Conquer Club

* Suggestion Idea: Set a maximum number of 12 or 18 armies in one single territory

* Specifics: You could only have 12 or 18 armies in brazil, for example

* Why it is needed: longer games, more difficult to win, games would be more even and more challenging to the players

* Priority** (1-5): Priority: 4

nice job on using the correct form but than that would kinda elimnate the point of escalating cards

in that case you loose the armies. Supose, you have only one country and exchange your cards, you put the armies to get to the maximum, and if you still have armies to put... I´m sorry. Like I said, its more challenging.

One: this would have to be an option

Two: im sorry but i wouldnt play it

won't work
if you have 1 country and you cash in a set of 20+ where would you put them?

thats just pointless because ur just loosin armies

just because some armies slip into the void does not make it pointless. It means exactly what kcoenich said it would mean: longer more difficult games. It would take strategy to utilize all of your armies, and it would make escalating more difficult.

I guess it's a plausible option, but I have a feeling there would be a lot of 3 person games that just end up with everyone having maxed out their territories and no one would be foolish enough to attack one of their max countries vs someone else's max.

Bad Idea, I like running my 500 guys in to your 300 guys to end the game

As I said in the other thread this won't work because your could hide in Autralia for like 20+ rounds before they finally got lucky and killed you...

but I have a feeling there would be a lot of 3 person games that just end up with everyone having maxed out their territories and no one would be foolish enough to attack one of their max countries vs someone else's max.

this whole website is based in RISK right? if you have to take over a maxed out countrie to win, well take the risk and win fair and square, don´t wait until you have like 10 more armies than your opponent. If you don´t take that risk, you better loose.

not a good idea. some games go for months, so why would you want to prolong those games?

its not as bad as people are saying, it means people have to be more aggressive in eliminating people early before it turns into dice wars. this is straight out of the advanced rules of risk. It means people have to rely more on position. It would have to be an option and it would be a good one when the no cards option is selected, or even the flat rate option, probably would work on escalating.

We have a winner, congrats for having the most retarded suggestion EVER.

so your calling the rules of risk retarded?

kcoenich wrote:

but I have a feeling there would be a lot of 3 person games that just end up with everyone having maxed out their territories and no one would be foolish enough to attack one of their max countries vs someone else's max.

this whole website is based in RISK right? if you have to take over a maxed out countrie to win, well take the risk and win fair and square, don´t wait until you have like 10 more armies than your opponent. If you don´t take that risk, you better loose.

sure you could take the risk, but no smart player would do it since it would only result in benefiting the 3rd person.

Jehan wrote:so your calling the rules of risk retarded?

There is no rule in Risk saying that you can only put a limited number of men on each country. It is listed along with a few dozen other options on the back of the rules. It is not actually a rule. After you read the rules, you flip them over and it says other ways you can play risk. Most of what they list there is completely retarded, and is why they weren't included in the rules. Those "options" are among the rejects the game makers had when designing the game. Most people who play monopoly think it's a rule to place a $500 bill in the middle of the board for free parking, along with all the fines. I won't play that way, and they are often shocked when I whip out the rules, and that isn't in there. Monopoly like risk list that though among options for the game. They are called house rules. Your "suggestion" is nothing more than a house rule in risk, to be followed only if all the other players agree.

this so wouldnt work in world 2.0.

better put it to a max placement on one country.
Something like:

I have two countrys, a max placement of 10, and 30 armies.
10 armies on one country, 10 on the other, 10 go to waste.

The total of armies wouldn't be affected.

This is not risk, this is superior! CONQUERCLUB BABY! We do what we want!

The whole idea of this is to get more fair victories on the games... Like I said before, I play this kind on games on the board game, if you win, you really feel like you won the game, you don´t feel like you won just because you got lucky with a 45 armies trade set...

this option works great at Grand Strategy:

http://www.denizengames.com

if you don't like the games with the man per country limit, then don't join them!

thats right...

so.... Whats the veredict on this one?? I´m ok by putting it on an optional feature, obviously I prefer the permanent limit. What you say??

The whole idea of this is to get more fair victories on the games... Like I said before, I play this kind on games on the board game, if you win, you really feel like you won the game, you don´t feel like you won just because you got lucky with a 45 armies trade set...

ok, when i win a game, i dont sit back and think to myself "i really feel warm inside because i won a game where everyone fought hard." The best kind of wins are the lucky ones because you usually are amazed that you got that lucky, but still pumped because you won.

Another thing is that who really cares how the hell you win a game. there is no stat showing it, so why does it even matter. as far as im concerned, any kind of win is still a check mark in the W column.