Page 1 of 2
Escalating by 2's or 3's

Posted:
Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:28 pm
by Blitzaholic
I know other suggestions had been made in the past and I never seen any updates with these, however, could you seriously consider at least an option of escalating by 2's.
Meaning all get 3 armies to deploy to start out, then 1st set of cards cashed is 2, then 4, 6, 8, 10 or something like this? or start with 1st set 4, then 6, 8, 10?

Posted:
Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:34 pm
by Blitzaholic
well? what do players think?

Posted:
Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:39 pm
by darth emperor
also we can do like a round i mean for example:
4,6,8,10,12,15,4,6,8,10,12,15,4...

Posted:
Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:47 pm
by Blitzaholic
oh yeah, i see, hmm, well i know we need another option

Posted:
Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:47 pm
by Blitzaholic
i guess not many agree?

Posted:
Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:29 pm
by ParadiceCity9
give it time blitz (:
but ya i think alternative card settings would be nice. like maybe if you get a set its always 5 or something, i think thatd be kinda cool.

Posted:
Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:23 pm
by Blitzaholic
hmm, well, something needs to be for another option

Posted:
Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:04 pm
by Blitzaholic
ParadiceCity9 wrote:give it time blitz (:
but ya i think alternative card settings would be nice. like maybe if you get a set its always 5 or something, i think thatd be kinda cool.
or 1st set could be 3, then 6, 9, 12, 15, etc
Re: Escalating by 2's or 3's

Posted:
Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:13 pm
by rebelman
Blitzaholic wrote:I know other suggestions had been made in the past and I never seen any updates with these, however, could you seriously consider at least an option of escalating by 2's.
Meaning all get 3 armies to deploy to start out, then 1st set of cards cashed is 2, then 4, 6, 8, 10 or something like this? or start with 1st set 4, then 6, 8, 10?
i like this idea but i suspect many would oppose it as it will both lengthen esc. games in some ways make them more evenly balanced
maybe it would be an idea tol put up apoll to check out support for this idea ?

Posted:
Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:30 pm
by amazzony
Why?
AKA why is it needed?

Posted:
Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:42 pm
by lozzini
i just genrally like having more options... especially as the site grows
i like the idea of rolling sets like:
2,4,6,8,10,18,2,4,6,8,10,18,2
and the big jump would meen people playing really tactical to get the extra 8 armies

Posted:
Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:50 pm
by Blitzaholic
lozzini wrote:i just genrally like having more options... especially as the site grows
i like the idea of rolling sets like:
2,4,6,8,10,18,2,4,6,8,10,18,2
and the big jump would meen people playing really tactical to get the extra 8 armies
me 2, just another option, but i think after 10, you mean 12, not 18


Posted:
Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:57 pm
by lozzini
read the bottom bit about how the big differance of 8 armies

Posted:
Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:48 pm
by Blitzaholic
ParadiceCity9 wrote:give it time blitz (:
but ya i think alternative card settings would be nice. like maybe if you get a set its always 5 or something, i think thatd be kinda cool.
been a week, how much longer does one wait


Posted:
Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:44 pm
by wrightfan123
I would definitely play this. I like long games that never end until someone gets a(n) (un)lucky break. I tend to shy away from escalating games because one guy can win the entire thing by eliminating someone, mid-turning, eliminating someone else, mid-turning, and so on. Then again, I've done it a couple times myself

. But yes, this would be a good option for guys like me who like Escalating games except for the fact that one can be over after one really lucky turn.
-W123

Posted:
Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:29 pm
by Blitzaholic
i think it another option that is good for the game
if 1st set is 3,6,9,12,15,18,21,24,27,30,33,36,39,42,45,48,51,54,57,60 etc
it should end, it is a game less then escalating, but more than flat rate, something in between those 2 kinda
or go by 2's instead, 4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,24,26,28,30,32,34,36,38,40 etc

Posted:
Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:50 am
by 4V4T4R
i like the cycling idea, i actually just thought of posting it, then saw this.
i think escalating games can sometimes get out of control, and it simply becomes
a race to get cards. having the value periodically reset would add an interesting twist
Re: Escalating by 2's or 3's

Posted:
Mon Jan 28, 2008 8:35 am
by zimmah
i like the escalating cards as it is however they migh ADD an option instead of changing the current one, like 'cummulative' which actually 'adds up' the cards that have been played out.
like first one (player 1) to play out has 3 green crads (6 bonus armies) and ownes 1 of those countires giving him 2 bonus armies on that country like normally.
the second player then turns in a mixed set (+10 armies) and gets the 6 of the previous set added to it (so making it a +16 set) (note the extra 2 will not be counted towards this set)
the 3rd to turn in his cards will have then add his card value up to the +16 of the previous set, and so on..
adding a cycling idea as stated above is also a good idea

Posted:
Mon Jan 28, 2008 8:59 am
by SirSebstar
To me the greatest appeal of escalating is the fact that it really steps up the game after a few cashins. It tends to pretty much end the stlemate that can arise in other circumstances

Posted:
Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:34 pm
by Blitzaholic
agreed, but wouldnt it be nice to have another option?

Posted:
Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:37 pm
by AAFitz
Ive played escalating +1, and its actually pretty funny... it progresses slower, but the sets still get huge, so it adds a little bit of everything into it... and lets them last a few rounds longer

Posted:
Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:20 pm
by ParadiceCity9
amazzony wrote:Why?
AKA why is it needed?
because it's potentially more fun. I still like my idea of having the same value of each set throughout the game.

Posted:
Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:50 pm
by mitchmitch11
Sounds great to me

Posted:
Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:42 pm
by Blitzaholic
4V4T4R wrote:i like the cycling idea, i actually just thought of posting it, then saw this.
i think escalating games can sometimes get out of control, and it simply becomes
a race to get cards. having the value periodically reset would add an interesting twist
cycling idea up to how much? 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20, back to 2 and start over? or what?

Posted:
Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:42 pm
by 4V4T4R
Blitzaholic wrote:4V4T4R wrote:i like the cycling idea, i actually just thought of posting it, then saw this.
i think escalating games can sometimes get out of control, and it simply becomes
a race to get cards. having the value periodically reset would add an interesting twist
cycling idea up to how much? 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20, back to 2 and start over? or what?
whatever people agree on
