Conquer Club

Donelladan wrote:Do we know exactly how many turns remain till the end of CR@W ?

Not exactly but...she’s been doing x2 a week. If you look at calendar that would be approximately 20 turns remaining. Maybe 1 instead of two for thanksgiving and Christmas etc so you’re looking at 18 ish.

Ballpark 15-20.

Just looking at it and if nobody has a problem with keeping the current schedule even for the holiday, we can finish turn 65 on December 30th/31st. That would mean 16 more turns. What do you guys think of that?

sounds like quality time together. fun.

groovysmurf wrote:Just looking at it and if nobody has a problem with keeping the current schedule even for the holiday, we can finish turn 65 on December 30th/31st. That would mean 16 more turns. What do you guys think of that?

groovysmurf wrote:Just looking at it and if nobody has a problem with keeping the current schedule even for the holiday, we can finish turn 65 on December 30th/31st. That would mean 16 more turns. What do you guys think of that?

If we do not want to try get more turns in .. that will have to do. lol

Of course that would be crazy to ask considering all the hard work you do and how amazing a goddess you have been. (may be a CD edit...may not be)

That being said .. it also means that we are consigned to not having 1 ring to rule them all.

So what will the tie-break system?

ElricTheGreat wrote:So what will the tie-break system?

A special competition to see who can better serve the smurf.

groovysmurf wrote:

ElricTheGreat wrote:So what will the tie-break system?

A special competition to see who can better serve the smurf.

Sweet... I've got some great recipes.

MudPuppy wrote:Sweet... I've got some great recipes.

That's what I get for trying to NOT sound perverted with it!

One of the worst concepts for anything connected with CC.

Fundamental strategy is drag your games as much as possible if you are losing... Really? This is in the spirit of CC?

I finished my first game on 26-th and on 27-th I have another game on the same spot of the map? And I didn't decided anything from the games. How come? Apparently something is again connected with dragging the games, or playing it faster, as I did.

I guess no need to even think about this event from now on. After all I'm not here to intentionally drag a game, or to not decide anything about the games I participate in.

Thanks :/

GoranZ wrote:One of the worst concepts for anything connected with CC.

Fundamental strategy is drag your games as much as possible if you are losing... Really? This is in the spirit of CC?

I finished my first game on 26-th and on 27-th I have another game on the same spot of the map? And I didn't decided anything from the games. How come? Apparently something is again connected with dragging the games, or playing it faster, as I did.

I guess no need to even think about this event from now on. After all I'm not here to intentionally drag a game, or to not decide anything about the games I participate in.

Player A plays Player B, sometimes A decides the game, sometimes B decides. I guess this is not for players that are so passionate about handpicking each of their games.

As for game stalling, yeah, kind of lame to do that... but that really has nothing to do with CR@W as a concept. It's a minor unfortunate bi-product. Rules prob could be tweaked to change that.

JPlo64 wrote:

GoranZ wrote:One of the worst concepts for anything connected with CC.

Fundamental strategy is drag your games as much as possible if you are losing... Really? This is in the spirit of CC?

I finished my first game on 26-th and on 27-th I have another game on the same spot of the map? And I didn't decided anything from the games. How come? Apparently something is again connected with dragging the games, or playing it faster, as I did.

I guess no need to even think about this event from now on. After all I'm not here to intentionally drag a game, or to not decide anything about the games I participate in.

Player A plays Player B, sometimes A decides the game, sometimes B decides. I guess this is not for players that are so passionate about handpicking each of their games.

As for game stalling, yeah, kind of lame to do that... but that really has nothing to do with CR@W as a concept. It's a minor unfortunate bi-product. Rules prob could be tweaked to change that.

The rules actually envisioned this as a strategy, the idea being it mimics real battles etc. Where one army might hold on as long as they can before reinforcements arrive.
Battles in middle ages sometimes took days, weeks, in castles it could be months etc Thus, as far as the planned system goes this feedback means it was a success, not a failure.

IcePack wrote:

JPlo64 wrote:

GoranZ wrote:One of the worst concepts for anything connected with CC.

Fundamental strategy is drag your games as much as possible if you are losing... Really? This is in the spirit of CC?

I finished my first game on 26-th and on 27-th I have another game on the same spot of the map? And I didn't decided anything from the games. How come? Apparently something is again connected with dragging the games, or playing it faster, as I did.

