Conquer Club

I assume this has been mentioned before but I was unable to find the thread........

In 'No Card' games, it is often tactically better to miss one or two turns in a row. Miss 2 turns, come back with a surprise 9 & your neighbours will not know where you have been planning to make your move. There are no negatives since you don't miss out on cards.

It is bad enough dealing with deadbeats slowing the game down but the rules are set up for patient people to slow down the 'no card' game......and change the dynamics of standard tactical play.

I would prefer the missed turns not to accumulate troops in a 'no cards' game.

What are peoples thoughts?

In no cards games it is also a good strategy to move last in freestyle and let your time run out instead of hitting end turn so you can start first next turn...

I also believe something needs to change...

Yes, nothing bothers me more than the "doubled for two rounds" bit. If you miss a turn, you lose the armies, period. That's the one thing I'd change about the game.

DIBS wrote:In 'No Card' games, it is often tactically better to miss one or two turns in a row. Miss 2 turns, come back with a surprise 9 & your neighbours will not know where you have been planning to make your move. There are no negatives since you don't miss out on cards.

It is bad enough dealing with deadbeats slowing the game down but the rules are set up for patient people to slow down the 'no card' game......and change the dynamics of standard tactical play.

Well, my two cents:

If you’re surprised by a player actually playing, well, that’s your own fault. You are obviously aware of the fact that a player can cash in 9 fresh troops if having missed two rounds (or 6 if having missed one round). Plan accordingly. If you overstretch, it’s your own fault. Blame yourself for not paying attention to the game.

It’s also – to the contrary – negative to miss a round or two. You miss out on fortifications and attack opportunities. Be happy when someone misses his round, it’s an opportunity for you, not a drawback.

Stop whining ya’ll about the game engine. Play accordingly instead.

Coleman wrote:In no cards games it is also a good strategy to move last in freestyle and let your time run out instead of hitting end turn so you can start first next turn...

I also believe something needs to change...

That's noy just in no card games, it applies under all game settings.

But here I concur. It’s an annoying feature of the game engine.

alstergren wrote:

Coleman wrote:In no cards games it is also a good strategy to move last in freestyle and let your time run out instead of hitting end turn so you can start first next turn...

I also believe something needs to change...

That's noy just in no card games, it applies under all game settings.

But here I concur. It’s an annoying feature of the game engine.

Yeah but in games with cards you don't get your card for doing that, in no cards there is no negative consequences or trade offs. In fact there isn't any reason not to do it when you move last.

I'm with alstergren on no cards sequential - it's a big mistake to assume that the doubled armies somehow gives you an advantage extensive enough to compensate for the lost tactical opportunities. I can't really speak to freestyle, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the extra armies per missed turn rule.

Well, just because you know that they're going to get those armies doesn't help you figure out where they're going to use them. If they were taking their turns like everyone else, you'd have an idea because they'd be deploying them somewhere and tipping their hand.

I do agree that it isn't always advantageous to do this but there are plenty of situations where it is. If, for instance you didn't get a very good initial layout from the board gods, there's a pretty good chance that you're going to be put into a situation where you basically bide your time and stay out of the way for the first few turns and hope something turns up. What better way to do this than to simply ignore your turn.

Of course, this "tactic" comes at the expense of the game dragging on several days before beginning in earnest. I believe the spirit of the argument here is that nobody should be given a good reason for ever delaying the game 24 hours on purpose.

I will say, that I am not opposed to, say, a doubles player waiting to make his move until he can confer with his partner or other reasons why one wouldn't jump in the second they realize it's their turn.

I understand the spirit of the rule being that nobody should be completely screwed if they simply weren't able to get to a computer because, god forbid, they had something else important to do. However, they did willingly choose to play this game. I've often believed that if the make-up armies were discounted (1/3 less than you were supposed to get for the first turn 2/3 less on the second), doing this on purpose would be largely eliminated.

the rules are even for everyone....be aware of all the possibilities and plan for them, and there will be no advantage...if someone misses a turn, plan for their armies...if someones not ending their turns on freestyle, wait till they go, or avoid them

its a level playing field, plan your moves and attacks accordingly.

when speed games come out, this wont be as much of an issue....it wont matter how long a game takes because if you want a quick one you can join one....but if you want a fast no cards game, you probably arent going to get it....they usually take a month, and Ive only once been killed by someone who missed turns to get an advantage from it...

If you think it's such an advantage, and it's legal, why not do it yourself, instead of whining that other people do it?

