Alter Initial Placement?

j35t3r.us · Post by **j35t3r.us** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:59 pm

Concise description:
CHOOSE or ALTER Initial Placement

Specifics:
Just like in "risk" you can change the initial placement by not having 3 units on every territory you own. You start the game either using random placement by dealing out the cards or by picking territories one at a time by placing one guy on that territory. On Conquer Club, I propose that the computer randomly generates your initial placement much like it does now, but instead of automatically placing 3 units on each of your starting territories for you, it only places 1 unit on each of those territories. Upon the "start of the game" all players would get a pre-game deployment phase in which they each take turns placing their "reserves" which would normally already be on the board in stacks of 3. For the sake of the website and the game engine, I would say placing 2 units at a time would be best since 1 at a time is slow, and 3 at a time makes normal 3-unit-per-territory Conquer Club un-even for people who miss their pre-game deployment phase(explained below). It would be up to the players of this site as to whether or not all 2 would have to be placed onto a single territory, or if you could spread them out.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:
I feel this idea would just be a neutral addition to the site. Would add more customization to the game, but also add more delay. I strongly feel this would be a great addition to SPEED GAMES!!!

HOWEVER. I STRONGLY feel this will improve the initial two turns of game play due to the dreaded "First Turn." (you all know what I'm talking about, the sad victim who has to go first and blow his whole deployment onto a space to smash up against a 3-stack and loose all his guys, then just start spamming "auto-attack" furiously trying to get spoils for the turn... Yes...) This will fix that since everyone will have a general focus and available attacks that have(or at least should have!) high success rates.

EDIT - OH! I forgot to mention - This will greatly improve TEAM play as well as completely add to the excitement of strategy based maps that involving war-fronts/castles/entrances, aka: Attacker/Defender, etc etc, it would actually make sense to have attacking and defending forces already in place for the assault! Also, noting that it would help solve the lucky "starting with a country" problem.

Thoughts?

PS: It may add 4-5 turns of play to the game before the game even STARTS, but I feel those 4-5 turns "wasted" will add to a much better and solid game. Not to mention in a Speed game it won't be an issue.

tarman2010 · Post by **tarman2010** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:22 pm

This sounds very interesting. I like the idea of being to alter the random placement a bit since very often you will end up in a game where the other person has a power block given to them by the random placement. In unlimited fortification games especially, these power blocks can decide the game on the first turn. This change would allow players to combat these strongholds from the beginning.

However, what about games where a person joins and never shows up, as many new players do? How will a player not taking his placement turn affect the game?

j35t3r.us · Post by **j35t3r.us** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:30 am

Before I address your question, I have edited my original post:

"I recommend 2 units at a time be placed instead of my original plan of placing 3 at a time. This will make it easy to technically put 2 on your territories at a time 2 for each territory you own and basically have a normal Conquer Club placement."

tarman2010 wrote:However, what about games where a person joins and never shows up, as many new players do? How will a player not taking his placement turn affect the game?

Thanks for the reply, I completely agree. To address your second point:

I believe people not showing up, missing turns, all that stuff, needs to be addressed as a whole and not just pertaining to this idea I've suggested.

People not showing up or missing turns is a pretty large problem for PUGs. As far as friend games, or people you know it isn't as big a deal.

A SOLUTION for your question:

If someone chooses to(or defaults to, explained below): They me automatically assign 2 units to all territories they own. This will resemble normal Conquer Club placement. If you MISS your deployment phase, 2 of your units will automatically be assigned to a RANDOM territory you own. This will continue to happen until you have no more units to place. Basically, the ending result of MISSING your Pre-Game deployment will be a NORMAL Conquer Club start.

Artimis · Post by **Artimis** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:00 am

This would add significant delay in a Casual game, we get New Recruits deadbeating now when they find that they have to wait all day to take their turn. Imagine how many more would deadbeat if they had to wait days to place their entire army in sequence with all the other players........

If this is going to be an option it definitely needs to be restricted to Speed games otherwise the Casual games will be going slow enough that they might start going backwards! :shock:

j35t3r.us · Post by **j35t3r.us** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:48 pm

I did mention this would be a GREAT speed game addition, but note, I also did mention it WOULD in fact add delay to a casual game. HOWEVER, deadbeating is ALREADY a problem without this addition, and needs a different solution and shouldn't be counted towards the cons to this. While a normal game goes what? 10? 20? 30? turns? The addition of 4-5 deployment turns really doesn't affect the larger picture no?

