Conquer Club

there are already 2 threads about this in the GD!

- PENIS!

shieldgenerator7 wrote:So how exactly is this differnt from FoW?

all i can say is

but to answer your question, FOW is a completely different thing. Trench thing is just an attack restriction. in short, if you conquer a spot and advanced your troops, , you cannot keep attacking from the newly conquered one. Though, you can advance 0 and still attack from the same original spot. This makes a bonus unbreakable if it's completely surrounded by friendly territories! so be careful and keep an eye on every potential bonus the enemy may grab, and stay close (like own an adjacent territory to that potential bonus region) and ready to break!

Perhaps Shield was curious on why they both apply as Special Gameplay features as opposed to other things?

Leehar wrote:Perhaps Shield was curious on why they both apply as Special Gameplay features as opposed to other things?

I think because Special Gameplay are more like modifier elements of gameplay, not related to Spoils / Reinforcement / etc.

I think Special Gameplay also paves the way for some other modifier like elements to be added probably!


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:

Leehar wrote:Perhaps Shield was curious on why they both apply as Special Gameplay features as opposed to other things?

I think because Special Gameplay are more like modifier elements of gameplay, not related to Spoils / Reinforcement / etc.

I think Special Gameplay also paves the way for some other modifier like elements to be added probably!


--Andy

I don't mind if you expand on that statement...

There should be a resign option in trench games with no round limit.

hoytdwow wrote:There should be a resign option in trench games with no round limit.

What if people resigned without actually playing to give their points away?

chapcrap wrote:

hoytdwow wrote:There should be a resign option in trench games with no round limit.

What if people resigned without actually playing to give their points away?

I'm sure that would be covered under gross abuse of the game? Or perhaps another rule would need to be created relating to it.

I think the 'Domination' suggestion (about owning 'x%' of regions and having 'x%' of troops = win) seems better than a resign feature, and it was what I'd probably like to see investigated first.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:I think the 'Domination' suggestion (about owning 'x%' of regions and having 'x%' of troops = win) seems better than a resign feature, and it was what I'd probably like to see investigated first.


--Andy

I think that's a great solution. It should act like a game objective, where it has to be like that at the beginning of your turn.

Why/How is that different from Round Limits, and if it's similar enough is it worth coding?

chapcrap wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:I think the 'Domination' suggestion (about owning 'x%' of regions and having 'x%' of troops = win) seems better than a resign feature, and it was what I'd probably like to see investigated first.

--Andy

I think that's a great solution. It should act like a game objective, where it has to be like that at the beginning of your turn.

Exactly! Like Chap Crap said, It would be like a goal to reach where as a round limit is more like playing musical chairs that when the music stops you may have more territories but not enough troops. You could be on the road to a strategic win on a long range plan but nope, the music has stop, you couldn't get to an empty chair in time and that is what determined the win.

With a 70% of the game won and 70% of the total troop count, there is just no way that you can lose against 30% of who ever is left even if they all gang up and you and play their troops to the death. Strategy is what determined the winner and not that you could not find an empty chair in time. It forces one to play their troops rather than to keep them within say 25% of the game.

So say 3 players are left and they each have 10 troops each. They play 3 times and 3 times you get hit. What difference does that make against your 70 troops? With what ever is left of your 70 troops, lets say 40 troops you can eliminate all 3 because if you lost 30 troops approximately then so did they. And if we are talking about spoils then anyone of the 3 that you eliminate will gain you their spoils and the greater advantage so that it comes back to strategy and not chance.

The strategy of conquering and being on the path to conquering the game is what should determine the winner. Otherwise you will be left with the burning question; "I could have won that game. I had the bonuses or the cards or what ever, I even had the right strategical regions and even had them on the run. I was just about to turn in my spoils and eliminate a player, [[[Ahhhh!]]], but then the music stopped!"

I don't like this idea, this site is a "Total domination" game. Not a "Seventy percent domination" game.

ask me2 wrote:I don't like this idea, this site is a "Total domination" game. Not a "Seventy percent domination" game.

Mmmhm, I see your point, and I think it echoes or is similar to why we ditched the forfeit button after a couple of months in early 2006.

