Conquer Club

Initial Deployment - Conquest

Concise description:
Every player starts with 1 and only 1 terit

Specifics/Details:
Instead of starting with 8, 10 or 12 terits you get 1 and must advance from there - no more dropping bonuses
This would be a conquest mode similar to the Realms, the Feudals & the King's Courts maps but for every map
Conquest Deployment is 1 terit, decided randomly from the available starting terits. in Classic it could be anywhere on the map, with Feudal it would be 1 of the castles.

for a map like Pot Mosbi that has normal terits and auto-deploys assigned at the start then it should be 1 auto-deploy or 1 normal terit but everyone in the game gets the same type of starting terit.

Neutrals would start with whatever they do now. for most maps that is 3 however there are some terits that currently start with 2, 5 or some other figure. they would continue to start with that figure.

3 would be the starting value for players. a large number would be similar to Manual single terit deployed on and 1 or 2 would make it far too difficult to advance from the 1st turn.

if the starting terit is a castle that currently starts with more then it would continue to start with that under Conquest.

Each player starts game with a single starting point territory all other territories on map are neutral, Players then battle towards one another building a empire/force from scratch. From the beginning every seeking out and risking immediate battle by joining a conquest game.

It will add a great new gameplay option providing more variety and enjoyment all around here. A number of Maps will be far more challenging and it will enhance features like fog of war and nuclear. Players will have to place a lot of forethought on whether they choose to play as this setting has the potential to make a game very fast or slow depending on the great random factors of drop and dice. Overall it would be yet another defining facet in the sites continual growth of variations that everyone can appreciate

It will double the number of maps on this site without doubling the number of maps.
Provides an alternative option to Automatic or Manual in Initial Deployment

spiesr wrote:Your poll is flawed. I vote for No I would not like this idea as it would produce "unfair" drops too often.

spiesr wrote:Your poll is flawed. I vote for No I would not like this idea as it would produce "unfair" drops too often.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why restrict what maps it can be used on? Let people figure it out for themselves.

(e.g. trench sucks on maps where there's resetting neutrals, but that doesn't stop some from enjoying that map for trench settings).

Metsfanmax wrote:I voted "yes," but with some hesitation. I don't think that proliferating with tons of new options is a good idea. tnb is correct that you make the game not special if you dilute it too much.

spiesr wrote:Your poll is flawed. I vote for No I would not like this idea as it would produce "unfair" drops too often.

frankiebee wrote:

spiesr wrote:Your poll is flawed. I vote for No I would not like this idea as it would produce "unfair" drops too often.

Couldn't disagree more. I think that on every ''normal'' map like classic, drops would be more fair. With the drops now, usually it is decided by whom get an early continent, unless you play escalating.

I think this option would be fun, wonder how it would be in combination with trench warfare. (on Hive, lol )

greenoaks wrote:

frankiebee wrote:

spiesr wrote:Your poll is flawed. I vote for No I would not like this idea as it would produce "unfair" drops too often.

Couldn't disagree more. I think that on every ''normal'' map like classic, drops would be more fair. With the drops now, usually it is decided by whom get an early continent, unless you play escalating.

I think this option would be fun, wonder how it would be in combination with trench warfare. (on Hive, lol )

and FoW

OliverFA wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why restrict what maps it can be used on? Let people figure it out for themselves.

(e.g. trench sucks on maps where there's resetting neutrals, but that doesn't stop some from enjoying that map for trench settings).

Because that's the strongest argument of people opposing this option. They say that this option would completely spoil some maps. And IMO they have a point.

The new 12 players option has been removed from some maps because it is not compatible with them. In some cases there are not starting positions, but in others (Conquer Rome) is not about starting positions but just about really spoiling the map.

So there is a precendent of a setting being removed from maps that don't fit that setting. Personally, I would not want to play Conquest Deploy with Feudal War, but I would love to play it with World 2.1, Eurasia, Oasis, Hive...

