Conquer Club

I'm playing a game where someone got kicked for missing three turns in a row leaving LOTS of neutral territories with 3+ armies each. Very interesting possibilites, complications, and potentially buffered quasi-dead-ends now exist.... Game # 136570

Anyways, I was looking at my cards, and at these neutral territories, and I relized that one or more of my cards are for territories occupied by these neutral armies. So then I thought, wouldn't it be fun if two neutral armies get placed on each neutral territory that I play cards for? And, for that matter, wouldn't it be fun if every time you traded in cards, ALL THREE TERRITORIES each get two armies of the occupying color when you trade them in, NO MATTER WHO OWNS THOSE TERRITORIES?

Could we make this an option for the game?

BONUS ARMIES FOR TERRITORIS MATCHING TRADED CARDS ARE DEPLOYED:
[] Only to territories you own.
[] Only to territories you own AND neutral territories.
[] To ANY territories regardless of ownership.

I do not like this idea. If you have five cards you are forced to turn in a set, and that will probably give armies to your opponent when you dont want to. Also, trying to capture territories that you have the cards to in order to gain those armies is a part of the game.

i'll admit it's an interesting idea, but i think adding more and more options like this would only serve to clutter the game options as they stand.

Agreed. I hate options.

lackattack wrote:I hate options.

lackattack wrote:Agreed. I hate options.

thanks god if you liked that we'd all be in trouble

definately not a preference i would opt for...

Well, that went over like the proverbial lead zeppelin -- which is how Led Zep got its name, if you don't know. BTW, where'd you meet that girl, Ron, on MySpace? She looks not a day over fifteen; I guess the laws in the U.K. are different, eh? [edit -- please do not confuse healthy ball breaking for offense; my gf is 2k miles away with family right now ]

Anyways, I've started another thread for us all to talk about neutral armies, neutral territories, and all that crap.

i think as in the real game risk when u play 2 player version that neutrel should have a turn. Not attacking but getting aremies for its territories and being deployed randomly on its terrioterie. Just had a game where the person deadbeated and left my plans in utter chaos.

wat happens wen u get a red set and ur oponent owns the territories of all 3 of the cards but u only hav 3 reds and 2 greens so hav to cash. u get 4 armies and ur oponent gets 6??!?!

if you have a card according to a country, you should get two bonus armies for it,
well, half of the time that doesnt happen
is there something broken ???????????

antjo wrote:if you have a card according to a country, you should get two bonus armies for it,
well, half of the time that doesnt happen
is there something broken ???????????

Where did this happen?

joeyjordison wrote:wat happens wen u get a red set and ur oponent owns the territories of all 3 of the cards but u only hav 3 reds and 2 greens so hav to cash. u get 4 armies and ur oponent gets 6??!?!

The neutrel army cant attack and only gets armies for the amount of territories owned!!

So it gets no cards or bonus aremies, as in the game Risk

antjo wrote:if you have a card according to a country, you should get two bonus armies for it,
well, half of the time that doesnt happen
is there something broken ???????????

Maybe you are mistaken about this: You get a bonus of 2 on that territory, so you don't get 2 extra that you can put wherever you want.

not a great idea

am i remembering wrong, or in the game do you not get to roll one die over if you hold that card while attacking or defending...i imagine this would be a disaster to program and im not suggesting it, but is that this game?

PostPosted: 06 Jan 2007 20:34 Post subject:
not a great idea

am i remembering wrong, or in the game do you not get to roll one die over if you hold that card while attacking or defending...i imagine this would be a disaster to program and im not suggesting it, but is that this game?



I'm sure it would be some form of nightmare, as a whole bunch of classes and objects would have to be referred that either have no connectivity right now or don't even exist yet in the code. But, it would be cool.....and, yes, it was an optional rule in various variants of RISK (including AFAIK the 1988 revision?).