Conquer Club

When my partner is eleminated from the game, I should get to play his round as well as mine. Because it is a team game so when my partner is eleminated I still get the chance to fight back. Since I only get my round, the other TEAM gets two rounds over my one round. This makes the game unfair to the handicapped person at this time. I just think the game sould go from team to team, not player to player.

Master_Cheetoes wrote:When my partner is eleminated from the game, I should get to play his round as well as mine. Because it is a team game so when my partner is eleminated I still get the chance to fight back. Since I only get my round, the other TEAM gets two rounds over my one round. This makes the game unfair to the handicapped person at this time. I just think the game sould go from team to team, not player to player.

Play freestyle team games then.

Master_Cheetoes wrote:When my partner is eleminated from the game, I should get to play his round as well as mine. Because it is a team game so when my partner is eleminated I still get the chance to fight back. Since I only get my round, the other TEAM gets two rounds over my one round. This makes the game unfair to the handicapped person at this time. I just think the game sould go from team to team, not player to player.

So let me get this straight... under your proposal the other team plays well to eliminate your partner and then gets no advantage from it? Do you understand the point of team games??

Master_Cheetoes wrote:When my partner is eleminated from the game, I should get to play his round as well as mine. Because it is a team game so when my partner is eleminated I still get the chance to fight back. Since I only get my round, the other TEAM gets two rounds over my one round. This makes the game unfair to the handicapped person at this time. I just think the game sould go from team to team, not player to player.

really???

In team games, the goal is often to kill one of the teammates on your opponents team, thus crippling the team and ensuring an easy win for your team.

Thats how its supposed to work.

Real world example (unlikely, but possible):

USA teams up with Canada to fight Russia and Germany.
Canada gets owned (no offence, canadians).
The USA doesnt get all of canada's stuff, since canada just got owned.
The USA is left to fend for itself. If they fight and win, congradulations, but the USA is probably screwed.

moral of the story: dont let your teammates die cause then it will be 2v1 and you will most likely lose.

that right, but then you make it hard for the other team so they can't take out the handicapped team out as fast, thus, makes the game challenging for all types of stratagies. Taking one out before the other is one stratagy, but then the negative effect comes to hand. Makes the non-handicapped team think as hard as the handicapped team. Because after one partner is eliminated, its game over! might as well dead beat the rest of the game.

This also gives the handicapped team a chance to fight back. I would take it that the ones who gets a dead beat partner would understand. With a dead beat partner, your game is over before it ever begun. That makes a lot of sense?

Play freestyle team games then.

Your team still gets only one move while the other gets two in one round.

Master_Cheetoes wrote:that right, but then you make it hard for the other team so they can't take out the handicapped team out as fast, thus, makes the game challenging for all types of stratagies. Taking one out before the other is one stratagy, but then the negative effect comes to hand. Makes the non-handicapped team think as hard as the handicapped team. Because after one partner is eliminated, its game over! might as well dead beat the rest of the game.

This also gives the handicapped team a chance to fight back. I would take it that the ones who gets a dead beat partner would understand. With a dead beat partner, your game is over before it ever begun. That makes a lot of sense?

No.

Yes it would give a handicapped team a chance to fight back, but it rewards poor play and strategy in allowing your teammate to become eliminated in the first place! Also, it is not true that you have no chance when your partner is eliminated, I have won quite a few games when either myself or a partner has been eliminated.

When you have a deadbeat partner you get enough of an advantage by inheriting their armies. In any event your idea is not a good one and I'd give up on it if I was you, it's like saying when your opponent in a singles game has more than twice your armies you should get two turns in a row. When a team works itself into a dominant position they should be rewarded for it!

So let me get this straight... under your proposal the other team plays well to eliminate your partner and then gets no advantage from it? Do you understand the point of team games??

Their advantage is two brains on one just that one brian moves two times in one round equaling two. The larger amount of the territories are still owned by two brains.

advantages
Two brains: more territory, two turns in one round, easier to fortified to each other.
one brain: two turns in one round.

No.

Yes it would give a handicapped team a chance to fight back, but it rewards poor play and strategy in allowing your teammate to become eliminated in the first place! Also, it is not true that you have no chance when your partner is eliminated, I have won quite a few games when either myself or a partner has been eliminated.

When you have a deadbeat partner you get enough of an advantage by inheriting their armies. In any event your idea is not a good one and I'd give up on it if I was you, it's like saying when your opponent in a singles game has more than twice your armies you should get two turns in a row. When a team works itself into a dominant position they should be rewarded for it!

I don't see how you inherit there armies when they're dead beats. When they get kicked out, you would only get 1/3 of the dead beats armies and territories just like in singles game. I would also take it that you only ended up winning in those games because some how the dices ended uo on your side. so you started rollling better. Let me guess, you got a place and they had three. Their turn, gets 11 dice and loses all of them to you because you had two dice sitting in that area. Something close, huh.

Master_Cheetoes wrote:Their advantage is two brains on one just that one brian moves two times in one round equaling two. The larger amount of the territories are still owned by two brains.

advantages
Two brains: more territory, two turns in one round, easier to fortified to each other.
one brain: two turns in one round.

Lol - you have only played one team game so you do not understand them properly! It is a huge advantage to have one player taking 2 turns above 2 players taking 1 each. For starters the fortifications are much easier - you can move your armies wherever you want to on the board, instead of being constricted in moving to your teammate's adjacent territories.

In addition, if you are very strong and your teammate weak when he is eliminated it is a massive advantage to you. For example, say the map has 40 territories, and you own 18 and your opponents 11 each when your partner is eliminated... you will get 6 armies per turn and your opponents will get 3 each per turn... so all up you have 12 armies per round against 6!

And having 1 brain on the job is not really a disadvantage since:
1) There is no danger that you have conflicting strategies
2) Just because your teammate is eliminated doesnt mean he cant post in game chat or discuss strategy with you!

Trust me, your proposal is not a good one and would be very unfair... your main complaint seems to be that under the current system, teams that are losing are at a disadvantage... but that is exactly what losing entails! If you play poorly you deserve to be at a disadvantage!

Master_Cheetoes wrote:I don't see how you inherit there armies when they're dead beats. When they get kicked out, you would only get 1/3 of the dead beats armies and territories just like in singles game. I would also take it that you only ended up winning in those games because some how the dices ended uo on your side. so you started rollling better. Let me guess, you got a place and they had three. Their turn, gets 11 dice and loses all of them to you because you had two dice sitting in that area. Something close, huh.

You inherit all of their armies - read the instructions! http://www.conquerclub.com/public.php?page=instructions3!

I won those games either because:

(a) they were escalating cards games where my teammate eliminated me and was able to sweep the board or establish a dominant position using my cards, or
(b) the other team focussed on eliminating me(or my teammate) too much and allowed my partner (or me) to become so strong he could defeat them on his own, this has happened several times for me in no cards games - which shows that you need to use smart strategy when deciding whether to go after an elimination or breaking continents anyway

No exceptional luck with the dice were involved! If you start to explore these possibilities maybe you will become a better player instead of asking for a completely fair rule to be changed simply because you are losing under it!