Conquer Club

Hi! I'm new here, so forgive me if this has been brought up before or if I did something stupid. I was thinking that there might be a better way to handle the placement of the armies at the beginning of the game. Having exactly 3 armies on each territory may save time with the setup, but it creates a lot of problems for gameplay (at least that's how I see it). So, my idea is this: you could have a turn at the beginning where everyone can place their armies where they like, but without sight of any opponents' troops. This way, nobody gets an advantage by going first or waiting until last, the games would move faster, and it would be truer to the original game. Of course, the current system could be retained as an option for people who prefer it that way. Is there any reason why this couldn't work?


Edit: Since it seems like a lot of people are unclear on this, yes, the current system would be kept as an option!

IM all for something that closer resembles the original game that way.

this has been brought up before, but i dont think such a creative (and in my opinion brilliant) idea has been brought up before. Good job...twill or lack should definatly give this some thought. If you really feel strongly about this issue, make sure this thread gets views. and get people to support you. Lack tends to respond well to the masses asking something of him, which make him great. Keep this thread bumped up there, and maybe we could create this option. I'm behind you.

--Smitty

Thanks for the support! I'll set it up as a poll too. I've seen some other people do that.

c1arinetboy wrote:Hi! I'm new here, so forgive me if this has been brought up before or if I did something stupid. I was thinking that there might be a better way to handle the placement of the armies at the beginning of the game. Having exactly 3 armies on each territory may save time with the setup, but it creates a lot of problems for gameplay (at least that's how I see it). So, my idea is this: you could have a turn at the beginning where everyone can place their armies where they like, but without sight of any opponents' troops. This way, nobody gets an advantage by going first or waiting until last, the games would move faster, and it would be truer to the original game. Of course, the current system could be retained as an option for people who prefer it that way. Is there any reason why this couldn't work?

I see no practicality problems with this... http://www.landgrab.net has it and it works fine

Hmmm, not really alike the real life board game, since you can see the opponents troops in real life.

But how would it work? Any place with 1 army in the begginning? So, the first player could deploy and attack "1" armies? To it work better, so in the deployment turn no one can really play until its done... I didnt realize if it was your original idea. Hmm, and so, if a player lose the deployment period, so he could have 3 in each army, huh? And it could count as a turn to players being kicked out... The thing is, the deployment army should be 1 day to all players, and it shouldnt be showed in game log until action starts...

i dont understand just keep it the same and it causes no fuss what so ever..... i mean if you really did dis-like the game you wouldent play it simple really

Ronaldinho.

Marvaddin wrote:Hmmm, not really alike the real life board game, since you can see the opponents troops in real life.

But how would it work? Any place with 1 army in the begginning? So, the first player could deploy and attack "1" armies? To it work better, so in the deployment turn no one can really play until its done... I didnt realize if it was your original idea. Hmm, and so, if a player lose the deployment period, so he could have 3 in each army, huh? And it could count as a turn to players being kicked out... The thing is, the deployment army should be 1 day to all players, and it shouldnt be showed in game log until action starts...

Actually, that's exactly what I was saying, or trying to say . What I mean is, for the first 24 hour period, everyone would have the opportunity to place their armies on any of their territories how they like, as in the real game, but with the difference that each player can't see any of the other player's armies during this time. This is to balance out the possible advantages of placing your armies first or last. Does this make more sense?

so even for a seq. game, the first 24 hours would kinda be like a freestyle, with every person coming and placing the armies.

I have to disagree with ronaldinho though...I dont think this would take the place of the current system, it would just make for another option at the begining of game play. I think it would be quite exciting to see what the board looked like after everyone has placed.

Obviously, I'm focusing on the benifits that i see. But what are the bad things this might bring up? Could this cause further exploitation of the rules? Would problems arise that would make this system not worth the trouble?

Spill it

--Smitty

The one issue I can think of is that two or more people would try for the same goal. For instance, there's a possibility that up to four players could all try to take Australia and as a result they'd all kill each other. But I think this is actually a good thing. It could add another element of strategy, to try to anticipate the opponent's plans, place your armies in the most flexible spots, and to play off other's fears. And if you don't like that, the current system would still be an option.

i agree...that would add an exciting variation on the game. Also, it almost gives the play more control. As it stands, the start of the game is luck based, ie, you're stuck with what you're given. This new method allows for some flexiblity to the player.

Yeah, but it still looks like 8/18 people still think it shouldn't even be an option . It makes me wonder how many of them actually read my initial post.

That every country should start with one ......then with the random start you place your armies during your turn with everyone seeing where the previous player put theirs .......yea people would get screwd, but no diff than now .....and even maybe the last player would be able to stay alive longer than now because they would put all their guys on one country to stick longer .......

i like the idea but the way armies are set out now should be kept as a game option cause its sometimes easier to just start that way

(i start games on the board game with 3 guys per country at my house sometimes)

Hi all,

I think it's an interesting option and i know Scarus would love it.

Killerbee
up the bees

i like the idea, maybe as an alternative to the current way as you suggested. cheers.

I'm for it but I think the admins are rejecting it for now. I put a post about in : http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1214&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15[/url]

If you want it I suggest you play at a diff site also.

Yep, dissent strikes again.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:Yep, dissent strikes again.


--Andy

Not so much dissent as it is filed under "rejected"... that doesnt make it seem like its going to happen. playing at 2 sites isnt hard.. I do it.. and I'm starting at waw game too.

dislike the idea very much.

key word "option" the freedom of choice. if ya dont like that style then dont play it. some of us would like it. i wouldnt stop playing the other styles, it would just add more to the game. no need to get your panties in a bunch.

it take forever for some people to just take their turn let alone one piece here one piece there .. this would take days if not weeks ... thats why it could only be done if there was a live game option where everyone had to show up at the same time .. good luck with that

c1arinetboy wrote:

Marvaddin wrote:Hmmm, not really alike the real life board game, since you can see the opponents troops in real life.

But how would it work? Any place with 1 army in the begginning? So, the first player could deploy and attack "1" armies? To it work better, so in the deployment turn no one can really play until its done... I didnt realize if it was your original idea. Hmm, and so, if a player lose the deployment period, so he could have 3 in each army, huh? And it could count as a turn to players being kicked out... The thing is, the deployment army should be 1 day to all players, and it shouldnt be showed in game log until action starts...

Actually, that's exactly what I was saying, or trying to say . What I mean is, for the first 24 hour period, everyone would have the opportunity to place their armies on any of their territories how they like, as in the real game, but with the difference that each player can't see any of the other player's armies during this time. This is to balance out the possible advantages of placing your armies first or last. Does this make more sense?

thats is a bad idea because if one of the players isnt there durin that 1st few hours that evry 1 is there they get a really bad advantage they wont get an advantage

This is a great idea.

The only problem I can see is the greater potential for undetected alliances. Ie alliances placing troops such that they gain an initial advantage but showing no signs of alliance throughout the game. As the initial turns can be critical this could give a significant advantage.

Just a thought