Conquer Club

There is a common problem with No-cards games that I think could be easily fixed. Often times they stalemate and people simply stockpile troops until somebody gets bored and randomly attacks someone. I believe, to some degree, this is because there is no reward for eliminating a player outside of the common benefit to all survivors that one less person can now win the game.

Wouldn't it be cool if there was some army reward that was automatically given to the attacker at elimination (much like the card cash-in that you often get in a cards game).

The amount could be some percentage of the total amount of troops the eliminated player had at the beginning of that turn.

Just a thought, but I bet it would certainly spice things up a bit.

I imagine the reason that many play no-cards is to avoid the luck element associated with them. This still preserves that.

then try terminator no card, it works.

Stalemates are part of the game and often part of the strategy. Outlasting your opponent in patience is something that isn't seen as often in flat-rate or escalating games. I think it's fine the way it is.

AK_iceman wrote:Stalemates are part of the game and often part of the strategy. Outlasting your opponent in patience is something that isn't seen as often in flat-rate or escalating games. I think it's fine the way it is.

Unfortunately, it often doesn't come down to your patience, rather the patience of the guy next to you. Essentially, at some point, somebody gets bored and attacks somebody. This typically ends being the undoing of both players as they end up behind in the arms race.

The thing is, there is never "the right time to attack" because the longer you wait, the less sense it ever makes to attack at all. I mean, even if the guy next to you is on his last leg and you can take him out relatively easily, what's the point? Assuming that you get average dice rolls, it will cost you about as many armies as he had. Once again, this puts you behind the field in terms of total armies.

I guess people enjoy simply deploying, hitting end attacks, coming back in about a day, doing the same, and so on. All the while hoping that they're not the guy next to the guy that decides to go ballistic at some point. To me, that doesn't seem like a game.

The irony is that I'd imagine that people seek no-cards games to avoid the luck element of cards only to have it replaced by being lucky enough to be the one who managed to avoid being in the middle of the inevitable tussle.

I joined a few no-cards games because I figured they'd be more about strategy and less about luck since there was no chance that you'd be dragged out to 5 cards to make a red set while your opponents are cashing in mixed sets every 3 cards. Unfortunately, they end up turning into water torture instead. I just thought a minor tweak would actually make them resemble risk in some vague way.

The fact that no-card doubles games tend to be more engaging and less random is evidence that giving a reward for taking out an opponent does ultimate encourage action. In the case of doubles, there's a tremendous reward for taking a player out because more often than not, you get 2 for the price of one as the partner of the eliminated player is pretty much screwed.

Once again, if you think it's fine, that's cool. I'll just avoid entering those games and just stick long spikes underneath my fingernails instead.

First off... you are correct... attacking in a large stalemate game usually results in both players involved being weak and losing. However, this is a nice mirror of real life. If you commit forces to an action, it means you have less for other things, so both the attacker and the defender (not by choice) are commiting troops to an action, leaving the spectators to pick up the pieces.

Second... it doesn't always have to be that way, most people just think it does. It seems that in stalemate games people continue to stalemate because they assume that attacking another player must result in the taking of a country or defeat of their own army. Instead, you should calculate how many armies you can deploy a round vs how many armies your target can deploy a round and pick a nice target number of acceptable losses. Personally, I always do "down 2 stop", which means I attack them, if I lose two on the first roll, I stop. if I lose 1 or none I keep going. I keep going until I have lost a total of 2 (or 3, if I lose 1 first, then 2 at once). Some rounds, this means I lose 2 armies... but on lucky streak rounds, I've been able to take 12 or more of the enemy before I lose my 2.

Whittle down your opponents instead of trying to crush them.

Ishiro wrote:First off... you are correct... attacking in a large stalemate game usually results in both players involved being weak and losing. However, this is a nice mirror of real life. If you commit forces to an action, it means you have less for other things, so both the attacker and the defender (not by choice) are commiting troops to an action, leaving the spectators to pick up the pieces.

Second... it doesn't always have to be that way, most people just think it does. It seems that in stalemate games people continue to stalemate because they assume that attacking another player must result in the taking of a country or defeat of their own army. Instead, you should calculate how many armies you can deploy a round vs how many armies your target can deploy a round and pick a nice target number of acceptable losses. Personally, I always do "down 2 stop", which means I attack them, if I lose two on the first roll, I stop. if I lose 1 or none I keep going. I keep going until I have lost a total of 2 (or 3, if I lose 1 first, then 2 at once). Some rounds, this means I lose 2 armies... but on lucky streak rounds, I've been able to take 12 or more of the enemy before I lose my 2.

Whittle down your opponents instead of trying to crush them.

lots of thoughts inside that head of yours Ishiro, gotta play a World 2.0 no cards adjencent game with you sometime...
let me know when you've got a couple of months to kill! lol

Heh... sure, gladly... but I only play sequential games, so make that years to kill.