory at a time. They still have a castle to build up 5 armies per turn that you cannot do anything about, but they can bombard you without fear of retribution for a while. finally 40 or so turns into the game, you may have taken a second castle. Repeat this process up to 4 or 6 times for a large game. Then what?

This is actually a pretty inaccurate representation, for one reason-- the suggestion has been changed to where a territory can attack many times in a turn. Your castle could take out all neighboring territories in your first turn. While crossing the northern plains, you could spread out and have a wide wave of armies spreading across the lands. Because you can't have one group of armies travel several spaces in one turn, you would have to split those troops, attacking in multiple areas, strategically.

True, you might have to wait a few turns while you build up a sufficient force to storm the castle. But if you've just taken the entire northern plains (which would take 6 or 7 rounds, depending on where you start), you should be able to build a force pretty quickly.

The main reason I like this idea is that it's more reminiscent of real war. It seems kind of silly to take a region by zig-zagging one mass of troops around the globe; with this, you would have to spread out and attack in multiple places in order to get the job done.

in looking at the map again, i realize that it actually would not be too slow going through the northern plains.
let's look at it (assuming you start in the great kingdom):

first round (of the attempt to take the plains): take northern plains 16
second round: take 15 and 14 and advance into both
third round: take 7 and 8 from 15 and take 9 and 13 from 14, advancing into 8 and 13
fourth round: take Rhu village and 6 from 8 and take 10 and 12 from 13, advancing into 6 and Rhu village, fortifying the troops from when you conquered 10 and 12 to Rhu village.
fifth round: take 5 from 6 and take 4 and 11 from Rhu, advancing and then fortifying all troops to 4.
sixth round: take 2 and 3 from 4, advancing all into 3.

so, then you have successfully crossed the northern plains in only six rounds. that doesn't seem too long, seeing as most players take about 3 or 4 rounds anyways so as to amass their troops before committing to attacking through.
as you can see, attacks would need to be far more precise and calculated, but by no means would it be impossible to accomplish goals on a map, as long as on commits enough time to working out a strategy.

I really want to play this option... any more responses? Anything to say about the response to the criticism?

I also want to play, who do we harangue to get it set up?

with 11 people saying they don't want it, but then only having a few actually saying why they don't like it, i don't know if too many people are actually reading the entire suggestion and thread.

any mods or administrative people who have anything to say? generally their words carry i bit more weight...

I think the "I don't want it" votes are mostly actually "I don't care" people. Perhaps the option should be changed to "I don't want anybody to play this option"?

Ditocoaf wrote:I think the "I don't want it" votes are mostly actually "I don't care" people.

Don't do that.Don't downgrade other peoples opinions/votes just because they don't match yours...

Why not get a few people together who like the idea and make a game with the stipulation that you are playing by this rule. Tell us how it goes.

Thezzaruz wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:I think the "I don't want it" votes are mostly actually "I don't care" people.

Don't do that.Don't downgrade other peoples opinions/votes just because they don't match yours...

yeah, i wouldn't do that. but Thezzaruz, you've never said why you don't like it, as i recall. all i've seen is:

Thezzaruz wrote: I don't hate new ways, just crappy ways...

and the like. not exactly trolling....but not quite a valuable addition to thread either.

lancehoch wrote:Why not get a few people together who like the idea and make a game with the stipulation that you are playing by this rule. Tell us how it goes.

that is a very good idea. ditocoaf, do you want to set up a private game for 3 or 4 people on classic, sequential, unlimited forts, no cards, and no fog? that seems like good options to test this out on. and then other people could join if they express interest here.

i like this idea. but i'm not in the mood to post a long reply

Thezzaruz wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:I think the "I don't want it" votes are mostly actually "I don't care" people.

Don't do that.Don't downgrade other peoples opinions/votes just because they don't match yours...

Sorry; I didn't mean that all, or necessarily even most, were like that. I understand that people might have a legitimate dislike of this idea. I was just trying to point out a way that the poll could be clarified further--because I'm sure that there are at least a few people who wouldn't play themselves, but see no problem with it, who voted "I don't want it" because they wouldn't play personally. A more clear poll would encourage those specific people to vote "I don't care". (subtle poll bias, or fixing one? )

Ditocoaf wrote:

Thezzaruz wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:I think the "I don't want it" votes are mostly actually "I don't care" people.

Don't do that.Don't downgrade other peoples opinions/votes just because they don't match yours...

Sorry; I didn't mean that all, or necessarily even most, were like that. I understand that people might have a legitimate dislike of this idea. I was just trying to point out a way that the poll could be clarified further--because I'm sure that there are at least a few people who wouldn't play themselves, but see no problem with it, who voted "I don't want it" because they wouldn't play personally. A more clear poll would encourage those specific people to vote "I don't care". (subtle poll bias, or fixing one? )

how exactly could i make the poll more clear? i can't think of any way to do it without making it degrading for the people who, for some reason, don't like the idea.

and, @ ditocoaf, what do you think about setting up that game?

sure, I'll make it.

Okay, the game's made; classic map. Unlimited, nofog, standard sequential, flat rate, 5p.
Game 2635553
pm me for the pass if you want to play.

i'll be in that of course. anyone else?

anyone else who had interest in this idea want to join up?
Game 2635553
if we don't get enough people after a week or so we might need to cut it down to 3 or 4 players T_T

I like this idea also.

C.

I had to drop it because I needed to play in my tournaments....I'm going to buy premium so soon....


and yes, that was an excuse for a bump.

i don't much like that idea. i think it would draw the game out way longer than necessary. like it would take really long to conquer everything. maybe it could be an option for the games but not the new standard all the time. i mean some of the games. but not all.

kalvaryking wrote:i don't much like that idea. i think it would draw the game out way longer than necessary. like it would take really long to conquer everything. maybe it could be an option for the games but not the new standard all the time. i mean some of the games. but not all.

we're not suggesting that it's the standard. we just want it as an option. you'd be okay with that, right?

nooblet... maybe you'd like to post a thread in callouts, with a link to here?

I'll do just that

But no one is responding in either....so I bumped both