Conquer Club

sooo.... any more ideas??

suggestions about this option of gameplay?? opinions? questions?....

dont like idea at all i would quit if implemented

it would totally kill escalating 8 man games

kcoenich wrote:

jarrett155 wrote:to be honest you make no sense here... you are not arguing that this would restrict strategies but you are saying it makes the game more strategic..... i think you need to go get a dictionary and look up restrict.

yes, the game is more strategic, cause the strategy part of the game takes more importance...

This presumes that building up armies isn't strategic, which is an erroneous presumption.

still you have to build up armies to win... but you need to build them in more territories and those territories have to be on strategic points to make them more effective...

This is still a bad idea because it WILL kill 8 man escalating games as well as games played on Age of realms 1, 2 & 3, not to mention how much it'll screw up Feudal War games also. There is no gain saying the opposition to this suggestion, no, no and NO! You cannot sell this dead duck to anyone, stop trying!

kcoenich wrote:still you have to build up armies to win... but you need to build them in more territories and those territories have to be on strategic points to make them more effective...

That is only YOUR perpective on "effective". For my part, I've seen many VERY effective strategies of building up armies on ONLY ONE SINGLE territory until that territory had 50+ armies on it, then rampaging through to capture a couple of bonuses, while having enough left over to hold them. That is pretty effective. This is a reasonably frequent strategy in large no-card non-terminator games when someone is left with only one (or two non-connected) territories left.

j ajaja, I dont know how everybody thinks that I'm proposing this as a standard rule... its an OPTION. who ever wants to create a game with this gameplay, excellent. I would only create this tipe of game... cause, for me, its a great gameplay for using the head to win the games, not to get passive and lucky enough to create a damm big army to take enough bonuses or conquering the whole map to win... (lucky cause opponents could find out your plan and take out your developing army).

I have to ask if anyone of you hace actually played with this option... have you??

man, i thought i had shot this thread down



anyway, if there was a rule that didnt let you attack, but it was an option, dont you still think it would be kind of unfair to instate it. after all, nobody can win if all the territs have 20, attacking someone with the same number is a stupid chance to take.

now, that was an exaguration, but you get what im saying, you shouldent have the option to block of strategies,

although, blocking truces, might be a good idea

I personally don't see any problems with this being an optional setting, but I doubt it'll be rolled out in a hurry, if at all.

I see a lot of advantages in this gameplay... and I know there's lots of people that doesnt know the advantages cause they've never played it... or they are used to classic gameplay, I think its aplicable to every player and to every map on the site. also would create lots of great quality games...

dude... just drop it, mmmkay?

kcoenich wrote:Concise description:
stablish

You spelled establish wrong twice...

don't know if it's already been mentioned, but what happens when all your territories are at max and you have more to deploy still?

if you are maxed out on your territories, you lose any army you have left to deploy... a price you pay for having to few territories... ja ja.

I think this is a fantastic idea. I think what a lot of these people aren't getting is that it would be *optional*. Don't like it? Don't play it. It would add a whole new style of play, that I personally would love to try. Especially if you could decide the numbers.

For all of those who keep saying "it would KILL 8 man escalating games" might I suggest, if this ever gets implemented, you don't turn on this option when playing 8 man escalating games? Da da! Problem solved.



On almost every single one of these suggestions you guys spend the whole time bickering about some of the dumbest things. Like whether or not it is more or less strategic to have a cap? Who cares? Don't join a game where there's a cap if you don't like it. If you do, join it. No one's putting a gun to your head either way.

jakejakejakejake wrote:I think this is a fantastic idea. I think what a lot of these people aren't getting is that it would be *optional*. Don't like it? Don't play it.

I have nothing against new options as long as they add good/interesting new variants to play (even if I wouldn't like to play them myself). This option however I don't think would be a good/interesting variant. And poor options is, IMO, only detrimental to the site as it dilutes the number good/interesting games available.

Thezzaruz wrote:

jakejakejakejake wrote:I think this is a fantastic idea. I think what a lot of these people aren't getting is that it would be *optional*. Don't like it? Don't play it.

I have nothing against new options as long as they add good/interesting new variants to play (even if I wouldn't like to play them myself). This option however I don't think would be a good/interesting variant. And poor options is, IMO, only detrimental to the site as it dilutes the number good/interesting games available.

That's great, but it seems most of the reasoning on this topic by others has been "NOOOOOOO IT WOULD RUIN *one specific game mode* FOREVER", which is absurd.

Optional: Yes
Forced: No No No No No No No No

Prem.

jajaja... then "yes" cause it would be an option...

jakejakejakejake wrote:That's great, but it seems most of the reasoning on this topic by others has been "NOOOOOOO IT WOULD RUIN *one specific game mode* FOREVER", which is absurd.

Well IMO it would ruin all game modes but some (like largeish esq games) would be especially hard done by.

any reasons why it would ruin them???

kcoenich wrote:any reasons why it would ruin them???

In an escalating game, there would get to be a point where, no matter how many places you had, you could not use the entire amount of troops. On Doodle Earth/Luxembourg even if you have all but one place, you only have 17. If the limit is 20, then if you turn in a set for 400, you cannot place all of the troops.

How is strategy enhanced by limiting the number of choices you have?

In an escalating game, there would get to be a point where, no matter how many places you had, you could not use the entire amount of troops. On Doodle Earth/Luxembourg even if you have all but one place, you only have 17. If the limit is 20, then if you turn in a set for 400, you cannot place all of the troops.

well... usually in escalating games when someone change their set for a very large number its really weird to see that the player doesnt win the game.... and that number aint that big.. I've never seen someone change a set for more than 80 armies. not saying its not posible. the point is that if you couldnt manage to keep enough territories to be able to put armies when changing a set, eather you made a mistake, or someone else is beating you... and you'll have to come up with some strategy to counter attack him.

plus, limit isnt 20... the maker of the game is supposed to set it... could be 20, 30, 40, 12, 5, or whatever number he wants. I personally think that somewhere around 20 to 50 armies is enough to set the option... in fact could also be a number established randomly when the option is on...

How is strategy enhanced by limiting the number of choices you have?

number of choices of what?? choices of strategy?? the answer is that if you have a limit on territories you must plan very well attacks and set the right moves to defend as well not only when moving armies when you win a territory, but also when you make reinforcements...

what if its adjacent forts and if you fort the armies the count will still be over the troops/territ