Conquer Club

When I first started playing this game a little over a year ago, I started playing map and settings that were alot different that the original board game, that is fairly similar to this site. Because of this I played alot of flat rate games. People on this site seem to think that flat rate games favour only the lucky, and that any real test of skill must be done either esc, or ns. Althought what I have said above for the most part is true. There is skill and stratedy involved in flat rate games, perhaps more than people realize. The main differene in that flat rate, is generally a longer, socially stratigical game, where diplomacy is often a huge factor. It seems alot of people I meet are just not up for diplomacy in standard games, so I want to see what the public really thinks. What do you think about diplomacy in standard game? The reason I ask is that over the past 6 months or so I have switch from a 6 player standard gamer, to more of a 1v1, and team player. I am starting to find it boring, and want to move back to 5-6 player flat rate games where people talk, and strategize, make alliances, and back stab, and dont get 0 ratings bc of it. And I want to play these games with other people closer to my rank. I just wondered what you guys think about this? Let me know.

jigger1986 wrote:When I first started playing this game a little over a year ago, I started playing map and settings that were alot different that the original board game, that is fairly similar to this site. Because of this I played alot of flat rate games. People on this site seem to think that flat rate games favour only the lucky, and that any real test of skill must be done either esc, or ns. Althought what I have said above for the most part is true. There is skill and stratedy involved in flat rate games, perhaps more than people realize. The main differene in that flat rate, is generally a longer, socially stratigical game, where diplomacy is often a huge factor. It seems alot of people I meet are just not up for diplomacy in standard games, so I want to see what the public really thinks. What do you think about diplomacy in standard game? The reason I ask is that over the past 6 months or so I have switch from a 6 player standard gamer, to more of a 1v1, and team player. I am starting to find it boring, and want to move back to 5-6 player flat rate games where people talk, and strategize, make alliances, and back stab, and dont get 0 ratings bc of it. And I want to play these games with other people closer to my rank. I just wondered what you guys think about this? Let me know.

I used to play flat rate on small maps which i was decent at over a year ago...eventually i moved on from it though as a lot of noobs joined and as i got better i started to get angry when people killed me stupidly or something like that. I never really liked anything but team games, 1 vs 1 for that long as a result of this element of other people screwing you out of wins losing themselves also (aside from 8 man fs speed escalating, i still really like that setting).

I have a soft spot for flat rate. I agree that diplomacy is a key part of the strategy with that setting. I'm newly anti-alliances, but there's still room for the fine art of diplomacy without an overt alliance.

Thanks for your imput guys, I want to see what others think of this.
Just to let anyone know, I will be posting some games with simialr setting to these in the 2000+ callouts section.

That is all i play. well most the time i do play some team games and some nuclear and 1 vs 1 speed games. i think slandered flat rate has a lot of strategy. I also think its funner with that type of playing you cannot really be farmed. also cause its a really basic game. But everything depends upon what you do.

targetman377 wrote:i think slandered flat rate has a lot of strategy. I also think its funner with that type of playing you cannot really be farmed. also cause its a really basic game. But everything depends upon what you do.

Sig-worthy?

Moving to Strategy

-rd

flat rate has more strat than escalation and less luck factor. See thread get colonel under 100 games by xiangwang for more details.

Here was my original post:
Escalating has too much element of luck involved. I played escalation for awhile, but when you fail to beat 5 with 8 troops for that winning bid you pretty much auto lose cause someone else will take them and sweep for the win. At least with diplomacy you have more CONTROL over the game, afterall, you want to rely as little as you can on the luck of the dice (I have seen 27 troops lose to 10 before!). Fail that major attack? Sure you board position is weaker, but at least it's not AUTOLOSE like in escalation, you have a chance of coming back with some savvy diplomacy.

Also in escalation, when you get a card set has a huge element of luck as well. In standard, cardsets are nice, but not necessary, difference between 4 and 10 troops isn't as large cashing in with 3 cards or forced to wait until turn to cash set in to get potentially 30+ troops. Also, bonuses don't mean too much in escalation unless playing a VERY large map, even then bonuses get irrelevant when cards are getting 100+ troops/turn. Standard is down to board position, diplomacy, and long term strategy. There is just more control in the game, sure all the players can try to use the freestyle 'free turn' to their advantage, that is something you have to take into account when planning out your moves. Know someone want to get the russia bonus (classic map) for 1 free turn when you just broke it, don't leave a 1 army there, leave 10 armies there so they can't take it back that turn.

