How to get a colonel in under 100 games

[mc05025]

come on, it is so enjoyable to beat both of them in the same game

P.S. I have to change my avatar, I need something darker, more evil

[Kiron]

Point is,
if you want to play with a friend, play doubles or 1v1
beating a friend is fun, if he has better strategy and and maybe more talent, then it will be even more success.
But in games of 8 guys, your goal will be always in favour of your teammate, without secret diplomacy.
It is just unfair to the others , since there chances are diminished, only if they are experienced they will realize it early enough to keep the powers balanced, the rest will be depending on dice and cards.

I am not rattling, i use my free speech and nothing is personal, if you take it to a personal stage, i am out of this
issue, dont have time for it, nor have i anything against you, yust against your style of play ( which is unfair to others).

And yes you are right, it is possible even with fairplay to get a colonel under 100 games.

I believe you know the game well, and if you would be playing alone in a game against other 7, you are experienced enough
to win 30 percent of your games. ( even 50 percent is possible ).

I only played with kiron for only a small portion of my games.

out of 117 games, 40 games with kiron is not a small number, thats 40 percent?
out of 40 games you won 20 times?

i do openly critisize the way or style of your gameplay,
i am not accusing you to be a cheater, or silent diplomacy or whatsoever,
i am not after you or against you,
generally this way of playing with a friend, will be unfair to others and diminish their chances.

Hm...interesting post. I understand where you are coming from. However, when you get to our ranks, playing just for winning points gets a little stale. We need some extra fun to make our games enjoyable. The only exta fun we can find is playing with friends or people u are familiar with at the moment. Beating strangers/randoms is fine, but gets a little stale. Actually with conquisitor and mc, it's getting more fun seeing familiar faces and beating them. I don't mind beating them or losing to them as much since i gain more points/lose less points Nice to have higher ranks play freestyle/flatrate games, never seem to find them in my earlier 200 games.

[Super Nova]

In your strategy guide, you explained that shield is probably the best way to go once it gets down to three players. What do you do if the general troop count gets to high? Currently I'm in a stalemated game, and although I have the advantage, I don't have enough of one to win.

Do you have a strategy for this kind of thing? Currently for me it's pretty much waiting forever for the gap in our troop counts to get big enough and hoping the other players don't decide to plow into me.

[Kiron]

very interesting scenario. Usually in stalemate games, I tend to not want to be the strongest. Usually I like to attack both players (to appear fair) to wittle down my troops count (i know it sounds bizarre) until the two other players appear about equal strength. This way you will seem the weakest and the other two will not attack you but be more concerned about the other. When they beat the snot out of each other, the game becomes chaotic again and hopefully u can find some opportunity to win again.

[tennischamp5]

Game 9149187

I read this thread four or five days ago... and was thinking, wow... these are some really interesting strategies... I really want to try them out one day. I'd also been dying to play against mc, kiron, or xiang for ages.

Well, I can attest that it definitely works :p

Pity Xiangwang wasn't in it too... I would've loved to see him in action too.

So thanks alot guys Your strategies and hints helped me learn a lot. Aiming for colonel by game 400 now... though we'll see if I ever reach it... i have too much fun playing the random 1v1s and exploring the weirder maps out there

[Kiron]

Game 9149187

I read this thread four or five days ago... and was thinking, wow... these are some really interesting strategies... I really want to try them out one day. I'd also been dying to play against mc, kiron, or xiang for ages.

Well, I can attest that it definitely works :p

Pity Xiangwang wasn't in it too... I would've loved to see him in action too.

So thanks alot guys Your strategies and hints helped me learn a lot. Aiming for colonel by game 400 now... though we'll see if I ever reach it... i have too much fun playing the random 1v1s and exploring the weirder maps out there

Glad it helped!

[40kguy]

Game 9149187

I read this thread four or five days ago... and was thinking, wow... these are some really interesting strategies... I really want to try them out one day. I'd also been dying to play against mc, kiron, or xiang for ages.

Well, I can attest that it definitely works :p

Pity Xiangwang wasn't in it too... I would've loved to see him in action too.

