Conquer Club

-EDIT-

I got screwed on a 1 versus 1 game. The computer practically set the other guy up with the Australia bonus and then proceeded to box me in against the neutral armies. The game wasn't even a contest.

My solution: Please get the neutral armies out of the 1 versus 1 games and let people truly battle against each other.

DangerBoy wrote:I got screwed on a 2 versus 2 game. The computer practically set the other guy up with the Australia bonus and then proceeded to box me in against the neutral armies. The game wasn't even a contest.

My solution: Please get the neutral armies out of the 2 versus 2 games and let people truly battle against each other.

are you talking about 1v1 games? sounds like it.....

Nephilim wrote:

DangerBoy wrote:I got screwed on a 2 versus 2 game. The computer practically set the other guy up with the Australia bonus and then proceeded to box me in against the neutral armies. The game wasn't even a contest.

My solution: Please get the neutral armies out of the 2 versus 2 games and let people truly battle against each other.

are you talking about 1v1 games? sounds like it.....

Yeah, my bad. I didn't get much sleep last night.

Nah, the best solution will be one that may eventually be Implemented, player controlled deployment.

DangerBoy wrote:-EDIT-

I got screwed on a 1 versus 1 game. The computer practically set the other guy up with the Australia bonus and then proceeded to box me in against the neutral armies. The game wasn't even a contest.

My solution: Please get the neutral armies out of the 1 versus 1 games and let people truly battle against each other.

i had that idea once...i like it

ParadiceCity9 wrote:

DangerBoy wrote:-EDIT-

I got screwed on a 1 versus 1 game. The computer practically set the other guy up with the Australia bonus and then proceeded to box me in against the neutral armies. The game wasn't even a contest.

My solution: Please get the neutral armies out of the 1 versus 1 games and let people truly battle against each other.

i had that idea once...i like it

the neutral armies are there because if they werent, the initial bonus would be so high, that whoever went first would have a huge advantage

AAFitz wrote:

ParadiceCity9 wrote:

DangerBoy wrote:-EDIT-

I got screwed on a 1 versus 1 game. The computer practically set the other guy up with the Australia bonus and then proceeded to box me in against the neutral armies. The game wasn't even a contest.

My solution: Please get the neutral armies out of the 1 versus 1 games and let people truly battle against each other.

i had that idea once...i like it

the neutral armies are there because if they werent, the initial bonus would be so high, that whoever went first would have a huge advantage

generally they do anyway.

In my game the other guy started out with armies all the way from China down to Australia. I had 3 guys placed in East Australia. He took it out on his first turn. Everything else I had was surrounded by neutral armies. If we could just be allowed to battle it out I think it would have been more fair.

So explain how him having 7 armies on his first turn instead of 4 would make it fairer?

Most of the games I've played so far are 1v1. Out of about 50 games, I'd say that about 20% of the time someone gets a drop with a full province. I've benefitted about as often as I've suffered, so it works out in the end.

What is more often the case is someone getting an adventageous drop...and if you play first and know how to play, then you can pretty much ensure a victory before the other guy gets to play. But that's all part of the 1v1 experience.

So far, I've found the 1v1 much more enjoyable than 3-player games.

Best thing to do is get 2 idiots,or more.To fight it out to end.

I have the best solution!
NO MORE 1v1 games if your gonna complain about it

A good drop + going first can be all it takes in 2 player games. The best way I've found to avoid this is to avoid unlimited forts. at least thenyou still have to know what you're doing to win the game.

Sgt. Drake wrote:Nah, the best solution will be one that may eventually be Implemented, player controlled deployment.

Definitely. :>

disk wrote:Most of the games I've played so far are 1v1. Out of about 50 games, I'd say that about 20% of the time someone gets a drop with a full province. I've benefitted about as often as I've suffered, so it works out in the end.

What is more often the case is someone getting an adventageous drop...and if you play first and know how to play, then you can pretty much ensure a victory before the other guy gets to play. But that's all part of the 1v1 experience.

So far, I've found the 1v1 much more enjoyable than 3-player games.

Dont you think that 5 or 6 player games might be more of a challenge !

Sgt. Drake wrote:Nah, the best solution will be one that may eventually be Implemented, player controlled deployment.

each game would take forever. then.

The only thing I don't like about free style, is that it's actually advantageous to go SECOND.

The other person can not infringe upon your turn (in RT), but you can finish your turn (the round) and then start right after they start (deploy) so you can see where to attack them/avoid.

I think that once it gets down to 2 players, turns should effectively be sequential.

I enjoy playing 1 v 1 but i think the current system has two major issues that will determine the game 1) initial deployment 2) First turn

I can accept initial deployment because I have been on both sides of a good and bad deployment and feel it is pretty equal.

First turn - WHen setting a game..whoever is first ...in the first round, player 1 goes first, player 2 gets to take first turn and 2nd turn (or just let them have double the deployment then player 1 takes 2nd turn and then sequential after that,

If you go first and and get a good drop...first turn determines the game in most cases

What about random events?
And pc controlled rebels (where they attack and such)
And Capitals?

disk wrote:I'd say that about 20% of the time someone gets a drop with a full province.

To my experience it's a lot lower than that...only happend in about 5 or so of my 1v1's and i've played mainly 1v1.

I can't stress this enough. For a true 2 player challenge, play either best of 3 or best of 5 on each map. It will even out a bit.

I think it depends on the map.

Something like USApocylpse looks like a bad 1v1 map since the chances of getting the nuclear symbols varies more whereas Extreme Global Warming is perfect for 1v1 since it's a vary chockpoint based map

comic boy wrote:

disk wrote:Most of the games I've played so far are 1v1. Out of about 50 games, I'd say that about 20% of the time someone gets a drop with a full province. I've benefitted about as often as I've suffered, so it works out in the end.

What is more often the case is someone getting an adventageous drop...and if you play first and know how to play, then you can pretty much ensure a victory before the other guy gets to play. But that's all part of the 1v1 experience.

So far, I've found the 1v1 much more enjoyable than 3-player games.

Dont you think that 5 or 6 player games might be more of a challenge !

But aren't 5 - 6 player games harder to win ??

i've only played 1 game where it was 1v1 in a tournament and the drop meant I was gone before it started the other guy got 1 bonus and was 99% of the way to the 2nd before I even started I got dropped in amongst neutral and would have to take out 6 neutrals to get a bonus I laughed as soon as I saw the drop as I knew it was all over. I won't play 1v1 anymore too random and that rules me out of alot of tournaments except if they played best of 3 or something like that.

Robinette wrote:

comic boy wrote:

disk wrote:Most of the games I've played so far are 1v1. Out of about 50 games, I'd say that about 20% of the time someone gets a drop with a full province. I've benefitted about as often as I've suffered, so it works out in the end.

What is more often the case is someone getting an adventageous drop...and if you play first and know how to play, then you can pretty much ensure a victory before the other guy gets to play. But that's all part of the 1v1 experience.

So far, I've found the 1v1 much more enjoyable than 3-player games.

Dont you think that 5 or 6 player games might be more of a challenge !

But aren't 5 - 6 player games harder to win ??

But aren't they more fun to win? You get that thrill 4-5 times over and it's even better with escalating... 6 in one go is the way I like it