Conquer Club

is there any pariticular skill or strategy needed to win these games? To me it seems mostly luck. Its all about having the cards, waiting for your turn hoping nobody goes on a run and then being in position to terminate someone with 4 or 5 cards when/if your turn finally arrives. I'd rather simply play a Doodle Earth assassin game - at least that will end quicker. I dont think ive won more than 1 or 2 escalating card games on this website and those were probably 1 on 1 games.

On the other hand, I think I'm a very good player with flat rate or no cards. I recently tried about 8 escalating risk map with 4 plus people and I didn't win one. I had a shot at one but some new player suicided me because I held South america and had about 60 armies on the map to everyone else's 30 or so. I felt like I was robbed and cheated in that one. I think in the future I would flat out abandon a continent bonus.

My attitude right now is avoid escalating card games. I lost about 150 pts recently (but just gained most of them back) trying to unsuccessfully play these games. And compared to flat rate or no cards I don't see what it proves by winning.

gannable wrote:is there any pariticular skill or strategy needed to win these games? To me it seems mostly luck. Its all about having the cards, waiting for your turn hoping nobody goes on a run and then being in position to terminate someone with 4 or 5 cards when/if your turn finally arrives. I'd rather simply play a Doodle Earth assassin game - at least that will end quicker. I dont think ive won more than 1 or 2 escalating card games on this website and those were probably 1 on 1 games.

On the other hand, I think I'm a very good player with flat rate or no cards. I recently tried about 8 escalating risk map with 4 plus people and I didn't win one. I had a shot at one but some new player suicided me because I held South america and had about 60 armies on the map to everyone else's 30 or so. I felt like I was robbed and cheated in that one. I think in the future I would flat out abandon a continent bonus.

My attitude right now is avoid escalating card games. I lost about 150 pts recently (but just gained most of them back) trying to unsuccessfully play these games. And compared to flat rate or no cards I don't see what it proves by winning.

escalating games require the most skill, bonuses are relatively unimportant, you need to make sure you are spread round the map with strong points so when the time comes you can cash in a set and basically aim at one guy, get his cards, go for the next and so on until you have won! they are the most fun and exciting! flat rate is far more about luck, due to the extra 6 armies just coz of the colour of ur set.....

alex_white101 wrote:

gannable wrote:is there any pariticular skill or strategy needed to win these games? To me it seems mostly luck. Its all about having the cards, waiting for your turn hoping nobody goes on a run and then being in position to terminate someone with 4 or 5 cards when/if your turn finally arrives. I'd rather simply play a Doodle Earth assassin game - at least that will end quicker. I dont think ive won more than 1 or 2 escalating card games on this website and those were probably 1 on 1 games.

On the other hand, I think I'm a very good player with flat rate or no cards. I recently tried about 8 escalating risk map with 4 plus people and I didn't win one. I had a shot at one but some new player suicided me because I held South america and had about 60 armies on the map to everyone else's 30 or so. I felt like I was robbed and cheated in that one. I think in the future I would flat out abandon a continent bonus.

My attitude right now is avoid escalating card games. I lost about 150 pts recently (but just gained most of them back) trying to unsuccessfully play these games. And compared to flat rate or no cards I don't see what it proves by winning.

escalating games require the most skill, bonuses are relatively unimportant, you need to make sure you are spread round the map with strong points so when the time comes you can cash in a set and basically aim at one guy, get his cards, go for the next and so on until you have won! they are the most fun and exciting! flat rate is far more about luck, due to the extra 6 armies just coz of the colour of ur set.....

QFT

in flat rate you can get 16 armies on round 4 (if you happen to own all three terits), or you can get 4 in round 6. Seems like an awful lot of luck involved.

i dont see it that way.

it seems like it takes some skill and strategy to conquer a continent and then hold it as opposed to waiting until someone gets cash set 30 or 35 and wins the game.
your increasing or decresing army distribution is based on the ebb and flow of the game in non escalating.

gannable wrote:i dont see it that way.

it seems like it takes some skill and strategy to conquer a continent and then hold it as opposed to waiting until someone gets cash set 30 or 35 and wins the game.
your increasing or decresing army distribution is based on the ebb and flow of the game in non escalating.

I agree, somewhat. My point was basically that flat cards are highly luck based. Esc and No require much more skill.

