Page 1 of 1
Balancing 2 player games
Posted:
Wed May 30, 2007 5:33 amby max is gr8
Subject
Well the subject is as simple as at the moment 2 player games are not balanced. I thought when we where having 2 player we would have to bribe neutrals and so on but in fact we get a 3 player game with useless neutrals which means whoever has the best territory allocation wins
In one game I got europe and although I had no territories to defend someone who got oceania could break my continent time and time again.
<Body>:
* Suggestion Idea: To improve the system so that 2 player games are balanced
* Specifics: add active neutrals so we can bribe them to fight for our cause
* Why it is needed: It will prevent the game being one sided and will add deeper strategy to the game
* Priority** (1-5): 4
Posted:
Wed May 30, 2007 5:39 amby Skittles!
How are we meant to 'bribe' the neutrals?
Posted:
Wed May 30, 2007 5:40 amby max is gr8
cards
I can scan the rulebook for you and post it on photo bucket do you want that?
Posted:
Wed May 30, 2007 5:42 amby firth4eva
your sig is wrong max. only 2 stripes
Posted:
Wed May 30, 2007 5:47 amby max is gr8
remember the old scoring system I had 3 stripes on that until they changed it
Posted:
Wed May 30, 2007 7:07 amby RobinJ
Great idea - I've been campaigning it for ages - I know this isn't Risk, it's CC, but those rules are the best and the way the game is meant to be played. I'll see if I can find my old rule book...
Posted:
Wed May 30, 2007 7:43 amby max is gr8
Posted:
Wed May 30, 2007 7:44 amby gibbom
If you want a third active player, play a 3 player game.
You can often overcome a bad drop through good strategy. If you can't hold europe and another player has oceania, there's no point trying to defend europe - position yourself to attack oceania.
Posted:
Wed May 30, 2007 7:46 amby max is gr8
I had no units near oceania the closest units I had where in europe and they had 2 countries in each continent
Posted:
Wed May 30, 2007 7:58 amby RobinJ
That is exactly what I meant - word for word. How does everyone not see how much skill this type of gameplay takes - it is fantastic to play and has so many additional aspects to it.
Posted:
Wed May 30, 2007 8:40 amby detlef
I don't think it matters because it would appear 2 player games are fundamentally flawed and will basically come down to luck regardless. Be it luck in deployment, cards, or dice. A vast majority of the strategy in the game is deciding who to attack and who to leave alone in hopes that they'll make an attack that works to your advantage. For example, If I have SA, rather than attacking the guy who has Africa, I just make Brazil a very unattractive target and hope that he goes after the dude who's got Europe. Something like that. In a two player game, it's pretty freaking obvious who you should attack, so you go ballistic on each other and the one with the best luck wins.
Posted:
Wed May 30, 2007 8:45 amby detlef
RobinJ wrote:That is exactly what I meant - word for word. How does everyone not see how much skill this type of gameplay takes - it is fantastic to play and has so many additional aspects to it.
Well, in light of this, I take back much of what I said. However, it really does seem like a set of rules made up to make 1 v 1 tolerable in the event that you couldn't find a 3rd or 4th to play a proper game. something that is obviously much more likely at home on a board game than at CC.
Posted:
Wed May 30, 2007 8:49 amby RobinJ
This should definitely be an option (in response to the poll) because some people really did want to play 1v1 with a passive neutral. It wouldn't be fair to make this the norm but it should definitely be implemented as another game type
Posted:
Wed May 30, 2007 9:09 amby max is gr8
It will be useful for tounaments and would open a new style of play
Posted:
Wed May 30, 2007 9:18 amby poo-maker
I agree that the 1 v 1 option depends alot on your drop and luck, but it still kicks ass.
Theres no-need to change it.
Posted:
Wed May 30, 2007 9:48 amby SirSebstar
2 player games are unbalanced.
But they are great fun to play...
I wonder what will happen, as in I do not think its a lasting invention, but the options it offers are just great.
Look at haw many games have already been played with the 2 player option.. way cool....
Open to abuse as well, but hey, I just hope it gets monitored.
Posted:
Thu May 31, 2007 4:28 amby max is gr8
But what I'm saying is it is more strategically enjoyable at the moment I've played 3 games and the person whose gone first has won yet with active neutrals the game is balanced
Posted:
Thu May 31, 2007 6:38 amby demigod
poo-maker wrote:I agree that the 1 v 1 option depends alot on your drop and luck, but it still kicks ass.
Theres no-need to change it.
having played 4 or 5 now (not that that's a whole lot) i've found that
i) initial drop does play a major factor, as does
ii) who goes first
i would like to see an adjustment so that 50% are neutral and the rest evenly distributed = 25% each. may make the chances of awesome drop much less likely...
Posted:
Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:52 amby max is gr8
I want to see more opinions here
Posted:
Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:25 amby alex_white101
well ive just played my first 1 vs 1
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=477560
took all of about 6 minutes, i got dealt oz and he knew it was over so suicided, it does seem a bit uneven.........