Conquer Club

Like i said probably yes. But again, dice equal out no matter what. From what I see they can be a pain in the butt, but they end up being fair.

mancunia wrote:I couldn't agree more.In fact it would be better if there where no dice at all.

I like this idea as an add-on to the original statement. I mean seriously, if Im attacking a country, im not going to line everyone up on the boarder and warn the neighboring country. This is a full Blitzkreig on an unsuspecting country, they wouldnt have the opportunity to throw these "dice" or get ready for a defense. My suggestion is that if you have a "world power" and attack one of these smaller countries, that they shouldnt be able to fight back, that they should immediately be annexed into the other country without loss of armies.

Just figured we should make this game as realisitic as possible, so why dont we make the fighting that way as well?

Gold Knight wrote:

mancunia wrote:I couldn't agree more.In fact it would be better if there where no dice at all.

I like this idea as an add-on to the original statement. I mean seriously, if Im attacking a country, im not going to line everyone up on the boarder and warn the neighboring country. This is a full Blitzkreig on an unsuspecting country, they wouldnt have the opportunity to throw these "dice" or get ready for a defense. My suggestion is that if you have a "world power" and attack one of these smaller countries, that they shouldnt be able to fight back, that they should immediately be annexed into the other country without loss of armies.

Just figured we should make this game as realisitic as possible, so why dont we make the fighting that way as well?

But what you're suggesting isn't realistic. A single man can kill hundreds in one night. All soldiers are different, and people sometimes beat the real-life "odds" by possessing superior skill, intelligence, or physical strength.

Your assumption that all soldiers on the battlefield would be exactly equal to 1.0 CC cyber-soldier is what is unrealistic. It's more realistic to expect human beings to occasionally act out of character, or to surprise you. That is what happens in real life, not on the inert, lifeless computer screen.

Therefore I'm not surprised at all when 5 kills 20, or 6 kills 30, or whatever.

I chalk it up to a superbly realistic game setup, one whose creation took a lot of thought and effort. Those with intelligence make careful use of this realistic unpredictability, instead of complaining about it.

LOVE THE DICE!!!

wait... klobber is back in the forums? once again, the world is right...-0

KLOBBER wrote:But what you're suggesting isn't realistic. A single man can kill hundreds in one night. All soldiers are different, and people sometimes beat the real-life "odds" by possessing superior skill, intelligence, or physical strength.

Your assumption that all soldiers on the battlefield would be exactly equal to 1.0 CC cyber-soldier is what is unrealistic. It's more realistic to expect human beings to occasionally act out of character, or to surprise you. That is what happens in real life, not on the inert, lifeless computer screen.

Therefore I'm not surprised at all when 5 kills 20, or 6 kills 30, or whatever.

I chalk it up to a superbly realistic game setup.

LOVE THE DICE!!!

Agree 100% with this.

Besides, with no dice, games like escalating sequential would get really boring, since the calculations would involve hm... if opponent armies < cash amount, then kill. And that would work 100% of the time. What is the fun in that? Getting rid of dice would oversimplify the game way too much, making it very predictable.

I'd like to reiterate my amusement with this thread. It was started as a wonderfully crafted joke, and yet some people see it and say, "oh thank god. someone else sees it too." You all amuse me immensely.

The Neon Peon wrote:

KLOBBER wrote:But what you're suggesting isn't realistic. A single man can kill hundreds in one night. All soldiers are different, and people sometimes beat the real-life "odds" by possessing superior skill, intelligence, or physical strength.

Your assumption that all soldiers on the battlefield would be exactly equal to 1.0 CC cyber-soldier is what is unrealistic. It's more realistic to expect human beings to occasionally act out of character, or to surprise you. That is what happens in real life, not on the inert, lifeless computer screen.

Therefore I'm not surprised at all when 5 kills 20, or 6 kills 30, or whatever.

I chalk it up to a superbly realistic game setup.

LOVE THE DICE!!!

Agree 100% with this.

Besides, with no dice, games like escalating sequential would get really boring, since the calculations would involve hm... if opponent armies < cash amount, then kill. And that would work 100% of the time. What is the fun in that? Getting rid of dice would oversimplify the game way too much, making it very predictable.

Exactly.

Timminz wrote:I'd like to reiterate my amusement with this thread. It was started as a wonderfully crafted joke, and yet some people see it and say, "oh thank god. someone else sees it too." You all amuse me immensely.

i can not believe the joy this has brought into my sunday... i mean, here i was wasting my time reading the NY Times book review, with this thread right under my nose!!! just genius... it keeps getting better... and when you think it can't get any better, they sprinkled in a little Klobber!!! perfection!!!-0

murphy16 wrote:But have you lost the game when you should have won?

We really should win them all, but the dice so rarely play fair.