So thanks alot guys Your strategies and hints helped me learn a lot. Aiming for colonel by game 400 now... though we'll see if I ever reach it... i have too much fun playing the random 1v1s and exploring the weirder maps out there

so why not do both?

[tennischamp5]

Hey, I'd love to if I could, but idk if i quite am skilled enough to hit colonel while also playing maps i don't know. Maps like AOR2, monsters, poland, etc I lose quite a bit just cause I haven't fully learnt the maps yet. It's taking everything I have just to break even at major to compensate for those :p

[kachiun]

very interesting scenario. Usually in stalemate games, I tend to not want to be the strongest. Usually I like to attack both players (to appear fair) to wittle down my troops count (i know it sounds bizarre) until the two other players appear about equal strength. This way you will seem the weakest and the other two will not attack you but be more concerned about the other. When they beat the snot out of each other, the game becomes chaotic again and hopefully u can find some opportunity to win again.

Classic

[FarangDemon]

If you enjoy spending time planning your moves, solving math problems and like the convenience of playing sequential and not having to conduct tedious diplomacy, I'd recommend sequential escalating 6-8 players. Sure you can lose because of bad dice or other players bungles/bad dice, but part of the skill is knowing where to place your troops in order to maximize your success. Over time, if you are skilled, you will win more than you lose and your score will rise. You can make it up to mid-general doing this, that's when the competition thins out.

I recommend playing with those your own score (or higher, if they'll let you).

Sequential games have higher level of luck. So if you want to play sequential and gain points you should only play with those your own score (or higher, if they'll let you) as FarangDemon said

I don't agree that success in sequential is more attributed to luck than success in freestyle. Maybe dice luck factors more heavily in sequential games, but timing luck is a factor for freestyle.

Reflexes and ability to formulate successful strategies rapidly are perhaps the greatest traits of the freestyle player, but there is a large element of luck due to timing. Even the greatest freestyle player cannot be online 24-7, and so this player will be vulnerable while they are sleeping, working, going to the bathroom or embracing their lover - whether you or your opponents happen to be online at the right time is then out of your complete control and essentially due to luck.

You can make your luck in freestyle by being online more often than your opponent and looking at his time zone to determine when he will be vulnerable. In the same way, you can make your luck in sequential by formulating a great strategy. By "make your luck", I just mean mitigate the negative effects that bad luck would otherwise cause.

I had thought that freestyle players must commit more time to playing in order to be successful (because it helps if you can check the games around the clock in case an opportunity presents itself). But it is possible that I spend more time analyzing my moves in just a few games than a freestyle player actually spends logged in conducting attacks in possibly more games. So maybe both game types require a large time commitment to be successful.

Just my thoughts, I'm not a freestyle player so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

[Kiron]

hm..this threat is still sorta alive, i'm impressed! Looks like there are more flat rate and diplomacy strategy threads coming up, looking good! Hopefully I will have more higher ranks join my games eventually (so I gain more points!)

I created another game, feel free to join! Game # 10419084

[Viceroy63]

100 games?

Shit, I just got there in 3,578 games. My way is obviously better, because it involved very little diplomacy.

So in other words, when you say that you use "very little diplomacy," what you really mean is that you did not have to lie to anyone, offering a truce and then stabbing them in the Back as much?

Just joking with ya.

Way to go Colonel and congradulations.

[Jippd]

These settings only reward people who can be on the computer at all hours. Freestyle games are not for people that cannot be by a computer at all hours. Especially those who can only check in once or twice a day.

[zimmah]

These settings only reward people who can be on the computer at all hours. Freestyle games are not for people that cannot be by a computer at all hours. Especially those who can only check in once or twice a day.

freestyle games are indeed only good for those who
1) specialize in freestyle and
2) devote a lot of time to it to check every few hours, at least.

i like diplomacy style games but you also have to rely on very unpredictable human beings, each with their own goals, so it can be quite hard.

[hushovd]

why Zimmah, you always know what their goal is....

[ATC_Matt]

I like freestyle SPEED games, but when it comes to casual games, I find sequential better because I can't be online at the right time.

Every setting has its luck, but I find sequential escalating has ALOT of luck. It seems to me 80% of the games I played were decided by a misplay &/or bad luck, which occasionally threw it to me or to whoever's turn was next. Freestyle escalating I imagine would mitigate that problem, but again, there is still the problem for those of us who can't be online all the time.