I think a counter argument against your point, is the argument of 'Inevitability.'' In Trench games, more than probably any other game, if you build acquire a massive amount of the board and troops, it is a matter of time before victory is likely to be achieved...since even a giant escalating cash, while it map flip the amount of troops in an opponent's favor, they likely can't use those troops to gain back giant swaths of the board (as normally would be the case in non-Trench games).

A few other setting combos probably also lead to an 'Inevitability Argument' (such as a no spoils adjacent game), but since Trench is a whole new gameplay, I'd rather see such a feature only applied to Trench games, instead of a blanket option for all games.

In any case, I think if we were to ever consider implementing something like this, we would go back to topics like this and see what sort of feedback there was, in addition to probably a new round of public feedback as well.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:I think the 'Domination' suggestion (about owning 'x%' of regions and having 'x%' of troops = win) seems better than a resign feature, and it was what I'd probably like to see investigated first.


--Andy

what if the losing party wants to play it out till the bitter end?

Just make it that you can only resign if the other player approves of the resign. Similarly point dumping is a minimal issue considering we have a handful of them a year. Its not like point dumping is hard to do under the current one min turns...so factoring that into a decision is not really necessary.

ljex wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:I think the 'Domination' suggestion (about owning 'x%' of regions and having 'x%' of troops = win) seems better than a resign feature, and it was what I'd probably like to see investigated first.


--Andy

what if the losing party wants to play it out till the bitter end?

Just make it that you can only resign if the other player approves of the resign. Similarly point dumping is a minimal issue considering we have a handful of them a year. Its not like point dumping is hard to do under the current one min turns...so factoring that into a decision is not really necessary.

I think the arguments against resigning / forfeiting this way in the suggestions topics respond to these pretty well, perhaps look in one of those.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:

ljex wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:I think the 'Domination' suggestion (about owning 'x%' of regions and having 'x%' of troops = win) seems better than a resign feature, and it was what I'd probably like to see investigated first.


--Andy

what if the losing party wants to play it out till the bitter end?

Just make it that you can only resign if the other player approves of the resign. Similarly point dumping is a minimal issue considering we have a handful of them a year. Its not like point dumping is hard to do under the current one min turns...so factoring that into a decision is not really necessary.

I think the arguments against resigning / forfeiting this way in the suggestions topics respond to these pretty well, perhaps look in one of those.


--Andy

I have looked at them in the past, there will always be reasons to do something and reasons to not do something. It is still my personal opinion that a resign feature would not cause any harm provided people were allowed to not let people resign. Then people who want to play it out get to and those who don't have the option not to. It serves the needs of everyone giving priority to the current status quo.

It's hard to have a total domination game when so many games end in deadbeat's. Playing out a game with no opponent gets very old as does deploy and end for several rounds while a finished game creeps toward a conclusion.

Exactly; After a certain point in the game, it's obvious that you won or lost.

I've been playing most of my Trench games on the Island of Doom map, and I quite like the way it plays with the setting. I think lack of continents (but also the lack of a tremendous amount of neutrals), in addition to 2 winning conditions has made for a number of fun games...


--Andy

hoytdwow wrote:There should be a resign option in trench games with no round limit.

Seriously this post from you? You who gave me a deadbeat rating for respectfully resigning a ONE MINUTE TRENCH FEUDAL EPIC game?

You have NO basis for calling for a resign function if you are going to punish your losing opponents like you do.

You are disingenuous at BEST...


Here's the game number, and you can see the rating easily enough. Game 11038004

I have nothing more to say to you...

What about a resign feature that is greyed out until like 70% terit dominaation. So if they want to play it out they can. However you just cant do it at turn 2 because someone got a epic roll turn 1 and your mad about it.

I think a solution like this would be the best of both worlds and make everyone happy yes?

eggrollonedolla wrote:I think a solution like this would make everyone happy yes?

So naive...

But I like your solution. I would give it a thumbs up, like, or +1 if I could!

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=170398

chapcrap wrote:

eggrollonedolla wrote:I think a solution like this would make everyone happy yes?

So naive...

But I like your solution. I would give it a thumbs up, like, or +1 if I could!

https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 4&t=170398

only trying to turn a new leaf. everyone tells me to stop being so pessimistic and im getting tired of it so Im trying something new here. bare with me.