I guess no need to even think about this event from now on. After all I'm not here to intentionally drag a game, or to not decide anything about the games I participate in.

Player A plays Player B, sometimes A decides the game, sometimes B decides. I guess this is not for players that are so passionate about handpicking each of their games.

As for game stalling, yeah, kind of lame to do that... but that really has nothing to do with CR@W as a concept. It's a minor unfortunate bi-product. Rules prob could be tweaked to change that.

The rules actually envisioned this as a strategy, the idea being it mimics real battles etc. Where one army might hold on as long as they can before reinforcements arrive.
Battles in middle ages sometimes took days, weeks, in castles it could be months etc Thus, as far as the planned system goes this feedback means it was a success, not a failure.

Middle Ages ambush strategy... You are trying to ambush an enemy camp, the ambushing army attacks but finds the camp empty. And they are being ambushed afterwards. This was common outcome for many battles, and it was quite quick, all over within 24 hours.

Siege on a castle or town sometimes lasted for long time, months or years but it was mainly determined by ability to secure fresh source of water. No water=quick loss. BTW how come Siege! map is not used?

Open field battles lasted much less then months, few days or a week at most, depending on the armies resources and type of warfare.

Lords... they were not captured quite often since they rarely fought in the first lines. Sometimes they did but not always. And they save them selves much more then they were captured. This can also be mimicked(front line commander will boost his units moral meaning he can be captured but he can chose much more then one that is playing from the back)

I can go on, but as it is bannermen does not mimic anything that happened in the middle ages... except the middle age map.

JPlo64 wrote:I guess this is not for players that are so passionate about handpicking each of their games.

In middle ages you do chose the battlefield, regardless if you are in attack or in defense. Sometimes it wont happen that you end up choosing everything but you do make certain choices.
The current enemy I have has chosen everything from all 6 games he played... 6/6, I doubt such percentage has been noted in the history.
In the end I'm complaining because I have absolutely no control over my own situation prior to the battles, something that any army had in reality

Goran
The game is trying to mimic real battles, obviously I can not replicate every possible strategy that was ever used in CC terms. I used RL concepts (like ambush) and provided rules to benefit the person ambushing. That’s the best that could be met.

Again I can’t replica water usage and starvation. Siege! Map is used for castles. I know you are trying to learn the game 48-49 turns into it but there’s a lot you still need to know / understand regarding the set up. If you searched siege map and CR@W you’d see it’s a common map.

The rest of it idk what to tell you, but as I tried to explain to you it’s based off Civ game and turn based strategies when your looking at it from real time / real war perspective. Also some things were purposely changed to be usable / “mesh” with CC, and also make it so the game doesn’t last forever.

IcePack wrote:The game is trying to mimic real battles, obviously I can not replicate every possible strategy that was ever used in CC terms.

They dont look like real battles... I chose nothing . In real battle I chose soldiers, armor, sometimes terrain.

IcePack wrote:I used RL concepts (like ambush) and provided rules to benefit the person ambushing. That’s the best that could be met.

Ambush... well that concept is not well

IcePack wrote:Again I can’t replica water usage and starvation.

Of course you cant... then why using it as concept(Dragging a game)

IcePack wrote:Siege! Map is used for castles.

I saw it now that its used for castles...

IcePack wrote:I know you are trying to learn the game 48-49 turns into it but there’s a lot you still need to know / understand regarding the set up.

I think I'm done learning, I think I'm not interested in playing in an event in which I will play only away games. I doubt anyone else is.

IcePack wrote:The rest of it idk what to tell you, but as I tried to explain to you it’s based off Civ game and turn based strategies when your looking at it from real time / real war perspective. Also some things were purposely changed to be usable / “mesh” with CC, and also make it so the game doesn’t last forever.

Nothing wrong with turn based approach, the problem is that the attacker is choosing everything in the bannermen, even after you defeat the previous attacker. In Civ you dont have this. in Civ you have fortify, forest bonus etc...

I can tell from our skype convo your not understanding this or willing to try so I’ll just agree to disagree

IcePack wrote:I know you are trying to learn the game 48-49 turns into it but there’s a lot you still need to know / understand regarding the set up.

I think I'm done learning, I think I'm not interested in playing in an event in which I will play only away games. I doubt anyone else is.

