Conquer Club

Chess you can force though a brilliant idea, here regardless of how brilliant the idea is, run into bad dice and you might as well be another cook with no idea what you're doing.

I hate and love that about this game.

well chess depend on your inteligent, and here you depend on dices, like you say,you can have great strategy, but in end dices not you decide who will be winner.

Chess is a difficult game...CC is not difficult to be reasonably good at...very difficult to excel at.

More people kill them self from CC stress than Ches stress probably more hard attacks to.

CC is more like poker...

in Poker, Better players will prevail over the long haul,,, but in an individual hand, no matter how perfect your strategy, you can AND WILL get beat.

and i think the appeal of the luck factor is similar too... the ability of even the worst poker player to catch the right card and win a given hand is what keeps them at the table... and the random factors at CC can have the same effect for some people... So I say to you, EMBRACE the RISK's and Randomness of the game, and prevail over the long haul, lest this play out the way Chess does...

For example... I have a friend that I play chess with online, and i win at least 40 to 1... he's really not that bad, i am simply a little better than he is, and yet, that allows me to win nearly every game. In RISK, i am significantly better than he is both strategically and tactically, and yet, my win rate is far less.

Chess is always a one on one game. The skills you rely on to win are completely your own.
Even taking black and going second can be parleyed into an advantage.

C.C. throws in the factor of luck...in the forms of dice, drop, who goes first, and the talent and focus of your partner(s).

Comparing Chess and Conquer Club is like comparing Whiskey and Cornflakes.

If everyone would be reduced to playing one Vs one games, you would all be lieutenants.

Those with upper officer ranks depend on coordinated teamwork and clannish to maintain those ranks.

Not that there is anything wrong with that! But to gauge a CC'ers ability to play by the rank he holds is a ball park guesstimate at best. Chess rankings are based on solid statistics, and are a true reflection of the players abilities.



Johnny Rockets

qwert wrote:well, chess depends on your intellect.

It really doesn't.

Robinette wrote:CC is more like poker...

in Poker, Better players will prevail over the long haul,,, but in an individual hand, no matter how perfect your strategy, you can AND WILL get beat.

and i think the appeal of the luck factor is similar too... the ability of even the worst poker player to catch the right card and win a given hand is what keeps them at the table... and the random factors at CC can have the same effect for some people... So I say to you, EMBRACE the RISK's and Randomness of the game, and prevail over the long haul, lest this play out the way Chess does...

For example... I have a friend that I play chess with online, and i win at least 40 to 1... he's really not that bad, i am simply a little better than he is, and yet, that allows me to win nearly every game. In RISK, i am significantly better than he is both strategically and tactically, and yet, my win rate is far less.

You're more than 'a little better' if you're beating him around 40-1, that sounds like at least a 500 points difference.

Totally agree with you with your poker comparison though.

I have no idea why this is a difficult concept for people.

Part of strategy is anticipating the possibility of "bad luck" and being prepared for unforeseen contingencies.

If you can only win games if dice is on your side then you are a cook.

Dibbun wrote:I have no idea why this is a difficult concept for people.

Part of strategy is anticipating the possibility of "bad luck" and being prepared for unforeseen contingencies.

If you can only win games if dice is on your side then you are a cook.

If the dice are never on your side you're also a cook. No one is saying the dice are the most important thing over the long haul but they do play a major role at times.

by Dibbun on Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:36 pm

I have no idea why this is a difficult concept for people.

Part of strategy is anticipating the possibility of "bad luck" and being prepared for unforeseen contingencies.

If you can only win games if dice is on your side then you are a cook.

difficult concept? are you talk abouth CC or Chess?
CC risk are not dificult concept,its easy to understand ,and easy to play,actualy you dont need to be smart like einstein to play risk.
Chess are much strategical game,and you realy need to think what you play, and these is not a case in risk when you play 1 vs 1..

I am in 100% agreeance with your theory, many times have i found myself in the position where i am set up to win the game and a 2 digit army count loses to a 2 or a 1, the game is then instantly thrown in favour of the opposition - followed then by a bad streak of dice to only return te good dice when the game has already been lost.

Especially in 1 vs 1 your strategy can only bring you so far, i tend to lean towards playing conquest maps with a large number of neutrals vs owned territories - simply because they have a bias towards strategy rather than dice.

The main difference between chess and CC is that in chess the PoD is more likely to loose concentration during his turn, but less likely to outright fall asleep. In CC when the PoD commits outrageous blunders, it is easier to blame it on dice and make outrageous claims about how it should have worked. In a game of chess on the other hand, it is harder to shift the blame, although possible handy scapegoats are tiredness and not enough time on the clock.

