Conquer Club

cicero wrote:Yeah, but apart from all that ?


But more seriously you say that "games will go on for much longer" and also that it "looks pretty biased towards the player who goes first" and that it "will make team games a farce, as the team going first simply needs to target one player to win the game" ... ?

Personally I agree with the last two (and most of your other) objections, but I'm confused as to how the first objection can also be true .

Sorry Cic, I was making an assumption that removing the dice to reduce the luck factor would also involve removing the cards (ie - No Cards games) to completely remove the luck factor. I should have clarified that originally.

In fact I think a no-dice Flat Rate game would be very fun. It'd be akin to poker, gambling on what cards you have in your hands, and trying to guess what your opponent has, and whether they're defending a territory for card-value or if it's a strategic move.

Imagine an escalating game though... what would be the point of getting your fifth card? Honestly... if there is no luck involved, why would anyone cash-in. The first 3 or so cash-ins would be suicide. An Esc game with good players would turn into a *yawn* build game. Build games are the bane of this site - I have been stuck in 2 for about a month now. I am so glad I'm premium so I don't have to worry about game count.

But getting back to that escalating point - in order to get a set, you pretty much need 4 cards on average. To attain 4 cards, you're most likely going to have to take out 4 territories of (say for arguments sake) 2 armies each on average. That's 8 armies you have to take out for first cash-in. Why would you attack? Your relative weakness would be compounded by the more players in the game. Think of it this way - you play an 8 player game, everyone starts with 24 armies, you take out a 3-terr to begin. That means you have 21 armies, 1 opponent has 21 armies, 6 opponents have 24 armies. Why would you put yourself in that situation? It's what is generally termed 'suicide' on this site. Weakening yourself and another player thereby augmenting the strength of all other opponents. I can see a whole lot of bad coming from this suggestion...

e_i_pi wrote:

cicero wrote:Yeah, but apart from all that ?


But more seriously you say that "games will go on for much longer" and also that it "looks pretty biased towards the player who goes first" and that it "will make team games a farce, as the team going first simply needs to target one player to win the game" ... ?

Personally I agree with the last two (and most of your other) objections, but I'm confused as to how the first objection can also be true .

Sorry Cic, I was making an assumption that removing the dice to reduce the luck factor would also involve removing the cards (ie - No Cards games) to completely remove the luck factor. I should have clarified that originally.

In fact I think a no-dice Flat Rate game would be very fun. It'd be akin to poker, gambling on what cards you have in your hands, and trying to guess what your opponent has, and whether they're defending a territory for card-value or if it's a strategic move.

Imagine an escalating game though... what would be the point of getting your fifth card? Honestly... if there is no luck involved, why would anyone cash-in. The first 3 or so cash-ins would be suicide. An Esc game with good players would turn into a *yawn* build game. Build games are the bane of this site - I have been stuck in 2 for about a month now. I am so glad I'm premium so I don't have to worry about game count.

But getting back to that escalating point - in order to get a set, you pretty much need 4 cards on average. To attain 4 cards, you're most likely going to have to take out 4 territories of (say for arguments sake) 2 armies each on average. That's 8 armies you have to take out for first cash-in. Why would you attack? Your relative weakness would be compounded by the more players in the game. Think of it this way - you play an 8 player game, everyone starts with 24 armies, you take out a 3-terr to begin. That means you have 21 armies, 1 opponent has 21 armies, 6 opponents have 24 armies. Why would you put yourself in that situation? It's what is generally termed 'suicide' on this site. Weakening yourself and another player thereby augmenting the strength of all other opponents. I can see a whole lot of bad coming from this suggestion...

You don't really understand the strategic value of having 4 armies on the field before the opponent can make a move? Do you realize that you could, in a 1v1 as you describe, use a cash in to eliminate an opponent from one side of the map, thus making him possibly fight a two front war to your single (because he can no longer deploy on that one side) front war? Thus you only have to fortify a limited number of chokepoints to your opponent who has to fortify both sides lest he lose territories and thus get a lower territory count and thus a lower deployment, which in no dice games would be utterly devastating. Especially if those 4 armies would allow you to reduce your opponents territories enough so that they get 1 less army for deployment, thus only creating a single army difference... where you've fortified all your armies from one front to the other, and could maintain an army advantage.

That's how I see it at least, and that's the advantage of cashing first in a regular game . Although I could be wrong... it would be highly dependent on the circumstance anyways.

This would be great... I approve this idea...

Although the problem about having the advantage of deploying first is somewhat problematic. I think that this kind of game should only be played in freestyle mode since the fastest to deploy then would have the advantage. In sequential it could pose a problem and become an option that kills it's own popularity because of the unfair advantage sequential gaming works.

crazycoders wrote:This would be great... I approve this idea...

