Conquer Club

Hey,

I wanted to know which was the more prefered... Do you play RISK with cards...Or no cards...

Personally, I find I lose one to many games when someone 'cashes in' and gets like 30 armies... I don't think its very skillfull....

Not keen on escalating card games, though I like Flat Rate.

Escalation was a cheap tactic in RISK to keep the games short. Its a much more luck based game than either no-card or flat rate. There's enough of an element of luck in this game as it is, without exponentially increasing the value of the cards cashed in.

I agree about escalating games.

I prefer flat rate. No card games can go on forever unless they are terminator.

well i think you need to have a different strategy for escalating card games...like i think i was losing a game in a an escalating then I had a good idea which made me win....and also my two opponents were twits because they didn't attack me when i owned asia and oceania...

escalating cards are the only way to go. Anyone who says theres no skill in escalating cards hasn't got a clue how to play that type of game, and thats just ignorance.

There is more luck involved in escalating than in flat rate.

I guess I agree with pedronicus.
Escalating and Freestyle ist the sort of game in which one has to think the most about strategy, since timing is tremendously important. I'm still fairly new, so that's just a Newbee's opinion...

I don't think Pedro's a fan of freestyle. Escalating freestyle is the worst... it's about who can spend the most time at the computer.

freestyle all together is the worst....but escalating sequential can work if you play it right

qeee1 wrote:There is more luck involved in escalating than in flat rate.

I cant agree. Knowing the right our to cash and kill a player, and get 2 more sets, or how to avoid your prey death by other hands, this isnt luck. Ok, sometimes someone leave a player with 5 cards and 1 army, and you will win that game without any strategy, but this happens like1-2% of the games.

I think escalating has much more strategy than flat rate, because the dice are less important, so less luck is involved. You all heard already about my incredible legendary luck. In a flat rate game, I usually lose 7 to 3, then 6 to 2 next turn, and Im out, cant win anymore, due to my great luck. Even with my usual bad dice, I can win much more escalating games. Ok, having 4 cards and no sets in later stage of escalating is very bad too, but I still think it has less luck involved.

And freestyle... it sucks.

well, not many freestyle fans around it seems...
I just think it adds time as a critical determinant of the strategy and is therefore even more challenging. However, if a player is time restricted and therefore cannot use it properly, it sucks, that's right.
But per se that has nothing to do with freestyle, just with personal limitations regarding the possibility to time moves.

HolgerHerz wrote:well, not many freestyle fans around it seems...
I just think it adds time as a critical determinant of the strategy and is therefore even more challenging. However, if a player is time restricted and therefore cannot use it properly, it sucks, that's right.
But per se that has nothing to do with freestyle, just with personal limitations regarding the possibility to time moves.

In short, freestyle descriminates against those of us with lives.

click on the link to this game.
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=83491#gmtop

I know you wont be able to understand by reading back through the game log who went where and how the game got into the stage that it did. but it was a game being played by 6 players who understood that maybe killing someone off in a certain part of the board, wouldn't of won themselves the game - but it would mean that the stronger player couldn't wipe someone out for their cards.

This game is a very good example of how an escalating game (played with the correct stratagy) can be played out to give a game that really tests your mental skill.

Most escalating games are deemed a load of old shit, because normally 1 or 2 crucial moves were a load of old shit - not the way the cards were increasing the number of armies.

I only play escalating when in a singles game.
The reasons are this: you know what the next player to hand in a set is going to get. The whole of my philosophy in Risk is to eliminate the unknown, and play a game where you know what’s going to happen next. Yes the cards get out of hand in a snowball effect at the end – but as long as you dot yourself around the board so that someone has to kill you last because you’re not close together (It’s easier to kill a player in a few closely interlocking areas)

A lot of players claim that no cards, involves more skill – this is bollox, as the initial placement of armies on the board (and their closeness to an easy to own continent) makes the game virtually over before it’s begun. Get a nice set up? – You’ve won it. (You need some sort of bonus cards, to change the balance of a deployment if you got the shitty end of the stick)

Flat Rate cards are also shit because – after three rounds someone might hand in a mixed set and get 10 – whilst you hang on to yours hoping to stop being dealt reds. Once again – what I want from a game is uniformity and flat rate doesn’t give you that.
Also – Flat rate games that drag on in stalemate with three players can lead to someone just getting infuriated with the game because it’s been going on for so long, and they make a silly move that ruins months of careful placements. Why waste 3 months of your life playing a game that could be lost by someone who’s just run out of patience.