As for freestyle, If you don't like it, don't play.

Coleman wrote:Yeah but in games with cards you don't get your card for doing that, in no cards there is no negative consequences or trade offs. In fact there isn't any reason not to do it when you move last.

Hmmm... true. But still, loosing a card is a small price to pay for this move. If done good, you'll hold onto a nice piece of territory or kill of an opponent.

Anyways. I agree with your suggestion. But the move should be made impossible in all freestyle games, no just the no cards one.

But that's just my two cents.

MR. Nate wrote:If you think it's such an advantage, and it's legal, why not do it yourself, instead of whining that other people do it?

As for freestyle, If you don't like it, don't play.

I concur. People should play more and whine less.

But at least no one has stated that's it amounts to cheating in this thread. That really annoys me. Here, it's only a few suggestions to be discussed. And that is always good.

alstergren wrote:If you’re surprised by a player actually playing, well, that’s your own fault.

And I get to call BS.

You cannot defend yourself, especially in the first few rounds of a game, if your opponent gets to dump 9 armies on a single territory.

There's no way. Period.

silvanthalas wrote:

alstergren wrote:If you’re surprised by a player actually playing, well, that’s your own fault.

And I get to call BS.

You cannot defend yourself, especially in the first few rounds of a game, if your opponent gets to dump 9 armies on a single territory.

There's no way. Period.

Yes? So? Doesn't matter. You still have had the opportunity to make moves and fortify yourself during two rounds. If you know what you're doing, you have already secured the game by now. If not, well. It's your own fault.

edit

alstergren wrote:

silvanthalas wrote:

alstergren wrote:If you’re surprised by a player actually playing, well, that’s your own fault.

And I get to call BS.

You cannot defend yourself, especially in the first few rounds of a game, if your opponent gets to dump 9 armies on a single territory.

There's no way. Period.

Yes? So? Doesn't matter. You still have had the opportunity to make moves and fortify yourself during two rounds. If you know what you're doing, you have already secured the game by now. If not, well. It's your own fault.

LOL at the fact that you should have the game in hand by round 3 if you're good. Once again, I don't think it's being implied that missing turns is a clear cut advantage, rather that it can be used as an advantage. I, for one, make a point of taking out anyone near me that stands to get a double deployment on his next turn.

It's really pretty simple, the rules should make it so that nobody ever profits from deadbeating and anyone saying that nobody ever profits from it is delusional.

alstergren wrote:Hmmm... true. But still, loosing a card is a small price to pay for this move. If done good, you'll hold onto a nice piece of territory or kill of an opponent.

Anyways. I agree with your suggestion. But the move should be made impossible in all freestyle games, no just the no cards one.

But that's just my two cents.

Dont forget that during an escalation game it is sometimes better to miss a card anyways.

Darnor wrote:Dont forget that during an escalation game it is sometimes better to miss a card anyways.

\

Yes. But what you do is to simply deploy your 3 guys. Then don't attack. You don't get a card and you don't stall the game. Not getting a card has nothing to do with this.

detlef wrote:LOL at the fact that you should have the game in hand by round 3 if you're good. Once again, I don't think it's being implied that missing turns is a clear cut advantage, rather that it can be used as an advantage. I, for one, make a point of taking out anyone near me that stands to get a double deployment on his next turn.

It's really pretty simple, the rules should make it so that nobody ever profits from deadbeating and anyone saying that nobody ever profits from it is delusional.

Yes. It can definitely be an advantage. Especially if your opponents don't prepare for it.

Deadbeating is really a term for when you miss three turns and is being kicked out. Not for missing turns.

And the rule is good. You get three chances to get back into the game. There are plenty good reasons for why a person misses a turn or two.

alstergren wrote:
Yes. It can definitely be an advantage. Especially if your opponents don't prepare for it.

Deadbeating is really a term for when you miss three turns and is being kicked out. Not for missing turns.

And the rule is good. You get three chances to get back into the game. There are plenty good reasons for why a person misses a turn or two.

I respectfully disagree. If you can't log in for 2 minutes once a day, don't play the game.

alstergren wrote:

detlef wrote:LOL at the fact that you should have the game in hand by round 3 if you're good. Once again, I don't think it's being implied that missing turns is a clear cut advantage, rather that it can be used as an advantage. I, for one, make a point of taking out anyone near me that stands to get a double deployment on his next turn.

