Conquer Club

If a game reaches 100 rounds a natural disaster occours at a random place on the map.

Sorry if this has been suggested befor. I searched somewhat but couldn't find anything. Basically my idea is that every one hundred rounds or so something bad happens somewhere on the map and wipes out armies or reduces them by a high percentage. This would create opportunities and help to break dead-locks. Different maps could have different disasters such as floods, blizards, tsunamis, earthquakes or even meteorites.

This will benefit players of the site by breaking the dreaded cold game deadlocks, 500+ rounds is just to many.

i could see so many people getting pissed off about this XD But it could be interesting

edwinissweet wrote:i could see so many people getting pissed off about this XD But it could be interesting

Reason enough for implementation! Cool idea, I'd vote for it.

If it was an option when starting a game that could be very interesting.

If it was an *option* then yeah, perhaps. I'd definatly play it. but as a forced implementation, no thanx.

JoshyBoy wrote:If it was an option when starting a game that could be very interesting.

Yes, as optional, its just that, and a great idea. Imposing on people when you feel the game should end however, changes the game immeasurably...some prefer short games, some long...there is no accounting for ones tastes however, and short and long are subjective.

Though not all would understand, an open ended game is much different from a closed ended one, and changes it fundamentally, so it simply cannot be applied to all games....or shouldnt be.

That is so much more fun than just saying: "I agree"

It's a good idea as an option. I particulary see applications in Flat Rate and No Spoil tournament games, where multiple other players sometimes have to wait way too long for the deadlocked game to finish.

I think the best way to implement it is "after X turns (specified at startup), the territory with the highest amount of troops is nuked (in the same way as happens with nuclear spoils) each turn".

I would definately not want to see it as a global standard though. "Deadlocked" games have an interest of their own, and not every game that goes past 100 turns is actually deadlocked.

MichelSableheart wrote:I think the best way to implement it is "after X turns (specified at startup), the territory with the highest amount of troops is nuked (in the same way as happens with nuclear spoils) each turn".

This would create its own deadlock. How could anyone win if the troops are continually being destroyed? It's better for there to be a one-time or fixed-amount event; troop destruction each turn would basically prevent anyone from actually gaining dominance and then winning.

Almost anything is OK as an option, but I think Metsfanmax has the real issue. It won't truly solve much, will only cause a different kind of deadlock/issue.... and a LOT more complaints about the "non random nature" of the earthquakes.

This sounds like the April fools day joke about a "toss the board" option available to any player willing to pay $ 25 per incident!

Seriously though, I think the "disaster" concept has merit. I also see the problem with the concept being imposed on every game that has reached round 100 (or whatever). Would it be possible to make it an option during gameplay? I.e., if all or most players agree that the deadlock needs to be broken, they can call for a disaster? Perhaps the disaster could hit in multiple locations at the same time, thereby increasing the chances of multiple players being affected?

Metsfanmax wrote:

MichelSableheart wrote:I think the best way to implement it is "after X turns (specified at startup), the territory with the highest amount of troops is nuked (in the same way as happens with nuclear spoils) each turn".

This would create its own deadlock. How could anyone win if the troops are continually being destroyed? It's better for there to be a one-time or fixed-amount event; troop destruction each turn would basically prevent anyone from actually gaining dominance and then winning.

Agreed. Also, why would the strongest territory has to be nuked? It sounds like penalizing someone because of his/her good strategy.

A natural disaster (and the solution to stalemates) should be more random, and should potentially affect all players, in my opinion.
How about nuking e.g. third of all territories as a one-time event?

Just a quick idea:

Instead of a natural disaster at a random location, let some sort of attrition begin at round x.
Something like a famine, that effects every region on the board.

I don't know if something like this is possible to code, but it would be more fair as every player will start losing the same amount of troops everywhere, and if this does not get things started, in the end the player with most troops in play would still win.

In addition, you could also escalate the famine every round, 5 rounds, 10 rounds, ...

Though I'd get a kick out of a random flood