I prefer 6-8 player no spoils/chained or flat rate/chained, on random map. I tend to go with chained because it forces you to plan ahead with your deployments and fortification. You can't just place 3 armies all over the place and then fort em all up in one turn. Not that I find that a cheap strategy, but I do find it an easy, common sense one that anyone can stumble on. No spoils/flat rate decreases the luck factor associated with having spoils and increases the diplomacy factor. There is STILL luck involved in this kind of setting but I believe it is way less than any of the other styles mentioned.

KIRON: Usually in stalemate games, I tend to not want to be the strongest. Usually I like to attack both players (to appear fair) to wittle down my troops count (i know it sounds bizarre) until the two other players appear about equal strength. This way you will seem the weakest and the other two will not attack you but be more concerned about the other. When they beat the snot out of each other, the game becomes chaotic again and hopefully u can find some opportunity to win again.

This is a very sound strategy.

[mcrcweb]

This post is awesome for strategies! Thanks alot!
Can the original poster summarize all the strategies over this post onto the first page? This should be stickied for newbies like me!

[mcrcweb]

Why can I not find the original poster on the scoreboard? Xiangwang's profile says he's a colonel, but his ranking indicates general, that's impressive for a little over a hundred games!

[chapcrap]

Why can I not find the original poster on the scoreboard? Xiangwang's profile says he's a colonel, but his ranking indicates general, that's impressive for a little over a hundred games!

https://www.conquerclub.com/public.php? ... tructions4

If you look at that link, you can see that you have to play a certain number of games to be given the rank of General, even if your score is higher.

He's not on the scoreboard anymore because you have to still be an active player. He hasn't logged on in over 7 months.

[Alraun]

Why can I not find the original poster on the scoreboard? Xiangwang's profile says he's a colonel, but his ranking indicates general, that's impressive for a little over a hundred games!

Not when you're just exploiting the system. This entire thread just makes the system and everyone's rankings look like a joke. His ranking is meaningless.

[Kiron]

Why can I not find the original poster on the scoreboard? Xiangwang's profile says he's a colonel, but his ranking indicates general, that's impressive for a little over a hundred games!

Not when you're just exploiting the system. This entire thread just makes the system and everyone's rankings look like a joke. His ranking is meaningless.

How is it exploiting the system? What's wrong with specializing very well in one map or certain maps? The tactics are universal and can be applied to a variety of maps.

[skychaser]

I don't think it's fun. With no strategy at all I did get to Captain in 90 games. I guess it's enough since I lost a lot since I'm a newbie.

My strategy is finding games where there are colonels and captains and so what and joining, avoiding cooks or low ranked guys so if I win I would gain some points.

Joining doubles/triples/quadruples to take cooks bonuses is the most deplorable strategy ever. But still is a strategy. A good strategy for the weakest players who wouldn't win head on fighting non retarded players I must add.
Is like stealing from beggars.

[Kiron]

yeah, I think the point of this thread was how to gain points the quickest way possible, doubles and trips, u only gain points at half rate compared to 8 man standard and was intended for mostly non-premium players with limited games.

[Mr Changsha]

It is perfectly possible to achieve this playing standard sequential (same settings otherwise). I got to colonel in 134 games - while playing some teams as well on the side - so players shouldn't think the only way to do it is standard freestlye.

However, freestyle is much better once one gets past 2500. I believe it is basically impossible to top 3000 sequentially playing no cards or flat. High rank games end in a stalemate, mixed public games would require something like a 60% win rate to break even. I'm sure that is not possible long term.

So...if you want to get to the first page in one hundred games then large standard freestlye OR sequential is viable (no cards flat) but to break into the top 30 or so one would need to play freestyle.

[BeauJyles]

How about SlappyCR who is looking like he'll be a brig in under 100 games. The impressive thing about him as well is the fact that he only really plays sequential/flat rate on World 2.1.

The problem with his strategy is it takes way too long to finish a game! He's done very well though. It's quite inspiring to see him do so well with such a low number of games up his sleeve

Cheers