It's really pretty simple, the rules should make it so that nobody ever profits from deadbeating and anyone saying that nobody ever profits from it is delusional.

Yes. It can definitely be an advantage. Especially if your opponents don't prepare for it.

Dude, it's like roulette. There's only so much you can do. Certainly a guy is not going to do this on purpose if he has any good reason to get rolling off the bat. For instance, if he has a significant presence in a bonus territory or has some adjacent countries that can be combined. However, if the dude is spread out he may simply want to really lay low and wait out the board. Not having any idea where the guy is going to go sort of puts you at the mercy of luck.

Once again, players should be advised and realize that somebody is about to get a bunch of armies at once. All I am saying is that it can be used to an advantage and one gained at the expense of the enjoyment of the game. If a player gets a reduced amount of armies for missing their turn, this would be fixed.

Everyone is so quick to play the "hey sometimes life isn't fair" card when people complain about things like the defacto double turn. Well, sorry you missed your turn, shit happens. Here's a few armies for your troubles but if you want the full amount, please don't hold the game up.

My friend, some of us like to actually take some time to play the game right. And what happens when something unexpected happens - for example, I recently took a one day road trip, and when I got to the place I was staying, their internet was down, and the local library was closed. It's honestly more painful to miss the turn and get doubled up, because of what else you miss.
Oh, and detlef, when alstergren says that you should have a no cards game locked up by turn 3 if there's somebody skipping turns, he's speaking from the perspective of someone who's really good at no cards, but he's still not talking about anything impossible.
I honestly can't understand why people would whine about this unless they got beat because they weren't paying attention. You've gotten at least as many armies as they're getting, but you've had the opportunity to use them to your own advantage, allowing you to generate more armies or to build stronger locations or areas. And don't start whining about how you can't tell where they're going to deploy - if it worries you that they might deploy somewhere, eliminate the option. There is no reason to complain. I don't like it when someone uses the turn skip tactic, but I don't claim it should be removed - I leave neg. feedback to warn other players that a game with this person could drag and I move on.

Nikolai wrote:My friend, some of us like to actually take some time to play the game right. And what happens when something unexpected happens - for example, I recently took a one day road trip, and when I got to the place I was staying, their internet was down, and the local library was closed. It's honestly more painful to miss the turn and get doubled up, because of what else you miss.
Oh, and detlef, when alstergren says that you should have a no cards game locked up by turn 3 if there's somebody skipping turns, he's speaking from the perspective of someone who's really good at no cards, but he's still not talking about anything impossible.
I honestly can't understand why people would whine about this unless they got beat because they weren't paying attention. You've gotten at least as many armies as they're getting, but you've had the opportunity to use them to your own advantage, allowing you to generate more armies or to build stronger locations or areas. And don't start whining about how you can't tell where they're going to deploy - if it worries you that they might deploy somewhere, eliminate the option. There is no reason to complain. I don't like it when someone uses the turn skip tactic, but I don't claim it should be removed - I leave neg. feedback to warn other players that a game with this person could drag and I move on.

I'm sorry, I guess I'm just operating under the rather silly notion that there are other players besides the one skipping turns in the game and that in the initial turns, you rarely have more than one attack you can make without tempting some very shaky odds. My bad.

The claim that a good player should have the game in control by round 3 if someone is skipping is arrogant at and basically false. Hmm. Let's just say that there are more than one good players on the board. Of course, everyone can just gang up on the skipping player but that's pretty much the only way to avoid it.

What if, for instance, the player is actually a deadbeat. Then you've stupidly wasted armies taking out what will ultimately be a neutral country at the expense of attacking active players. I mean, it's pretty bad playing to ever attack a neutral over an active player all things being equal.

Once and for all, unlike the double move trick, I don't see this as a horrible offense and even borderline cheating. Rather, an annoying manner in which players can sometimes gain an advantage at the expense of sportsmanship. Nothing more, nothing less.

Does anyone have a comment on the reduced make up armies?

MR. Nate wrote:If you think it's such an advantage, and it's legal, why not do it yourself, instead of whining that other people do it?

My main point was that the rules can actually encourage missing a turn. I don't know about you, but I don't like waiting 24 hours for 1 player to tactically play......which could be 5 days waiting if all 5 opponents do it.

PerkinsRooster wrote:I respectfully disagree. If you can't log in for 2 minutes once a day, don't play the game.

Well. I don't agree. On many occassions I've missed rounds here and there due o being on he road or having a hang-over.