Although the problem about having the advantage of deploying first is somewhat problematic. I think that this kind of game should only be played in freestyle mode since the fastest to deploy then would have the advantage. In sequential it could pose a problem and become an option that kills it's own popularity because of the unfair advantage sequential gaming works.

So wait, you think that removing the problem means letting the one with the fastest connection win?



Basically it's just a bad idea since the compensating factor, i.e. the dice, would go away so you're left with first turn/deployment advantage. The dice are random for a reason, so that any advantage from first turn or your deployment is less of an advantage.


I don't know a game without any random factor playing that has random deployment which isn't equal. Seriously, equal deployment is what is key to playing a tactfull game.

Never said anything about fastest connexion, said something about dedication to the game, some peeps are on CC 8h/day.

PS, since i didnt want to hijack this thread, i created a new thread about suggestions to randomize the game a bit even in a no dice game. See it here:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=59150

dice already ready are an option...can throw one drop at a time or can auto-dice and do all at once...

people who voted good idea = 90 percent noobs

people who voted bad idea = accomplished stategists



DO NOT DO THIS

please think it through so many players come to this thread after bad rolls pouting and want to get rid of it because they believe removing dice will magically make them good or something idk

the original founders of risk knew what they were doing, they found a perfect middle ground between luck and skill

its not gambling and its not chess

its perfect ^_^

Paddy The Cat wrote:DO NOT DO THIS

I don't think anyone believes this will actually happen here. It's not Risk without dice. At least the other options are somewhat like the game (play at the same time; kill a specific person; play as a team). This is more like checkers to chess: it's on the same board, but it doesn't belong in the same class.

I really disagree with people who always think the original makers make everything best....

Whether its the board game RISK or the Constitution of the USA....

i dont think original makers always make it best.. but i think a vast majority of the time the original makers make it better than some random dude on a risk website..

its a different game without dice, its not risk anymore

Paddy The Cat wrote:i dont think original makers always make it best.. but i think a vast majority of the time the original makers make it better than some random dude on a risk website..

its a different game without dice, its not risk anymore

Copyright © 2006 by Salamander Software.
RISK is a registered trademark of Hasbro Inc. Conquer Club is not associated with RISK or Hasbro in any way.


its' never been risk

lol

FabledIntegral wrote:I really disagree with people who always think the original makers make everything best....

Whether its the board game RISK or the Constitution of the USA....

Wow. Somebody compared a hobby to a national Constitution. That takes balls

i hate dice who cares about the risk aspect of the game unless ur somekind of gambler ive lost like 5 games in one day just because of bad dice

[quote="Fruitcake"]
...More lifelike as the largest force always wins the battle, .../quote]

that is not lifelike by any stretch of the imagination. The United States Marine Corps is the smallest military branch in America, but they win wars based on fire and manuever, strategy, and the toughest training. those are the facts, look them up. Semper Fi.

this sounds retarded... basically the game is decided by the random placement of territories in the beginning of the game...

i dont c the big deal fruitcake is just asking to make no dice AN OPTION

1 - options are GOOD
2 - the people who votes yes may be mostly noobs, but they are still part of the cc community and deserve to have ther votes taken as seriously as the experienced players
3 - no dice games would provide a great alternative to cc gameplay and to decide between similar skilled opponents
4 - decide who infact was the best strategy skills luck is just luck, plus u cant even kiss the dice here
5 - its not a matter of if, it a matter of when. it is gonna be done. it was to be done. even if i have to learn how to program and do it myself in a few years

I added a post a while ago about this option to make the game a little more random but still less random than with dice battles. Please read (viewtopic.php?f=4&t=59150) and take it into account for this option as i think that no dice games wouldnt a bad option in itself but so static and mathematical too many people would play it.

I don't think that no dice games would be for noobs. Just a different kind of audience that would still play the game but feel more confortable about the game rules because they have more control of their environment.

ZeroDJoe wrote:5 - its not a matter of if, it a matter of when.

When you make your own website and set up the game there. Or you could play with a modified version of the home game - just throw away your dice.

as long as its optional its great
that way the people who like it can play it and the people who dislike it can play with dice
i cant understand how anyone can say no to this because nobodys going to mae them play it

Jeff Hardy wrote:as long as its optional its great
that way the people who like it can play it and the people who dislike it can play with dice
i cant understand how anyone can say no to this because nobodys going to mae them play it

No-dice makes this an entirely new game. Part of war (and consequently CC), is being able to deal with bad luck and take advantage of good luck. I say that if this ever does get implemented, it would require a completely different scoreboard. I just don't think the two systems are close enough to call them the same game.

i agree with jeff there si nothing wrong with playing no dice games ifu looked at the poll majority rules besides people who like dice games will stay in their own group and people who dont wont simple ans that

Every game is now a no-dice game...

MrBenn wrote:Every game is now a no-dice game...

What?

Gilligan wrote:

MrBenn wrote:Every game is now a no-dice game...

What?

We use Intensity Cubes now, don'tcha know?