BigBallinStalin wrote:Their argument is moot if they are not being forced to play certain maps with certain settings. Their argument can be made against trench, nuclear spoils, or whatever setting they think would be terrible for whatever map they have in mind. It's an arbitrary position which should be ignored. Conquer deploy should also be left to whoever chooses to play it--on whatever map and whatever settings. It's not like their use of that setting prevents them from setting up games with different settings.

The opposition simply has a silly argument.

spiesr wrote:Your poll is flawed. I vote for No I would not like this idea as it would produce "unfair" drops too often.

OliverFA wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Their argument is moot if they are not being forced to play certain maps with certain settings. Their argument can be made against trench, nuclear spoils, or whatever setting they think would be terrible for whatever map they have in mind. It's an arbitrary position which should be ignored. Conquer deploy should also be left to whoever chooses to play it--on whatever map and whatever settings. It's not like their use of that setting prevents them from setting up games with different settings.

The opposition simply has a silly argument.

What worries me is that this argument is being used so often in the suggestions forum nowadays. It's always about people opposing new options just because they think they will dislike them.

An important point we are missing is that new options could appeal to new users. I wonder how many people have come to CC over the years and leave because it lacked the option they liked.

OliverFA wrote:In fact people who leave are "voting with their feet" like it is often said by political analysts. They are saying "This site does not interest us". Why exactly the site does not interest them is something difficult to know, but I bet a high percentage of them did not find enough appealing choices for them to stay.

That's why new settings that are different enough from existing ones, or bring interesting gameplay mechanics to the game while keeping it simple enough, should be considered, because those settings have the potential to bring new people and retain existing ones who are tired or in doubt.

koontz1973 wrote:

OliverFA wrote:In fact people who leave are "voting with their feet" like it is often said by political analysts. They are saying "This site does not interest us". Why exactly the site does not interest them is something difficult to know, but I bet a high percentage of them did not find enough appealing choices for them to stay.

That's why new settings that are different enough from existing ones, or bring interesting gameplay mechanics to the game while keeping it simple enough, should be considered, because those settings have the potential to bring new people and retain existing ones who are tired or in doubt.

But you could also say the exact opposite. Maybe some of the ones left because we have too many settings and some that are even alien to normal risk players.

To say that the reason for the decline is not enough settings is ludicrous.

OliverFA wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:

OliverFA wrote:In fact people who leave are "voting with their feet" like it is often said by political analysts. They are saying "This site does not interest us". Why exactly the site does not interest them is something difficult to know, but I bet a high percentage of them did not find enough appealing choices for them to stay.

That's why new settings that are different enough from existing ones, or bring interesting gameplay mechanics to the game while keeping it simple enough, should be considered, because those settings have the potential to bring new people and retain existing ones who are tired or in doubt.

But you could also say the exact opposite. Maybe some of the ones left because we have too many settings and some that are even alien to normal risk players.

To say that the reason for the decline is not enough settings is ludicrous.

Of course there is not a single reason. Each person staying or leaving the site has his/her own reasons. But if I had to bet my money, I would bet that most people left because they did not have enough reasons.

And by the way, I think that you illustrate very well a big mistake that CC is doind form long ago. Why keep trying to be "a Risk site"? Why not be an strategy or a wargame site? Limiting to just Risk is losing a lot of customers.

We agree that choices just for the sake of choices is bad, complicates things and alienate people. But choices that bring interesting and diferent choices are good. Just to talk about a different setting than the one of this thread. I trully believe that infected neutrals can do a lot more good than bad to the site. At most, there is a matter of redesigning the new game screen so it is less overwhelming.

On the other hand, about the choices screen: Why not make a collection of pre-settings? Put together settings that work well together and make those combinations selectable ones. That brings the best of both worlds.

OliverFA wrote:I think that the real problem with too many options is that they can overwhelm new people when they see the overcrowded "start a game" screen. I find hard to believe that too many options can alienate experienced players. Just don't worry about the ones you dislike and that's all.

There is also the argument that the player base gets too fragmented with too many options, but I disagree too. When I don't find a game with my favourite options and don't want to wait, I join games that are close. For example, if I wanted to play no spoils I can join flat rate, because they are close enough.