Conquer Club

damn intensity cubes!

InsomniaRed wrote:

Gilligan wrote:

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

What?

We use Intensity Cubes now, don'tcha know?

Ah.

this doesnt make sense
this wouldnt be risk and thats what ppl want to play

IvoryCoast Ninja wrote:this doesnt make sense
this wouldnt be risk and thats what ppl want to play

Not really true in my mind.

Apart from the fact that "Risk" is a trademark of Hasbro, and we don't play "Risk" we play Conquer (or Conquer Club). Also, if this were simply "Risk" than we would not have things like custom maps and other options that are added with Conquer.

The real thing here is options. If you don't like no-dice games, don't play. If the gameplay of no-dice games sucks, and people don't like it, than the # of ND games will decrease and die off. It's game option Darwinism.

I think people would tire of the no-dice games, but I don't see the need to eliminate it as an option.

Wouldn't work for 1 v 1 no cards games on maps with choke points, like the classic map. If player 1 ever starts with 2 countries in Australia, plus Siam (or Siam is neutral), then he could take it on the first turn and never lose it. The game would be over simply from the drop.

I know that games can be over from the drop in dice games too, but at least there's the chance of either the first player having bad luck trying to take Australia, or player two could get a bit of good luck and break it. Dice are necessary to give hope in games where the drop favors one person.

I'm of split opinions. I agree that it does in fact favor the first person to move if the map has choke points. the example about Australia is accurate. It does favor the first person to move if they have Eastern and New Guinea and if the opponent doesn't have Indonesia along with western. There are other scenarios, for instance someone having East Africa, South Africa, North africa... and even if you have middle-east, etc... the majority holder can target that one by overlooking Congo altogether because he is guaranteed to take it with men to spare given his 3 vs 3s.

----------------------

That's the one point, on the other, there are alot of games where someone severely outplays another, makes the best of what they have, make no mistakes and still lose because the opponent with 9 men kills 16, advances 7... kills 11, advances 5... kills 11 more, advances 3... then kills 1 and 1... (speaking from experience lol)

Cases like that are why a no dice game option would be a good concept to put into practice. Someone who can't complain about the dice would then not be able to complain about the drop because it's what they would have "chosen" to play.

Sometimes I figure risk misses that "chess" element. In chess if you make fewer mistakes than your opponent, you'll win. Nobody wins a chess game on luck. It's clearly the mistake of the opponent if you get a bad trade-off based on a setup.

Another sugg that needs to be done...

C.

I'm all for it, those that dislike this idea can continue to use to the dice.
More options is great, I can't think of any options that I wouldn't like to see implemented.
If I don't like the new options I can simply avoid them.

I'm still hoping for games without logs, that would severely cripple the gamers who rely on log parsing when strategizing.

Initially I voted yes to this suggestion.

However, now that I've had time to reflect on it I'm not so sure I'd want to play it if it were available. This game option will proliferate alliances(both announced and secret) in all games in which it is set. You'll have cliques joining multiplayer singletons who will almost certainly favour each other then fight it out between themselves once they've removed the rest of the competition. I think we'll see a rise in the number of Secret Alliance accusations in C&A.

This suggestion has already been implemented. All games are no dice games, since the introduction of assault cubes.

no don't like it the game will be killed by this its no more riks then anymore its only save game playing where does the word risk stand fore then???????????????

Timminz wrote:This suggestion has already been implemented. All games are no dice games, since the introduction of assault cubes.

Is there an echo in here?

C.

Timminz wrote:This suggestion has already been implemented. All games are no dice games, since the introduction of assault cubes.

Assault cubes? What the heck is THAT?

I thought they were called "intensity cubes" now.

Timminz wrote:This suggestion has already been implemented. All games are no dice games, since the introduction of assault cubes.

You mean intensity cubes, surely?

Regardless of the quality of my memory, they are no longer dice.

In a sense, they never really were dice.

However, most people continue to call them dice.

KLOBBER wrote:In a sense, they never really were dice.

However, most people continue to call them dice.

so, klobbers stupid comments aside, I call for the resurection and implementation of this thread's central idea. we have to much gold behind this proposition to be ignored, now DO IT.

Mr_Adams wrote:

KLOBBER wrote:In a sense, they never really were dice.

However, most people continue to call them dice.

so, klobbers stupid comments aside, I call for the resurection and implementation of this thread's central idea. we have to much gold behind this proposition to be ignored, now DO IT.

Dude, I suggest that you learn to spell the words "Klobber's," "resurrection," and "too" before you use the word "stupid."

I'm drowning in semantics.

With all the views regarding the dice and how it throws a monkey wrench into the best laid plans of mice and men, how about this option:

Games where there are no dice ! Pretty simple really: in order to attack you must have two more armies than the defender. The result is determined by subtracting the defenders armies from the attacking armies. So 3vs1 results in 2 armies for the attacker 1 to remain on the attacking terr and the other to occupy the won terr. 25 vs 23 same result. 7 vs 1 result 6 left. No more chance, more like Diplomacy or chess. Well I take that back there is always the probalistic element of the cards and drop.

Probably only suitable for multiplayer games.

You're going about this all wrong...
Just get a pretty girl to blow on your dice and everything will be all right



Seriously though...
Don't you think this is a bit extreme?
Do you really think you will find real support for this?
We simply must keep some randomness to things,
afterall, we do live in a random and unpredictable world...

So perhaps you might want to advocate a coin instead of the dice...
Heads or tails... 50 50 chance on every flip...
WAY more predictable than 6 sided dice,
but still offers a certain level of excitement and RISK...

playing risk without dice would be gay

You're going about this all wrong...
Just get a pretty girl to blow on your dice and everything will be all right
Image


I tried that and she left lipstick all over my "mouse."

Ruined my concentration too.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=43095&hilit=no+dice+games&start=210

Huge thread about this... it's pretty controversial. I'm not sure whether I think it's a good idea or not.

john9blue wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=43095&hilit=no+dice+games&start=210

Huge thread about this... it's pretty controversial. I'm not sure whether I think it's a good idea or not.

Yea this. There is a whole forum for bringing forth ideas you know, should check it out...