I am also starting the like the 3rd crusade map more than waterloo, the objective win makes is soo much more interesting and brings in a whole new tactical element. Waterloo is easy to master (just don't leave 1s that will get bombarded), while 3rd crusade seems more challenging.

I guess when you get past 3000 points and you are playing with randoms, you don't want to lose 40+ points to one bad dice especially when a win only gets you like 30-40 points, hence you want more elements of control over the game which escalation just doesn't provide

I have tried playing several games using diplomacy. Most without success. Look at my latest game 8069423 I was occupying Australia. Orange had obviously had enough of me breaking his bonus from Dubai, and devided to take me out of Oz, However, that left him weak in Africa, and his bounus was broken by Red. In the meantime, Cyan broke out of North America, and took South America from Red. Cyan however, had only left 3 troops on Montreal. It was at this point that I made my proposal in the game to Orange.

2010-12-14 06:30:04 - Arethusa: Orange. As I see it I could have tried to take you out in Bangko. But all that would have achieved is either Red or Cyan winning.As it's Christmas, and Peace to all good men how about we make a Christmas ceasefiree....just like the Western Front in 1914
2010-12-14 06:34:42 - Arethusa: What I propose is. You re-take Africa, without breaking my bonus in Australia, and I Promise not to break your Bonus in Africa. The truce will last for Three rounds starting with your next go.
2010-12-14 06:36:24 - Arethusa: The truce does not apply to any troops outside the bonus area. What do you say? Willing to give it a go?
2010-12-14 06:37:35 - Arethusa: Obviously , the Truce does not apply to Red or Cyan. But they're free to make their own if they wish.
2010-12-14 06:38:30 - Arethusa: Just in case anyone is wondering. My proposal is within the rules, as it is not secret diplomacy.
2010-12-14 08:43:32 - Arethusa: Now that Cyan has made their move, my suggestion makes even more sense. Red is not in a position to threaten Cyan in North America. However, if I retain my bonus of 6; I could attempt to break the bonus through Montreal.

I didn't receive a reply from Orange, and he took Australia. So, it's back to the drawing board.

Any like minded individuals fancy signing up to a Standard, Classic game where we agree beforehand to use diplomacy? Perhaps we could set some ground rules amongst ouselves on the Forum beforehand. Let me know by PM and I'll send out the invites. Maximum of 6 I think should be good for starters.

I am always up for a just about any variant in which Diplomacy is both accepted and expected... I really do mourn the loss of my diplomatic tools in the transition from tabletop to digital play. Also, I have a strong preference for more complex maps... I have played the classic map to death at this point, and it offers far too few variations in attack path.

jigger1986 wrote:When I first started playing this game a little over a year ago, I started playing map and settings that were alot different that the original board game, that is fairly similar to this site. Because of this I played alot of flat rate games. People on this site seem to think that flat rate games favour only the lucky, and that any real test of skill must be done either esc, or ns. Althought what I have said above for the most part is true. There is skill and stratedy involved in flat rate games, perhaps more than people realize. The main differene in that flat rate, is generally a longer, socially stratigical game, where diplomacy is often a huge factor. It seems alot of people I meet are just not up for diplomacy in standard games, so I want to see what the public really thinks. What do you think about diplomacy in standard game? The reason I ask is that over the past 6 months or so I have switch from a 6 player standard gamer, to more of a 1v1, and team player. I am starting to find it boring, and want to move back to 5-6 player flat rate games where people talk, and strategize, make alliances, and back stab, and dont get 0 ratings bc of it. And I want to play these games with other people closer to my rank. I just wondered what you guys think about this? Let me know.

I have no problem at all with alliances/truces/agreements/undesrtandings in games, personally. That said, I am 100% against cross-game understandings (basically, an alliance/agreement in one game should not affect another nor should it carry over to another). Any significant consistency between certain individuals should be considered against the rules, of course.

Alliances are stupid. Two players, assuming no fog, should be well aware when it is or isn't beneficial enough to attack your opponent, depending on how the game is unfolding. While you might experience some peace of mind, it is unnecessary, and is a shallow way to win a game at best. Otherwise, why wouldn't you make an alliance with almost anyone except the strongest person at the moment? Anyways, as said, if you're a good enough player, and your opponent is as well, you can leave borders virtually unguarded because you know it's unwise to attack each other. If you two are the strongest two on the board, and make an alliance simply to wipe out the other people... then that's just a gameplay I don't even want to participate in.

IMHO, alliances and diplomacy simply cant exist in the same sentance. I have never made one and never will; I believe in a singles game one should play on their own and not sink to allying due to bad luck or your own inadequacy. I believe I am in the minority in this, but there ya go. You want to ally, play team games.

