Conquer Club

All,

Concise description:

Spoils that belong to a player eliminated from the game to be lost.

Specifics:

When a player is eliminated, instead of gaining the spoils his cards are lost (with him). This allows to keep the spoil part of the game, but prevents from a sudden unbalance rampage from a player who wipes out another then suddenly becomes over powerfull and wins the game.
I have noticed (specially in escalating spoil games) that the game may be even and steady and fun, and then in 1 turn somebody wins.......I have found playes and myself pondering continueing with their strategy or going for the treasure of eliminating a player.
I think it may help keep the game interesting, allowing another option or twist to it.

Thanx for allowing for suggestions, Keep it up.

P

What would be the point of eliminating someone, in an escalating game, if this were implemented? You would simply be weakening yourself drastically, for no gain.

I'm guessing, based on your suggestion, that you would prefer flat rate, or no spoils games. Escalating is all about eliminating players for their cards.

So what would be the incentive to kill off another player?

I see both sides on this one, but I also notice a side of conquer club that tries to be realistic in a sense. Obviously exponential growth is not realisitcally possible in army building, but is there a way to temper this in larger games.

In an 8 player game if you cash first for 4, and everybody cashes after that, it is possible that the game will be decided before you cash again.

How about these suggestions?
If you eliminate a player, you get to keep his cards, but you only can cash them for the same amount that round. Lets say i have 5 cards, cash them for 20 , then eliminate a player and take his 5 cards, i will have 7 cards while in an active turn. Lets say i can cash in 2 sets with those extra cards. My proposal is to cash both of those sets at 20 armies each, instead of 25 and 30 armies. The next set cashed in will be 25, and so on.

My other suggestion (which i like better) is that if you eliminate a player, you get to keep his cards. If his cards take you over the limit of 5 cards, you get to cash them in, but not till the end of your turn. That would alieveate timminz concern that nobody would eliminate anyone because it would weaken you too much. You could deploy defense after your turn. It would also make it much harder to "run the table" which is how almost all esc. games end.

But taking others' cards and cashing is the whole point of large escalating games. That would just ruin it.

.44

wolfpack0530 wrote:I see both sides on this one, but I also notice a side of conquer club that tries to be realistic in a sense. Obviously exponential growth is not realisitcally possible in army building, but is there a way to temper this in larger games...

In times of old, exponential army building was the very crux of determining the offset of battle. Back before nationalized pride of nations occured, (Take the greeks for instance) they fought as seperate states bickering amongst themselves. While an entire nation onto themselves, they were more locally focussed, each city and state had its own army and they were often at more war with each other than any 1 enemy.

The best way to describe this "exponential growth" factor is the "Agamemnon Solution". I call it that simply because in the movie "TROY" you see the battle take place.

The terms set by Agamemnon are very similar to those of old. His army meets an opposing force, now... in terms of battle, they should fight, both armies should incur losses, and the winning army should advance. Agamemnon's army grew exponentially. He never actually used his army for much. He proposed 1-man face-offs in which if 1 man won, the entire battle was conceeded to "his" armies side and Agamemnon would have the loyalty of the entire army he would have otherwise had to fight and kill.

Arriving in troy, he offered terms before even asking for a fight, he agreed to leave if Troy agreed to submit to his authority as an army. They refused and his army had to fight.

Exponential growth was truly realistic back then and it was a great way to solidify one's battle portfolio.

This is how I see Esc games. When you eliminate someone, you've taken command of their remaining troops. The troops that survive as part of your battle and "surrender" are then yours to command (as per Agamemnon's deal propositions, such a coalition against Troy would have been impossible if all the city states had to fight each other time and time again to determine who the most powerful was, then even the most powerful would have been so weakened in proving its power that Troy would have crushed it, Agamemnon treated his opponents like his own men until he absolutely had to kill them. Otherwise he considered killing an opposing army to be killing a potential extension of his own army.)

Jasmine

nice explanation. I stand corrected