Conquer Club

I find myself getting crushed by the 3rd to 4th round in some of my most recent games. Could be mostly due to the fact that I suck. <_<

I prefer Seq., flat, unlimited.

The only really fair setting is:
- 4 players
- Double game
- Discworld map
- No cards
- Sequential
- Unlimited forts

This setting is a trustworthy, fair one. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise!

Sequential, No Cards, Unlimited.

Thanks.

Game 381462 if anyone cares to join me.

Sequential, no cards, classic map, adjacent.

Sequential: No dodgy freestyle tactics.
No cards: Less luck factor, tactics and strategy should show through.
Classic map: Everyone knows it well (if they know Risk!)
Adjacent: Controversial I know, but this stops the people who go first from getting an early advantage grouping their troops. People must evenly drop troops for defence - not merely rush them from front to front when threats change. Not my favourite setting, but the one that is fairest.

Distribution will always have a large element of luck they way it is played here (auto assigned troops at the start).

flashleg8 wrote:Sequential, no cards, classic map, adjacent.

I echo the guy with the mass-murdering Communist avatar. This is the setup that is the most fair, just for the reasons he outlined.

no cards
sequential
unlimited forts
4 player
canada map


the only true settings

no cards
sequential
Sequential forts
6 player
artic map

all of the fairest have been stated, however the most fun are classic unlimited flat rate doubles (sequential goes without saying due to freestyle being rubbish)

seq, flat rate, unlimited

or


seq, no cards, unlimited


if your a offensive player i suggest the second one on a world 2.1 number of players is your pick

sequential escalating cards 4 people standard

flashleg8 wrote:Sequential, no cards, classic map, adjacent.

Sequential: No dodgy freestyle tactics.
No cards: Less luck factor, tactics and strategy should show through.
Classic map: Everyone knows it well (if they know Risk!)
Adjacent: Controversial I know, but this stops the people who go first from getting an early advantage grouping their troops. People must evenly drop troops for defence - not merely rush them from front to front when threats change. Not my favourite setting, but the one that is fairest.

Distribution will always have a large element of luck they way it is played here (auto assigned troops at the start).

I agree, except for the cards must be escalating or flatrate. No cards makes it a dice off.

Everyone knows that real players only play Freestyle Assassin on the Indochina map with no cards no fortifications escalating dice started on prime number days adjusted by the Chinese New Year unless the groundhog sees his shadow while you're doing the Macarena in women's underwear.

Play that over and over and over and over and over and over and make sure you don't every do anything different when you play because that risks not having fun.

No cards can be a good strategic game, but 2 things can ruin it: 1. Cheesewankers who purposely miss turns for the double armies, and 2. The player who just sits and amasses armies while everyone else fights.

cheeseweasel wrote:

flashleg8 wrote:Sequential, no cards, classic map, adjacent.

I echo the guy with the mass-murdering Communist avatar. This is the setup that is the most fair, just for the reasons he outlined.

See this post:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17523&start=26

For standard games, no cards and flat rate are more or less pointless. If you take someone out, someone else will take you out. There is no incentive to attack. For this reason when playing singles I almost exclusively play standard, sequential, escalating games.

In 4 player dubs and trips, I prefer flat or no cards. There are only two teams, so your not helping anyone when you attack, so its worth it to do so.

No cards might be "fairest" but I don't think it makes for a very good game unless you are playing doubles where the incentive to eliminate players is huge and you really can't afford to just lay back and let everyone else go at it.

Escalating is more fair than flat rate because there is no disparity between sets and (at least at the beginning) there is no disadvantage for needing 5 cards to make your set. Certainly in the end game, it can be a matter of life or death if it takes you 5 cards to make a set, however.

I understand where those who advocate adjacent are coming from but that fortification setting doesn't allow as much parity on the board. If a player pulls out ahead, he can be a lot harder to bring back to the pack if everyone can't mobilize their troops against him.