Also why I rarely play public games in the last 3 years and mostly stick with my group where we all believe that alliances and other sneaky tactics are dishonorable.

You asked

KoolBak wrote:IMHO, alliances and diplomacy simply cant exist in the same sentance.

Uh...how does one form an alliance without diplomacy?

Well, to me, "diplomacy" includes polite, mature, reasonable discussion / thinking / actions. Alliances, in this case, again to me, represent weak, disgusting, pussies that cant man up. Clear it up for you? lol

Example:

pussy #1 "Hey red; lets gang up on blue cause we both lack spine & balls" (sorry ladies)

pussy #2 "Cool...let's give blue the bone!"

Very un-diplomatic

Has always been my favourte setting, though I prefer no cards if we want to get specific about the thing. The setting has some serious advantages...

1. Score accumalation. I doubt there is a faster way to make colonel than by playing standard flat, no cards. It can be done in as little as 50 games, if the player is 1. good and 2. very map specific and focused. It is possible to have a 40-50% win rate at 8 man no cards...certainly on a map like 2.1 with lots of space.

2. If one is good it is almost always possible to win, no matter the drop. It might take longer with a crappy drop, but it is still possible. Hence the high percentage of wins.

3. The format encourages deals and alliances. This is one of the key way to pervert the natural order of things (the drop) and through the middle game take control.

4. It is a game that is superfically much easier to play than standard escalating, but has hidden depths which, again, allow for very high win rates.

There are issues though...

1. Always play random opponents. I attempted to upset the standard CC wisdom of' never play lots of solid player in flat as the game will stall' by deliberately choosing attack-minded high ranked players for games. They still, in the main, stalled. Strangely, 8 man dubs 2.1 works well with all solid teams...standard does not, regardless of the players natural attacking vigour.

2. While standard flat can get you up to about the 2,500-2,900 range very quickly, I have yet to see (or notice) a player get past 3,000 from this format. While standard flat/no cards players will raise faster than esc. players (in terms of games played) the esc. players can still push on for 3,500 with their 25-30% win rates against all high-class opposition. As mentioned, this doesn't work on flat...the game needs the noobs! Thus, one gets to a point whereby you are winning say 60 points for an 8 man and losing 40...or more. At that point one must switch to no cards teams...which is fine, but not as much fun for the standard player. Or screw the rank as I did, thus making the original setting viable and fun again.

Finally, the trick to playing this setting well is judging the play of those players with less, shall we say, natural ability while keeping a beady eye on those who are a genuine threat. Always try to encourage the stripers out early (ideally without having to say anything) wait for a genuine threat to bite the bullet and take said striper on...and then swoop.

KoolBak wrote:Well, to me, "diplomacy" includes polite, mature, reasonable discussion / thinking / actions. Alliances, in this case, again to me, represent weak, disgusting, pussies that cant man up. Clear it up for you? lol
Example:
pussy #1 "Hey red; lets gang up on blue cause we both lack spine & balls" (sorry ladies)
pussy #2 "Cool...let's give blue the bone!"
Very un-diplomatic

Yes, you are.

Subjective big guy.....subjective

....surprised me to see you resort to name calling BTW......hmmmmmm......I simply explained my position; we are not arguing semantics - I honestly meant no offense.

KoolBak wrote:Subjective big guy.....subjective

....surprised me to see you resort to name calling BTW......hmmmmmm......I simply explained my position; we are not arguing semantics - I honestly meant no offense.

Meant no offense by:
"weak, disgusting, pussies that can't man up"
"lack spine & balls"

That's certainly an interesting way of not meaning offense. And I don't think that saying you're "Very un-diplomatic" is exactly calling you names...do you?

I obviously stated my position rudely (although it is exactly how I feel); I would be happy to edit the post but you quoted it....let me know. And yes, it was name calling on both our parts - again, my apologies for offense implied.

By the way, I have a question of a personal nature; may I pm you or have I been foed / do you dislike me?

KoolBak wrote:By the way, I have a question of a personal nature; may I pm you or have I been foed / do you dislike me?

You're not foed. I actually like you and your outspokenness. I can't think of anything you've done that I would foe you for.

whew...lol.

Thanks for your help - apreciated muchly

Mr Changsha wrote:Has always been my favourte setting, though I prefer no cards if we want to get specific about the thing. The setting has some serious advantages...