Actually, many many of us have really enjoyed this event and feel it has become much more than just a regular CC event. Many have also followed it closely and strategized together from the start. That's all I really want to say, although I could go on and on about the virtues of CR@W. It is SO much more than the few CC games you're getting your knickers in a twist over. They are a small part of a huge whole.

Well said Concho

I'm the opponent Goranz is complaining about. A couple of points I would make:

First, whenever I've seen a hostile person our clan has moved me to immediately attack them. I've been out hunting for opponents because I am an all around player so the theory is that I can at least put up a fight on an away map. Has it taken luck that I haven't had a true away map? Yes, but when you are initiating combat you will get more home than away games, especially if the other side is moving away from combat. Does it take some skill to go 6-0 on home maps, a reader can form their own conclusion on that. If you look at my overall clan history though, I play more away games than home games.

The second point is that I have attacked castles and those maps are not maps I get to choose.

I have some LHDD players that joined CR@W at the beginning of the event but now left CC. If they are engaged in a battle can we replace them ?

Donelladan wrote:I have some LHDD players that joined CR@W at the beginning of the event but now left CC. If they are engaged in a battle can we replace them ?

They can be replaced, they can’t be replaced by people already in the game or dead. So if you have additional players available just contact Groovy and she can assist you with those changes. Depending on the situation etc there could be small GP cost to prevent replacement abuse

IcePack? wrote:

Donelladan wrote:I have some LHDD players that joined CR@W at the beginning of the event but now left CC. If they are engaged in a battle can we replace them ?

You automatically lose; all your lords are removed from the map. Or perhaps what hop wants Ice to say...

A bit harsh, Ice, but I respect your ruling.

rockfist wrote:I'm the opponent Goranz is complaining about. A couple of points I would make:

First, whenever I've seen a hostile person our clan has moved me to immediately attack them. I've been out hunting for opponents because I am an all around player so the theory is that I can at least put up a fight on an away map. Has it taken luck that I haven't had a true away map? Yes, but when you are initiating combat you will get more home than away games, especially if the other side is moving away from combat.

I'm running away from battle? What was I doing 24 hours before the invitation for me? I was fighting Extreme Ways. Even now less then 2 days after our game started it is in the last round, I didn't even drag it for 1 second(the standard for this event is 24 hours more then what I do)

rockfist wrote:Does it take some skill to go 6-0 on home maps, a reader can form their own conclusion on that. If you look at my overall clan history though, I play more away games than home games.

Smartass you chose your away maps, you know which they are, what settings they are. I chose nothing in all my crow games. Which part of this you don't understand?

Conchobar wrote:Actually, many many of us have really enjoyed this event and feel it has become much more than just a regular CC event. Many have also followed it closely and strategized together from the start. That's all I really want to say, although I could go on and on about the virtues of CR@W. It is SO much more than the few CC games you're getting your knickers in a twist over. They are a small part of a huge whole.

Out of curiosity, which one is more interesting... dragging your game for 24 hours when you lose, or when you are dragged fora 24 hours when the enemy loses?

The number of hours or days doesn’t matter - only the turns / schedule matters. Whether you beat him 1 day or 3 it only matters when’s the next turn from after you’re engaged and what is your houses intitative compared to others around you

Goranz, the common theme with you is that it’s always someone or something else’s fault when you lose. I can list examples from specific games but your complaints about CR@W illustrate that point just as well as those quotes would.

There was strategy and work that went into my getting to choose games in CR@W. And I would never select Siege as a home game.

I do not get to pick my away games all the time. I’ll grant you I know what the settings are but I’ve been thrown into maps I have little or no experience on many times.

I enjoy CR@W, but I agree dragging out the games is annoying. I commend him on not doing that, although I don’t know that it was strategically smart. I’ve had to be reigned in several times from wanting to summarily execute someone who I had to fight due to their clan attacking ours, when I wanted to fight someone else, but I listened eventually.

There once was a lord from House of Fire
Who left a trail of blood throughout the Shire.
Why, you may ask,
is my verse in the voice of the past?
It is my solemn task
to air that Mortis' battle was his last.
His throne seeks an heir,
but aspirers beware:
You may ascend quite readily,
but the end will be quite "deadily".

-Singing Bard