Conquer Club

Hey, I was thinking about how anyone can come from behind and win a game with escalating cards and how being able to take 2 turns in a row can add a bit to the stratagy of everyones game; well, i got to wondering wich type of standard game with all the specifics ( map, bonus cards etc... ) takes the most skill to win? In my opinion a standard, flat rate cards, freestyle no double turns game with 6 players and one fortification takes the most skill to win regardless of the map. The flat rate cards puts some risk in there so everyone has to worry about that (no cards seems a bit dull?) and when there are 6 players just surviving the opening is a thrill. anyway let me know what you think about my opinion on wich game is hardest to win and post your own. Thanks

-Dorftrottle-

If you can win a game, when every attacking dice is matched or bettered by the defending player - your doing pretty good.

at the moment, this every go for me. (Not that I'm bitter or twisted by it)

Pedronicus wrote:If you can win a game, when every attacking dice is matched or bettered by the defending player - your doing pretty good.

at the moment, this every go for me. (Not that I'm bitter or twisted by it)

Here here.. if your winning aginst theodds of the dice you rock!!...lol

I believe that sequential, so no one can have advantage, one fortification and escalating cards. The problem with flat rate cards is that it can be won by politics. Im a bit tired of games where I defeat 2, maybe 3 guys, and then those still alive partner up against me. Im now almost only interested in escalating games for standard, so I dont need to beg anyone permission to win the game. And escalating is not easy. Some guys talk "ah, you only need to cash in the right hour". Its not true, you need hunt your prey since the start of the game (although sometimes this task can be much more simple).

Escalating has always been my game. I think I generally time my attacks pretty well to get the best use out of the bonuses. I think that flat rate might take a bit more skill if people aren't allowed to form treaties...but as marv said if you pull ahead in a flat rate game people will often just team up against you.

Marvaddin wrote:The problem with flat rate cards is that it can be won by politics. Im a bit tired of games where I defeat 2, maybe 3 guys, and then those still alive partner up against me.

Clearly you're not using the right strategy. It is about politics, politics and psychology. To me what you said is like the equivalent of me saying "I held Asia and Australia, but then lost because some guy killed someone and cashed in." It's how the game is won.

The fact that treaties are allowed is the reason flatrate requires skill.

politics politics politics!! The best strat with alliances in the end game if your the big guy and worried about the 2 little ones ganging up on you is offering the weakest an alliance; my logic, the little one knows he isn't going to win but wants to stay around longer so will accept 72.376% ( looks official doesn't it? ) of the time. So if your tired of beating 2/3 guys and then losing try that.

Thorhound wrote:politics politics politics!! The best strat with alliances in the end game if your the big guy and worried about the 2 little ones ganging up on you is offering the weakest an alliance; my logic, the little one knows he isn't going to win but wants to stay around longer so will accept 72.376% ( looks official doesn't it? ) of the time. So if your tired of beating 2/3 guys and then losing try that.

Any smart weakling won't accept, but then if they're a weakling they're probably not smart...

i guess the worst part about the little guy when youre the big guy is when they turn out to be the type ( like me depending on how late it is... ) that might just suicide on the guy who is winning just to shake things up. i don't know how to stop that from hapening cuz thats not politics.

Ah, but it is...

I think that Escelating may be the hardest in many cases. When to cash in? Cash in and eliminate that guy now, or wait? In one of my current games I've eliminated 2 guys and taken their cards, but one of the two left may take advantage of that (the last guy doesn't attack, only places troops and never ends his turn).

that may be the hardest style but that doesen't necesarily mean it takes the most skill. It is just the hardest because there is so much chance in that type of game.

Sequential or freestyle, flat rate or escalating, these don't really matter; the almost only thing that possibly matters is the number of players.

Surely you may be good in some spesific setup, you may always know when to cash in the cards in escalating etc, but think about a situation where all the other players are also very talented in the selected game type. Then it's almost no skill anymore, but luck that takes you to the victory - and I don't mean luck with dice, but the luck of being ignored (for too long) by the other players.

Even the number of players might be meaningless - with six of you on the map there are, sure, more people to take you out, but on the other hand, there are more people to fight each other, and you have better chances to get ignored (again).

So I say, most skill is needed in those game types that are most popular among the experienced players (and of course, open to them to join).

qeee1 wrote:Ah, but it is...

it's good to have you back qeee.........

and for me... 6 player escalating is where it's at!

8 player no cards game where the other 7 players are all teaming up against you.
That would definitely need the most skill to win.

in general the game i prefare most is.
World 2.1 -I like to believe the larger map and range of bonuses leads to more possibility of strategy winning. And a skilled player will almost always have a second chance to start from scratch.

players is 6 to 8 to make it good.

Sequential is proberly the best. Sequential favours board tactics, none of the timing stuff that some people are skilled at but more important for the player to actually be able to carry out there turn skillfully. May take a lot of time though, so i stick to freestyle purely because i would get bored of large sequential games!

Cards, none. Again i feal this leads to the player skillful in traditional qualities would benefit from this. My own opinion, but i tend to prefare the skill of the fortifications attacks etc, not timing when to play their cards in escalating or praying for a nice drop in flat rate.

Fog is optional, the two both require a different skill. No fog opens up a lot of diplomacy. Fog results in no diplomacy, maybe a few wild goose chase comments in the chat are optional, but also fog needs luck. Good rolls in the initial turns of Fog, seem to lead to an easy march to victory if the growth is fast and goes relatively unnoticed!

1v1 AoR1 freestyle games take a lot of skill...its super fast timing, knowing where to deploy/working out where your opponent is...and ofc getting fair dice.

1v1 waterloo vs Benjikat is dead

8p seq no cards adjacent on Age of Merchants. i think this is the combination where skill always is more important than luck.

but when CC Mogul is quenched i think that will be the map with the least luck influence.
so 8p seq assassin no cards adjacent with fog on CC Mogul will be the combination where luck is almost unimportant.
you have starting positions so the drop doesn't matter
you have HUGE armies on the map so the rolling dice have a minimal influence
plus fog sequential and adjacent fortif that add a lot of skill

killmanic wrote:1v1 waterloo vs Benjikat is dead

Yeah, the skill to start first is very difficult to achieve on a regular basis!

The hardest settings that take the most skill to win or are whatever you as an individual are worst at playing on. No cards arn't hard to play on if your good and experienced at it, Merchents isnt hard if you know how the map works, freestyle isnt hard if you know how to play it.

Trolling General Discussion.

Thorhound wrote:Hey, I was thinking about how anyone can come from behind and win a game with escalating cards and how being able to take 2 turns in a row can add a bit to the stratagy of everyones game; well, i got to wondering wich type of standard game with all the specifics ( map, bonus cards etc... ) takes the most skill to win? In my opinion a standard, flat rate cards, freestyle no double turns game with 6 players and one fortification takes the most skill to win regardless of the map. The flat rate cards puts some risk in there so everyone has to worry about that (no cards seems a bit dull?) and when there are 6 players just surviving the opening is a thrill. anyway let me know what you think about my opinion on wich game is hardest to win and post your own. Thanks

-Dorftrottle-

I don't believe there is one clear winner here. Many maps and styles just require different strategies. If you excell in a set, you will win more. What matters is just what ways you like to play and what types of games you play the best.

Take merchant versus Arms race versus classic Risk ... comparing them is like comparing "apples and oranges".

to me:
8 player
adjacent
no cards
sequential
waterloo (because it's so fricking hard to understand)

Ughh. I'd rather lose than form an alliance. But that's just me, if you wanna win so badly that you form an alliance it's cool.

btw 2 player doodle earth = SKILL!!