1. Score accumalation. I doubt there is a faster way to make colonel than by playing standard flat, no cards. It can be done in as little as 50 games, if the player is 1. good and 2. very map specific and focused. It is possible to have a 40-50% win rate at 8 man no cards...certainly on a map like 2.1 with lots of space.

2. If one is good it is almost always possible to win, no matter the drop. It might take longer with a crappy drop, but it is still possible. Hence the high percentage of wins.

3. The format encourages deals and alliances. This is one of the key way to pervert the natural order of things (the drop) and through the middle game take control.

4. It is a game that is superfically much easier to play than standard escalating, but has hidden depths which, again, allow for very high win rates.

There are issues though...

1. Always play random opponents. I attempted to upset the standard CC wisdom of' never play lots of solid player in flat as the game will stall' by deliberately choosing attack-minded high ranked players for games. They still, in the main, stalled. Strangely, 8 man dubs 2.1 works well with all solid teams...standard does not, regardless of the players natural attacking vigour.

2. While standard flat can get you up to about the 2,500-2,900 range very quickly, I have yet to see (or notice) a player get past 3,000 from this format. While standard flat/no cards players will raise faster than esc. players (in terms of games played) the esc. players can still push on for 3,500 with their 25-30% win rates against all high-class opposition. As mentioned, this doesn't work on flat...the game needs the noobs! Thus, one gets to a point whereby you are winning say 60 points for an 8 man and losing 40...or more. At that point one must switch to no cards teams...which is fine, but not as much fun for the standard player. Or screw the rank as I did, thus making the original setting viable and fun again.

Finally, the trick to playing this setting well is judging the play of those players with less, shall we say, natural ability while keeping a beady eye on those who are a genuine threat. Always try to encourage the stripers out early (ideally without having to say anything) wait for a genuine threat to bite the bullet and take said striper on...and then swoop.

i would agree with this quite well. Though it is possible with just flatrate, though i found it very hard when it was just 6 players max, but with 8 players is better, but now i'm stalled at the 4k mark, until it hits 10 players don't see myself going up very soon

Kiron wrote:

Mr Changsha wrote:Has always been my favourte setting, though I prefer no cards if we want to get specific about the thing. The setting has some serious advantages...

1. Score accumalation. I doubt there is a faster way to make colonel than by playing standard flat, no cards. It can be done in as little as 50 games, if the player is 1. good and 2. very map specific and focused. It is possible to have a 40-50% win rate at 8 man no cards...certainly on a map like 2.1 with lots of space.

2. If one is good it is almost always possible to win, no matter the drop. It might take longer with a crappy drop, but it is still possible. Hence the high percentage of wins.

3. The format encourages deals and alliances. This is one of the key way to pervert the natural order of things (the drop) and through the middle game take control.

4. It is a game that is superfically much easier to play than standard escalating, but has hidden depths which, again, allow for very high win rates.

There are issues though...

1. Always play random opponents. I attempted to upset the standard CC wisdom of' never play lots of solid player in flat as the game will stall' by deliberately choosing attack-minded high ranked players for games. They still, in the main, stalled. Strangely, 8 man dubs 2.1 works well with all solid teams...standard does not, regardless of the players natural attacking vigour.

2. While standard flat can get you up to about the 2,500-2,900 range very quickly, I have yet to see (or notice) a player get past 3,000 from this format. While standard flat/no cards players will raise faster than esc. players (in terms of games played) the esc. players can still push on for 3,500 with their 25-30% win rates against all high-class opposition. As mentioned, this doesn't work on flat...the game needs the noobs! Thus, one gets to a point whereby you are winning say 60 points for an 8 man and losing 40...or more. At that point one must switch to no cards teams...which is fine, but not as much fun for the standard player. Or screw the rank as I did, thus making the original setting viable and fun again.

Finally, the trick to playing this setting well is judging the play of those players with less, shall we say, natural ability while keeping a beady eye on those who are a genuine threat. Always try to encourage the stripers out early (ideally without having to say anything) wait for a genuine threat to bite the bullet and take said striper on...and then swoop.

i would agree with this quite well. Though it is possible with just flatrate, though i found it very hard when it was just 6 players max, but with 8 players is better, but now i'm stalled at the 4k mark, until it hits 10 players don't see myself going up very soon

Well just consider this chap xiangwang...a friend of yours I suppose judging by how many games you are in together. A touch of 100 games played and over 4,000 points! That may be the fastest rise on record...

The main fault with flat rate games and to a certain extent no card games is that when the games reach a potential stale mate status, one player inevitably loses patience and suicides. Which is probably brought on by playing to many esculating games as they dont have the stamina for the long haul.