Conquer Club

Looked for this in forum. I have noticed that consistantly, if you are last to join a game and take your turn first, YOU LOOSE on your first attack - EVERY time. more often then not, you will loose 6+ armys before you win a attack. I have had a couple other people mention this. This is beyound random rolls as its always the same -

no one is forcing you to attack. If you're losing 6+ armies on your first turn, you're attacking waaay too much. Think about changing your strategy instead of whining.

(moving this, as it's how you're playing, not a bug)

hmm, gotta test this

chevy98520 wrote:Looked for this in forum. I have noticed that consistantly, if you are last to join a game and take your turn first, YOU LOOSE on your first attack - EVERY time. more often then not, you will loose 6+ armys before you win a attack. I have had a couple other people mention this. This is beyound random rolls as its always the same -

And how many times have you attempted to verify this? You probably just notice those times more than the ones where you win the first 3 battles or whatever.

wicked wrote::lol:
no one is forcing you to attack. If you're losing 6+ armies on your first turn, you're attacking waaay too much. Think about changing your strategy instead of whining.

(moving this, as it's how you're playing, not a bug)

First off, My plan is fine. IT ONLY HAPPENS when you are last to join, first to move and ALL I was asking was has other members noticed it. To be more spacific, I usually play 6 person, standard, freestyle. Second of all, If I was to whine it would be about that nasty red hair. Third..... this to KC - For my own piece of mind, I have played the "last to join, first to go" thing about 10 times recently just to see if Its just bad luck or what. Talked to another member from my area & he said the same. The thing to do, I know - NOT BE LAST TO JOIN. However, For my own piece of mind, had to know. Personally, thinking its a bug.

Wow, just wow.

If you play first in any game, you get 3 armies to deploy, maybe 4 depending on the map. But you sound like you keep attacking 3 vs 3 and your confused about why you keep losing. The odds of winning 3 vs 3 are not good. Try waiting until you have 4 armies minimum to attack anybody over 1 army.
You probably just need more experience, but this certainly isn't a bug.

Thanks IC for taking the time to write out what I was too lazy to.

Remember if you're attacking with only 3, you only roll two dice; attack with one and you only roll one die. The odds are against you in either of these scenarios. Try just deploying and fort'ing your first turn... I bet you see an amazing turnaround in your "luck."

This is unbeleavable!!! As a mod, then you should check and see that ive played for awhile. You would also notice that I attack 6 to 3 - This topic started simple. It now seems that the mods are a bit defensive - and why??? ALL ive asked is the simple question of has anyone else seen this on a >>>>>>>CONSISTANT<<<<<<< basis. If its just really bad luck on my part, so be it.

Or since you like freestyle, dont play first, wait until a few others play before you then attack the territories they forted out of. Easy kills, easy cards.

chevy98520 wrote:This is unbeleavable!!! As a mod, then you should check and see that ive played for awhile. You would also notice that I attack 6 to 3 - This topic started simple. It now seems that the mods are a bit defensive - and why??? ALL ive asked is the simple question of has anyone else seen this on a >>>>>>>CONSISTANT<<<<<<< basis. If its just really bad luck on my part, so be it.

No, I haven't noticed this on a consistant basis.

chevy98520 wrote:you will loose 6+ armys before you win a attack

Must've misunderstood then... how are you losing "6+ armys" on your first turn then?

I assumed you could look at my games but I guess I was wrong. For example - Lets say I start game, I have brazil and egypt. I would put 3 on brazil - That gives me 8 armys to attack with - Thats just a example, but you get the picture

chevy98520 wrote:I assumed you could look at my games but I guess I was wrong. For example - Lets say I start game, I have brazil and egypt. I would put 3 on brazil - That gives me 8 armys to attack with - Thats just a example, but you get the picture

so , you are attacking with a 3

Oh I already had the picture, but did go back to satisfy my curiosity and looked at your last 17 games where you joined last/played first. Here is what happened to you in those first rounds:

Won with initial deployment (of 6 or 7 vs. 3):
9 games

Assuming lost initial deployment, but then won a 3 v 3:
5 games

Didn’t win any attacks:
3 games

The only thing I see with any consistency is you're taking a chance rolling those 3v3's and it pays off for you 2/3 of the time and you get a card 82% of the time. So AK's and my initial assessments of the situation have been proven correct, and this is why we usually make light of these "bug" claims. If you had taken the time to do this yourself, you would've seen that it's in your playing style, not a bug.