In chess it is possible to go to your local club and find of hardened veterans ready to do battle face to face. With risk, the possibilities for real over-the-board games are restricted to drunken family members on New Years Day.

QED.

Dibbun wrote:I have no idea why this is a difficult concept for people.

Part of strategy is anticipating the possibility of "bad luck" and being prepared for unforeseen contingencies.
.

Agreed.


Plus luck is a fun factor--depending on the amount...

Small maps with flat rate I don't dig because of too high risk from highly influential luck.

Dibbun wrote:I have no idea why this is a difficult concept for people.

Part of strategy is anticipating the possibility of "bad luck" and being prepared for unforeseen contingencies.

If you can only win games if dice is on your side then you are a cook.

And what are you if you are a captain with a 41% win rate?

The reason CC can be more fun is chess is a little like tic tac toe. Unless two players are exactly equal, even a slight advantage in ability, will usually result in the same result every time. At CC, for many games, almost anyone can win.

However, as the settings become progressively more difficult, it very much resembles chess in that the better player will almost always win. There's always the wildcard, but on some settings, one player can sometimes never, ever beat the other more than say 1% of the time, as opposed to a small silly map where the dice really decide most of it...all other things being equal.

You also get a little variety here, and some pretty colors to look at and most importantly, you can always blame the dice for your loss, and not accept your own failings.

AAFitz wrote: you can always blame the dice for your loss, and not accept your own failings.

f*ck that I blame the pawns every time I lose in chess. I would have never lost a chess game if those pawns didnt f*ck me over, but according to dibbun I should have anticipated the pawns chances of being shitty and adjusted my strategy for that.

Crazyirishman wrote:

AAFitz wrote: you can always blame the dice for your loss, and not accept your own failings.

f*ck that I blame the pawns every time I lose in chess. I would have never lost a chess game if those pawns didnt f*ck me over, but according to dibbun I should have anticipated the pawns chances of being shitty and adjusted my strategy for that.

Multiple people now have misinterpreted what I said.

Dibbun wrote:I have no idea why this is a difficult concept for people.

Part of strategy is anticipating the possibility of "bad luck" and being prepared for unforeseen contingencies.

If you can only win games if dice is on your side then you are a cook.

Is there dice in chess? No? Then obviously I was only talking about CC. Idiots.

Dibbun wrote:
Is there dice in chess? No? Then obviously I was only talking about CC. Idiots.

There are dice in Yahtzee. Lets discuss the correlations.


--Andy

Yahtzee's dice have never screwed me over..

With 3 or 2 dice here in CC, I get punished. With 5 dice however I seem to do much better

I suppose you could say the similarity is that they both involve dice... I'm afraid that's all i got

Does looking for position as much as elimination (pieces advantage) have as much relevance here as in chess?

jammyjames wrote:Yahtzee's dice have never screwed me over..

With 3 or 2 dice here in CC, I get punished. With 5 dice however I seem to do much better

I suppose you could say the similarity is that they both involve dice... I'm afraid that's all i got

Haven't you ever tried to get a large straight towards the end of a yahtzee game, only to not succeed?!?!


--Andy

Johnny Rockets wrote:Comparing Chess and Conquer Club is like comparing Whiskey and Cornflakes.

i like this comparison, almost as much as i like cornflakes, but not nearly as much as i like whiskey

/

anonymus wrote:

Johnny Rockets wrote:Comparing Chess and Conquer Club is like comparing Whiskey and Cornflakes.

i like this comparison, almost as much as i like cornflakes, but not nearly as much as i like whiskey

/

Drinking whiskey made from cornflake mash makes for interesting CC and chess games.

jefjef wrote:

anonymus wrote:

Johnny Rockets wrote:Comparing Chess and Conquer Club is like comparing Whiskey and Cornflakes.

i like this comparison, almost as much as i like cornflakes, but not nearly as much as i like whiskey

/

Drinking whiskey made from cornflake mash makes for interesting CC and chess games.

indeed it does, my hillbilly friend

/

anonymus wrote:

jefjef wrote:

anonymus wrote:

Johnny Rockets wrote:Comparing Chess and Conquer Club is like comparing Whiskey and Cornflakes.

i like this comparison, almost as much as i like cornflakes, but not nearly as much as i like whiskey

/

Drinking whiskey made from cornflake mash makes for interesting CC and chess games.

indeed it does, my hillbilly friend

/

Is my hillbilly incestree that obvious?