Thoughts?

j35t3r.us · Post by **j35t3r.us** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:56 pm

EDITED ORIGINAL POST:

Added: "This will also help solve the lucky "starting with a country" random placement."

j35t3r.us · Post by **j35t3r.us** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:02 pm

Mods?

j35t3r.us · Post by **j35t3r.us** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:55 pm

C'mon, there's gotta be more than 3 people who have some input? Help me out here!

blakebowling · Post by **blakebowling** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:19 pm

j35t3r.us wrote:C'mon, there's gotta be more than 3 people who have some input? Help me out here!

Me Thinks that maybe after four bumps in a row you should stop bumping to ask for input, if someone wants to post in your thread, they will find it.

j35t3r.us · Post by **j35t3r.us** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:17 pm

blakebowling wrote:Me Thinks that maybe after four bumps in a row you should stop bumping to ask for input, if someone wants to post in your thread, they will find it.

Says the guy who bumps the thread... Thank you for your input, although I was hoping for something more productive.

j35t3r.us · Post by **j35t3r.us** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:52 pm

How can one of the most radical ideas of CC engine reformat have one of the lowest amount of replies?!

*Hold door open for Trolls*

C'mon in!

GenuineEarlGrey · Post by **GenuineEarlGrey** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:11 pm

j35t3r.us wrote:How can one of the most radical ideas of CC engine reformat have one of the lowest amount of replies?!

Radical - not really.
Another reply - does that help?

j35t3r.us · Post by **j35t3r.us** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 6:50 pm

GenuineEarlGrey wrote:
j35t3r.us wrote:How can one of the most radical ideas of CC engine reformat have one of the lowest amount of replies?!
Radical - not really.
Another reply - does that help?

How is this NOT one of the most radical ideas (possible idea that is ;p) ever?
Yes, thanks for the reply. =)

Woodruff · Post by **Woodruff** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:06 pm

j35t3r.us wrote:
GenuineEarlGrey wrote:
j35t3r.us wrote:How can one of the most radical ideas of CC engine reformat have one of the lowest amount of replies?!
Radical - not really.
Another reply - does that help?

How is this NOT one of the most radical ideas (possible idea that is ;p) ever?
Yes, thanks for the reply. =)

It's not that radical because it was a very common way to play the original Risk board game.

j35t3r.us · Post by **j35t3r.us** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 6:41 pm

We're not talking about the Risk board game...

Thats like saying:
The lightbulb wasn't radical... We had sun...

Taking yet another idea from what we ALL KNOW obviously is the game behind Conquer Club is definitely not an idea to be instantly rejected.

I mean seriously... In a war, the majority of your forces will be focused and start in YOUR homeland or in your target area, with some spread out around the world, you wouldn't have random insurgents EVERYWHERE waiting to strike... <----- Unless that is your plan, but it is not EVERY armies plan. There's always one or two that do that however.

Woodruff · Post by **Woodruff** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:08 pm

j35t3r.us wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
j35t3r.us wrote:How is this NOT one of the most radical ideas (possible idea that is ;p) ever?

It's not that radical because it was a very common way to play the original Risk board game.

We're not talking about the Risk board game...
Thats like saying:
The lightbulb wasn't radical... We had sun...
Taking yet another idea from what we ALL KNOW obviously is the game behind Conquer Club is definitely not an idea to be instantly rejected.

Who is rejecting the idea? I'm simply saying it's not a very radical idea (which it quite frankly is not). Geez, get defensive much?

GenuineEarlGrey · Post by **GenuineEarlGrey** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 5:40 pm

Woodruff wrote:Who is rejecting the idea? I'm simply saying it's not a very radical idea (which it quite frankly is not). Geez, get defensive much?

Couldn't have put it better myself.

j35t3r.us wrote:I mean seriously... In a war, the majority of your forces will be focused and start in YOUR homeland or in your target area, with some spread out around the world

Now there's a good example.

Nothing like a good example to put your idea into context. It helps the debate. The Feudal War, some of the Age of Realms and New World have some of these features. You build up at home before moving on.

j35t3r.us · Post by **j35t3r.us** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:41 pm

lol... manual placement... /win

Alter Initial Placement?

Alter Initial Placement?

Re: Alter Initial Placement?

Re: Alter Initial Placement?

Re: Alter Initial Placement?

Re: Alter Initial Placement?

Re: Alter Initial Placement?

Re: Alter Initial Placement?

Re: Alter Initial Placement?

Re: Alter Initial Placement?

Re: Alter Initial Placement?

Re: Alter Initial Placement?

Re: Alter Initial Placement?

Re: Alter Initial Placement?

Re: Alter Initial Placement?

Re: Alter Initial Placement?

Re: Alter Initial Placement?

Re: Alter Initial Placement?

Re: Alter Initial Placement?