Re: CC is not what it used to be
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:50 pm
Sure, we have freedom of speech. But I lol'ed.bigg chief wrote:Grade 9 was fun , college was more funner though !![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
http://www.tools.conquerclub.com/forum/
http://www.tools.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=182762
Sure, we have freedom of speech. But I lol'ed.bigg chief wrote:Grade 9 was fun , college was more funner though !![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
You told me you drink cocktails Chief. How many Alligator Coolers would you get for $75?bigg chief wrote: 75 bucks that is almost 2 cases of beer
Don't u attack with 3 dice versus 1? HahaJohnny Rockets wrote:The Fact that you attack in these situations explains your "luck".hulmey wrote:
Checked my dice stats and i have -66% luck in 3 vs 1 situation's, -58% luck 2 vs 1 and 3 vs 2 have -11% luck. it just totally messes any strategy you might have. Might as well not bother
JRock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_%28ga ... babilitiesJohnny Rockets wrote:You like to attack a lot of 3v1's? 2v1's?
Send me an invite then, rube.
JRock

I wish I could have had a chance to play that map.The Voice wrote:I miss Classic Art. My winning percentage was so much better than on Classic.
It was interesting to look at. Like a poorly designed museum floorplanFunkyterrance wrote:I wish I could have had a chance to play that map.The Voice wrote:I miss Classic Art. My winning percentage was so much better than on Classic.
Ouch, lol. I just never got used to the lines joining the terts in the classic map. I feel like having the borders, however ugly the map may be, would make it seem more like the board game. I will probably never know though.rdsrds2120 wrote:It was interesting to look at. Like a poorly designed museum floorplanFunkyterrance wrote:I wish I could have had a chance to play that map.The Voice wrote:I miss Classic Art. My winning percentage was so much better than on Classic.
BMO
Sure you willFunkyterrance wrote: Ouch, lol. I just never got used to the lines joining the terts in the classic map. I feel like having the borders, however ugly the map may be, would make it seem more like the board game. I will probably never know though.
rdsrds2120 wrote:Sure you willFunkyterrance wrote: Ouch, lol. I just never got used to the lines joining the terts in the classic map. I feel like having the borders, however ugly the map may be, would make it seem more like the board game. I will probably never know though.
BMO
Cool, thanks, that's half the battle. Now where can I play it?rdsrds2120 wrote:Sure you willFunkyterrance wrote: Ouch, lol. I just never got used to the lines joining the terts in the classic map. I feel like having the borders, however ugly the map may be, would make it seem more like the board game. I will probably never know though.
BMO
Here you go:Funkyterrance wrote:Cool, thanks, that's half the battle. Now where can I play it?rdsrds2120 wrote:Sure you willFunkyterrance wrote: Ouch, lol. I just never got used to the lines joining the terts in the classic map. I feel like having the borders, however ugly the map may be, would make it seem more like the board game. I will probably never know though.
BMO
It does seem to be lacking that certain something, that indefinable "it", but I want a shot at it anyway.

lol, I agree. I goqwert wrote:classic crap, not classic art. When i remember that i spend 16 month on WWII Europe, and these map are create for 24 hours. Pure classic crap.
Have you ever seen landgrab? Here: http://landgrab.net/landgrab/Home I think this site is better for you. No fancy graphics, just like you want.AAFitz wrote:sorry to say, I enjoy classic art, more than WWII Europe which is overdone, and not made for players as much as mapmakers.qwert wrote:classic crap, not classic art. When i remember that i spend 16 month on WWII Europe, and these map are create for 24 hours. Pure classic crap.
Next time, keep it more simple, and people will enjoy playing it. I respect the art of it, but Im here to play risk, not look at pretty pictures.
Im amazed at how many map makers miss this, and ruin lots of maps, in the effort to make them better. You are even bragging about it here, oblivious to what people actually like, and knocking those who did a great job of providing just that.
And you know full well that shapes and art where made quickly to fill the void after the original classic map was taken down.qwert wrote:classic crap, not classic art. When i remember that i spend 16 month on WWII Europe, and these map are create for 24 hours. Pure classic crap.

i dont mind for temporary maps, but for all these crap people dont need to be awarded, especially for classic crap. I only can hope that these kind of work never hepend again, and that all work you do in map foundry.koontz1973 wrote:And you know full well that shapes and art where made quickly to fill the void after the original classic map was taken down.qwert wrote:classic crap, not classic art. When i remember that i spend 16 month on WWII Europe, and these map are create for 24 hours. Pure classic crap.
Neither where great maps, we all know that, but both maps went around the foundry for the above reason. But like art, I would not mind a few games on this one for nostalgia reasons.
Im sorry aafitz, but maps like Classic Crap(art), simple maps with zero graphic, are prohibited to be made in regular work,and all map makers who will even try to create similar style are blocked right in beginning,in map foundry. If you want more maps like these, then you need to make some suggestion and to find many voters, to decrease many high standards in map making. If you succeed, then existence of Foundry foreman, will not be need, because everybody will be in position to make these type of maps.AAFitz wrote:
sorry to say, I enjoy classic art, more than WWII Europe which is overdone, and not made for players as much as mapmakers.
Next time, keep it more simple, and people will enjoy playing it. I respect the art of it, but Im here to play risk, not look at pretty pictures.
Im amazed at how many map makers miss this, and ruin lots of maps, in the effort to make them better. You are even bragging about it here, oblivious to what people actually like, and knocking those who did a great job of providing just that.
I appreciate your trying to help Gillipig but you haven't been paying attention.Gillipig wrote:Here you go:Funkyterrance wrote:Cool, thanks, that's half the battle. Now where can I play it?rdsrds2120 wrote:Sure you willFunkyterrance wrote: Ouch, lol. I just never got used to the lines joining the terts in the classic map. I feel like having the borders, however ugly the map may be, would make it seem more like the board game. I will probably never know though.
BMO
It does seem to be lacking that certain something, that indefinable "it", but I want a shot at it anyway.
Funkyterrance wrote:I appreciate your trying to help Gillipig but you haven't been paying attention.Gillipig wrote:Here you go:Funkyterrance wrote:Cool, thanks, that's half the battle. Now where can I play it?rdsrds2120 wrote:Sure you willFunkyterrance wrote: Ouch, lol. I just never got used to the lines joining the terts in the classic map. I feel like having the borders, however ugly the map may be, would make it seem more like the board game. I will probably never know though.
BMO
It does seem to be lacking that certain something, that indefinable "it", but I want a shot at it anyway.
I did get your joke/point, Gillipig, It's just that I'm looking for the "feel" of the board game. I'm inclined to believe that the Classic Art map would capture this "feel" better than the available classic map.Gillipig wrote:you're one of a kind funky, one of a kind.