I dont enjoy esc games. OP is right, there is too much luck. For example, one of the games i have recently played in. It was esc on a classic style map. I had NO chance of wining, the two of the strongest players have been battling it out for for days, but then, one of them failed to kill the other. I have just finished his work for him, and won the game, while i had no chance before that event. In esc games, even the biggest noob can win if he cashes in at the right time. I try to avoid esc games, but sometimes cant.

esc. cards = skill

Sure, Anyone can win at escalating. But can you do it consistently. Can you play any player from cook to colonel and still retain a ranking above Sergeant.

You can if you know the correct strategies. Yes I lose to cooks all the time. and when I take 1 out I only get points of 10 and below. I play with alot of talented players who can consistently keep their points at a level that shows that they are both Skilled and Not worried about points. To say that they are unskilled is I think spoken from not understanding what it takes.

To win each style or type of game takes a different skill type. Because I am not good at one type does not mean the other player is lucky. It means I have not taken the time to learn that particular skill or level of play.

Sorry if I got long winded here...

your all wrong the whole game is based on luck it is all about how the dice want to roll i just got through playing a game where i could have critically injured a player my 11 armies didnt destroy any of his 9 on a quick attack

a big difference btw escalating and flat rate are the early turns.

in flat rate I want to get a card ever turn. In escalating, I don't care so much about cards in those first few turns. I'll definitely go for one if there's a territory with 1 army on it. Otherwise I'll pick my spots.


Like someone said you want to be spread out all over the map so you can eliminate other players easily and not be eliminated by others.

I actually won my first escalating card game today.

I had 16 man army in europe, 17 man army in NA, 7 on Kamatcha, 6 on Afganistan and couple single armies. i made no effort to break up any bonuses, my only focus was on establishing the 16 and 17 man armies and building up Kamatcha.

it was a 4 man game with all good players. I felt like a novice against the other three.
2 players were knocked out by other players but i had enough armies to survive a 30 card set. Then, I followed up with a set of my own and won.

I never felt in control of the game until my last turn. I didnt make any mistakes but i dont think I did anything particularly extraordinary other than be fortunate enough to have a set with only 3 cards at the right time.

On the other hand, there is a certain point in a flat card or no card where you know the game is yours and its yours because of your strong play.

Those that think that escalating is all luck have simply not acquired the right skills.

comic boy wrote:Those that think that escalating is all luck have simply not acquired the right skills.

Word. It's like people that look at a Pollock painting and say "my five-year-old could have done that."

Earlier in the thread someone (can't be bothered to do extra quoting) said essentially that anyone can win an escalating game if they cash at the right time. But there are SO many factors that go into "the right time".

The right time is very crucial. For example, look at this game: http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=1684651. I only had 4 territs, should have been dead, but luckily i had a card set and was able to systematically take out all 5 other players in the same turn, using the cards i got to get more armies.

The risk of being steamrolled in escalating is part of the fun!

Luck will influence any single game, but over the course of many, the only factor that will matter is skill.

And no game requires more than escalating.

Flat rate and no cards are as much a function of what everyone else decides to do.. ie luck.

wacicha wrote:Sure, Anyone can win at escalating. But can you do it consistently. Can you play any player from cook to colonel and still retain a ranking above Sergeant.

You can if you know the correct strategies. Yes I lose to cooks all the time. and when I take 1 out I only get points of 10 and below. I play with alot of talented players who can consistently keep their points at a level that shows that they are both Skilled and Not worried about points. To say that they are unskilled is I think spoken from not understanding what it takes.

To win each style or type of game takes a different skill type. Because I am not good at one type does not mean the other player is lucky. It means I have not taken the time to learn that particular skill or level of play.

Sorry if I got long winded here...

i totaly agree, and not only because this person proved to me that he is right.

now ive won 2 escalating games in a row. I have the strategy down but i dont think the skill required to win these games is anything exceeding other games. I'm still in favor of flat rate and no cards being less about luck.

gannable wrote:now ive won 2 escalating games in a row. I have the strategy down but i dont think the skill required to win these games is anything exceeding other games. I'm still in favor of flat rate and no cards being less about luck.

I have played a couple of games more than you. I do have to disagree

I must really be talented then.
ever since i made the initial post I've won 3 out of 3 escalating games with standards rules on the risk map

im great

The key is to make it so that you are less likely to be knocked out by another player. If everyone is playing semi-wisely, this can create an interesting game. If one player screws up, it can throw off the balance. Again, as mentioned above, the key is to preparing to be ready to strike when the iron is hot.

