Conquer Club

Posted: **Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:10 am**

Idea:Reduce the army size in neutral countries in 1on 1 games from 3 to 1

Reason:takes more of the luck factor out of the game.
In almost all 1on1 games i play bad placement or dreadful dice against a neutral decides the game in the first or second turn.

I realize my idea may not be ideal (and it probably gives an advantage to player 1)but someone needs to be suggested something viable to make 1on1 more playable. :wink:

Posted: **Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:00 pm**

I like this idea. I hate losing armies to netural.

Posted: **Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:03 pm**

Maybe they should reduce neutral territorries in total

Posted: **Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:17 pm**

I think it's fine as it is currently - in fact if they were reduced to 1, then 1v1 games would favour the person going first even more than they do now.

Posted: **Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:33 pm**

Perhaps 2 armies for each neutral.

Posted: **Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:58 pm**

benjikat wrote:I think it's fine as it is currently - in fact if they were reduced to 1, then 1v1 games would favour the person going first even more than they do now.

You've got a point.

Posted: **Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:16 pm**

As i already said i realize this may not be ideal, :roll:

but what i need is helpful suggestions not criticism.

lets collaborate and come up with something that works. :wink:

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:40 pm**

I propose to have an option when one creates a game, like "Neutral territories: yes/no". When one selects yes will function just like now. (for me its fine). And those than dont like neutrals just dont have them :wink:

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:02 pm**

benjikat wrote:I think it's fine as it is currently - in fact if they were reduced to 1, then 1v1 games would favour the person going first even more than they do now.

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:17 pm**

ParadiceCity9 wrote:
benjikat wrote:I think it's fine as it is currently - in fact if they were reduced to 1, then 1v1 games would favour the person going first even more than they do now.

Iknow this already, if you bother to read all of my post you will see that.

1 on 1 should be a epic dual not based on placement of neutrals.

I AM ASKING FOR COLLABORATION TO IMPROVE THESE GAMES NOT POINT OUT FLAWS IN MY IDEA WHICH I ALREADY KNOW.

Thanks inflrc that sort of thing is exactly what i think should be a game option.thanks for your productive input.

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:49 pm**

Proximus Ventor wrote:
ParadiceCity9 wrote:
benjikat wrote:I think it's fine as it is currently - in fact if they were reduced to 1, then 1v1 games would favour the person going first even more than they do now.

look you dum ass, i know this already, if you bother to read all of my post you will see that.

1 on 1 should be a epic dual not based on placement of neutrals.

I AM ASKING FOR COLLABORATION TO IMPROVE THESE GAMES NOT POINT OUT FLAWS IN MY IDEA WHICH I ALREADY KNOW.

Thanks inflrc that sort of thing is exactly what i think should be a game option.thanks for your productive input.

before you get mad at them look at your posts, they didnt have anything to do with this problem, all they say is "i know this may not be ideal" you in fact DIDNT bring up this problem even if you knew it so they did since you didnt bring it up, dont blame them, blame yourself

Posted: **Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:27 pm**

I'm not mad, and your probably right but i'm not asking for you to point out the flaws on my idea, I'm asking all of you to come up with something we can apply to the games. i don't want to hear "your idea gives unfair advantage to player1 " i wont to hear "your idea needs work in this area, how about this in stead"
i know my idea is not perfect, i know it has flaws.
I DON"T WANT TO HEAR THE FLAWS unless you suggest how to fix them.

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:36 am**

You have to know the problem before you can solve it. Also, if your just saying you know all the flaws, people can tell state the flaws so others know them and then they can come up with ideas... Another problem

is that if there was a selection for taking neutral territories out, the person who goes first has a significantely larger chance of winning than the second player. This is because the person who goes first will have a chance of taking one, or two countries/areas and then if the game is set to unlimited fortifications they can make it so that the player who goes second has a very low chance of getting a country on their first turn, thus losing all hope for the second player, since the first player already has a country.

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:22 am**

Axel_999 wrote:... if there was a selection for taking neutral territories out, the person who goes first has a significantely larger chance of winning than the second player...

I think that u r right, but it is up to luck. Today, with neutrals, one can get a initial deployment with an entire continent n there isnt any rule against this. Its just luck. Finally, make it a choice. There r actually some options I dont like, but I dont ask to erase them, I just dont choose them :wink:

.

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:40 am**

Axel, thanks for the productive input.

input like yours is what I'm after not someone pointing out something obvious.

and your right but think in terms of freestyle adjacent. Getting rid of the neutrals would be Great and would shore make skill a bigger factor.

Also your example happens already in 1on1 seq unlimited, The game being over in the first or second round is exactly what i want to wane out.

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:34 am**

inflrc wrote:Finally, make it a choice. There r actually some options I dont like, but I dont ask to erase them, I just dont choose them .

But this would let people who chose it get unfair advantages, and free points. Beginners would probobly click on this not knowing that if they go second they will almost always lose. If they let this be an option, they might as well throw away all ranks.

Conquer Club

reduce neutral armies in 1 on 1 games

reduce neutral armies in 1 on 1 games

Neutrals optional