I like no cards because you have to learn not to be aggressive,and mount your attack at the right time

shultz wrote:I like no cards because you have to learn not to be aggressive,and mount your attack at the right time

I didn't join a world domination Risk site so I could learn how to be non aggressive. It's like watching a fight between a Budhist and Hari Khrishna.

Pedronicus wrote:

shultz wrote:I like no cards because you have to learn not to be aggressive,and mount your attack at the right time

I didn't join a world domination Risk site so I could learn how to be non aggressive. It's like watching a fight between a Budhist and Hari Khrishna.

Everyone knows Pedro joined it to let his anger out, which he keeps bottled up except on the risk battlefield...

Pedronicus wrote:escalating cards are the only way to go. Anyone who says theres no skill in escalating cards hasn't got a clue how to play that type of game, and thats just ignorance.

Escalating freestyle unlimited is the only way to go.
Most interesting at least....

Flat rate, freestyle, unlimited is my favourite. I like to have something extra in the game but I don't like having huge army bonuses like in escalating. I only play freestyle because it is a lot quicker and more tense if it is a rt game...

Where's the "I'm fine with either option"-option?

RobinJ wrote:I only play freestyle because it is a lot quicker and more tense if it is a rt game...

how in gods name can anyone play freestyle real time?

the luck of getting a ten army set with 3 cards in flat rate is balanced by the luck in escalating games of somebody getting a 3 card set when values hit 25 and the opponent having to wait until 5 cards. All games have strategic value with different forms of luck involved. You hope luck evens out over the long run.

Flat rate and no cards do get stuck in the 3 player rut if all players are skilled.

I like no card games but they can last a long time even after you know who is going to win. The "luck" part of the cards (and dice!) seems to show the vagueries of war. Many times in history has an army who by all accounts should have been beaten easily... triumphed. Hell UCLA beat USC right? that musta been some shitty dice and poor cards there!!!

Pedronicus wrote:

RobinJ wrote:I only play freestyle because it is a lot quicker and more tense if it is a rt game...

how in gods name can anyone play freestyle real time?

My first and so far only real time game was freestyle, escalating, 3 players.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=123557

I didn't realize it was freestyle untill it started (I was the last one in) and OMG was it hectic! Luck was with me at the start and I could mass some armies and I won the game even with mistakes made from never playing that map before. I do not think I will play that mode again however....

The first 20 minutes were the wildest and most chaotic I have ever seen on a CC Board though!!

^

I've played a hell of a lot of rt freestyle games. They're absolutely crazy - you have to concentrate so hard on getting your timing right. A territory could switch hands several times in one turn. (True - they have all been 3 or 4 player games)

I think a lot of people don't realise that escalating games require a completely different strategy than flat rate or no card games. In flat rate, and especially no card games, the most important factor for growth and strength is owning continents. I think most would agree that the best strategy is to try and hold continents.

The problem a lot of people have with escalating games is that they try to play a strategy based on getting continents. Most of the time these people get beat out by someone who has put themselves in a position to steal cards. They don't realise that the person who stole cards ws trying to place themselves in a position to get cards and probably was ignoring continents all together. They think this person was just lucky to get cards. As the person was not playing in what they perceive as basic strategy (taking continents), they figure the player sucked and simply got lucky.

But really this person won because they altered their strategy for the escalating games. Here is an example of my escalating strategy and tactics:

I ignore continents and simply try and stay out of my opponents way. The begining of the game consists of fighting as little as possible. This usually involves hanging around in Asia somewhere. I try and consolidate my troops and put myself in a position to trade in a set at the opportune time and take someone elses cards.

There's lots of good tactics for this. I try to put myself in a position to attack in a lot of different directions. This means I don't, for example, have all my troops in Japon and have a single one of my own armies in Kamtchatka. This would prevent my army from sweeping into North America. I also try and isolate single armies from somebody else inside my frontiers. Basicially, I make a defensive sheild around a singe enemy army. If an enemy has an army in Japan, I'll build troops in Kamtchatka and Mongolia, so anyone taking out that colour has to fight through me. This usually gives me a monopoly on getting that person's cards.

What do people thing of this? Am I full of shit?

so far I've only played flat rate cards, and mainly freestyle... taking my turns at the right time has been key to at least half my wins, and wiping out players and stealing their cards is the key to the other half, I think... even with flat rate, those extra armies are really important But I like the strategy of continents, which is why I like flat rather than escalating... as bishop said, with escalating, continents don't really mean anything.