Timminz wrote:QFT

in flat rate you can get 16 armies on round 4 (if you happen to own all three terits), or you can get 4 in round 6. Seems like an awful lot of luck involved.

There are two major flaws in your argument.

#1) Taking 5 rounds as opposed to 3 to make a set only penalizes you once because, from that point on, the most it will ever take you to make a set is 3 rounds since you have two to start with (assuming you don't pull your second set right away, of course). That is a common mistake when complaining about cards, "It always takes me 5 turns to make a set". It may take you 5 cards, but not five turns, at least not every time.

#2) In most cases, the 10 armies you speak of that early in the game will not make a huge difference. Nowhere near as big a difference as cards make late in escalating games (see #4 below).

#3) You've chosen an insanely extreme example. Assuming you have 10 territories in on a map with 42 countries, you have a .33% chance (not 33% mind you) of making a mixed set owning all 3 countries on three cards. In reality, you're typically just talking about a 6 troop difference.

#4) What's luckier? The difference between a 4 army or 10 army set or the difference between being lucky enough to make a 3 card set late in an escalating game where the sets are worth 40+ and mean you can run the table?

I specialise in escalating games simply because they are more demanding. With flat rate, you can stick to universal strategies of growth and basically stick to them until you win.

With escalation, you need to switch from early strategies of growth to later strategies of survival. That transition requires skill, which many have talked about in this thread.

It is not trivial as in every game there is only one winner and all others have to go back to drawing board to figure out what went wrong.

Risk indeed has an element of luck in it every time you use the dice and as we know you can get lucky and then unlucky later on. Overall everyone is statistically equal (i.e. when you have played many games). The same applies to cashed cards as well. Sometimes you get armies sooner, sometimes later. If you get them at the right time, fine, you should win anyway. The problem is, how to keep winning even when you are unlucky. That's the real challenge and indeed where the fun is in escalating.

There is a way to do it, as demonstrated by those who win consistently, so you just have to find out for yourself. Am I helping

Anybody care to discuss which territories are seemingly more powerful than others in escalating?

I have just started playing it and it seems like northern europe, middle east, and Siam are all very important as the two former are able to attack a large amount of territories and the latter is the gateway to australia.

It seems like holding siam can really block people who are not in australia from knocking out a player.

Am I way off here?

Knight2254 wrote:Anybody care to discuss which territories are seemingly more powerful than others in escalating?

I have just started playing it and it seems like northern europe, middle east, and Siam are all very important as the two former are able to attack a large amount of territories and the latter is the gateway to australia.

It seems like holding siam can really block people who are not in australia from knocking out a player.

Am I way off here?

No, you are fairly spot on. North Africa, Ukraine, and China are all good terits too. Also need one in NA, but where doesn't affect you so much.

spline wrote:I specialise in escalating games simply because they are more demanding. With flat rate, you can stick to universal strategies of growth and basically stick to them until you win.

With escalation, you need to switch from early strategies of growth to later strategies of survival. That transition requires skill, which many have talked about in this thread.

It is not trivial as in every game there is only one winner and all others have to go back to drawing board to figure out what went wrong.

Risk indeed has an element of luck in it every time you use the dice and as we know you can get lucky and then unlucky later on. Overall everyone is statistically equal (i.e. when you have played many games). The same applies to cashed cards as well. Sometimes you get armies sooner, sometimes later. If you get them at the right time, fine, you should win anyway. The problem is, how to keep winning even when you are unlucky. That's the real challenge and indeed where the fun is in escalating.

There is a way to do it, as demonstrated by those who win consistently, so you just have to find out for yourself. Am I helping

With all due respect, I find your initial statement to be rather arrogant and perhaps a bit over-sweeping.

To begin with, against strong players, I have found no "universal strategy" in flat rate or no-cards games. Secondly, don't fool yourself, your picture of escalating games being won by one and leaving the rest to wonder what they did wrong is not exactly accurate.

Again, assuming solid opponents, there are escalating games that you simply were never in position to win regardless of dice or skill. If you're not placed near the player ripe for picking at the right time, he's gonna be somebody else's spring board. It's really that simple.

Further, you can't invent the right time to go on a tear, you can only take advantage of the chance when offered. Sometimes, somebody else gets their chance before you get yours. Again, not much you can do.

Now, perhaps you're just shilling for your book. Perhaps you're just shilling for your website. However, you're 0-3 here at CC, so forgive me for taking what you say with a grain of salt.