Try not to get defensive and instead listen to the advice you're getting from more experienced players.

know what? As a rule of thumb, would not be this persistant as its not that big of a deal. In this case, ya - im persistant. As a mod, instead of just reading what the game scroll says, Actually LOOK at what it says. We all know failed attacks do NOT show up in the log. So, therefore what your reading is NOT acurate. DO notice im doing ok other then what I have been bitching about. AND, AGAIN...... Your failure to actually read what Ive posted. Has anyone else noticed what I have brought up??? AND...., YES, I actually was thinking its a bug, but also have said It could be just bad luck. Oh ya, its not defensive - It's pissed off as you took something in a forum and ran with it in the wrong direction -

uhh I think I know how to read a game log. Not really sure what you're disputing?

This is where you conquered a country from the country you initially deployed on, so won a 6 or 7 vs. a 3. Sure you may have lost all but one army, but that's a given if you attack down that far:

Won with initial deployment (of 6 or 7 vs. 3):
9 games

This is where you didn't conquer a country when attacking from the country you initially deployed on, but then went on to try from another country, attacking 3 vs. 3 and did conquer said country:

Assuming lost initial deployment, but then won a 3 v 3:
5 games

This is where you conquered no country. Not sure how much you attacked, but based on your style, probably alot:

Didn’t win any attacks:
3 games

If I'm not understanding, then please show us some examples of what you're referring to. We know you're pissed at losing armies, but our contention is it's your playing style.

Chevy...

I, unlike the other selfish and uncaring people (mods) on this site, have taken the time to not just 'review', but painstakingly scrutinize every move you have made since the moment you joined. After gathering all of the facts and compiling all of the figures, I must admit that I have to agree with you...your skull is not just unnaturally thick; it is completely solid. Unfortunately, there is no cure for stupid. Perhaps you should focus what little mental energies you have into something more suited to your utter lack of sense---I'm thinking, "Lincoln Logs" or "Play-doh"...just suggestions, of course.

Nuts! I was going to spread the smack on, but spring got there first!

no please, enlighten us, oh great zaw...

surely you have more to add Zaw?

Ehhh, fuggedaboudit. It's just that every couple of weeks some goofball flings in here with some mad conspiracy they think is programmed in and like, they're the only one who notices it and they've got to TELL THE WORLD.

Like last time it was that guy who found a "bug" that gave his opponent an unanswered 10-roll streak this one time, and when people dismissed him he got all mad and said that he'd ALSO noticed that the game was programmed to screw people over when they attack from a fortified continent into another continent that wasn't held but had a lot of troops in it. He was very convinced of this... that under those VERY SPECIFIC conditions, every single time his rolls would go rotten, so it MUST be programmed in.

And then here's this guy... If you're the LAST to join and the FIRST to move then a lot of your rolls fail. Why are you all so STUPID that you can't SEE this?! He doesn't know why the mods are getting so DEFENSIVE; maybe it's some kind of CONSPIRACY! Like lack went in and programmed all this crap so he can tell his secret friends, "Listen, I've got this secret edge... the trick is, don't join last, don't go first, and if you DO join last and go first, don't be trying to roll..." Even if it was true, what would his friends say? "That's it? Really? So whoever joins last gets bad luck on their first roll IF they go first? That's all you got for us? C'mon..."

Where do these people come from? Conspiracies might be real sometimes, but give them some CREDIT. Manipulate world finance, start a war, bring down a government... but screw YOU over in an online board game? There's absolutely no faith in human cunning! It's very depressing.[/code]

I Zaw that coming! Gotta love the guy ;o)

spring1 - that avatar is REALLY hurting me. Can't you put a stache on it or something for a bit of dignity?

You know how long it took me to wax and oil this body? for wicked of course!

Fireside Poet wrote:spring1 - that avatar is REALLY hurting me. Can't you put a stache on it or something for a bit of dignity?

Agreed. And why are the balls blue??

because I'm still waiting for wicked....