Conquer Club

Whoever captures Oceana wins the game. You have to protect one border on Oceana. You need twice the armies to protect South America, yet you still only get the same number of bonus armies. Two borders does mean that you can bring in armies from more places on the board, but it still seems as though Oceana makes a classic game all about luck.

wrestler1ump wrote:Whoever captures Oceana wins the game.

Spoken like a true cook.

edit: ^^^ thats a really gay smilie

au, contrair my friend. the bonus should be bumped up to 10 or so so the entire game becomes a gloves-off deathmatch competition fighting for australia

really though, it has its tradeoffs. for instance, even though it only has 1 border to defend, this also means it only has one place to expand, and it's pretty impossible to hang onto asia anyway. south america, while having more borders, also has two relatively easy places to expand.

finally, this should be in suggestions and reports

If this is an actual suggestion, post it in the suggestions forum and use the proper form.

wrestler1ump wrote:Whoever captures Oceana wins the game. You have to protect one border on Oceana. You need twice the armies to protect South America, yet you still only get the same number of bonus armies. Two borders does mean that you can bring in armies from more places on the board, but it still seems as though Oceana makes a classic game all about luck.

LOL! I am speechless from the above statement. Wrestler ceases to amaze me.

wicked wrote:If this is an actual suggestion, post it in the suggestions forum and use the proper form.

But it's not, it's just the weekly rant from our resident gameless tool.

Are you going to keep suggesting changes until the game somehow morphs into something you can actually win at?

detlef wrote:

wicked wrote:If this is an actual suggestion, post it in the suggestions forum and use the proper form.

But it's not, it's just the weekly rant from our resident gameless tool.

Are you going to keep suggesting changes until the game somehow morphs into something you
can actually win at?

He never wins?

why? the classic game has it at 2

in an esc game conts become worthless very fast.

codeblue1018 wrote:

detlef wrote:

wicked wrote:If this is an actual suggestion, post it in the suggestions forum and use the proper form.

But it's not, it's just the weekly rant from our resident gameless tool.

Are you going to keep suggesting changes until the game somehow morphs into something you
can actually win at?

He never wins?

I was a Sargeant 1st class before getting stuck playing too many singles speed games at the same time. I would've been at least Captain under the old scoring system if highly-ranked players had the guts to join games I was in.

Hey codeblue, it's "never ceases to amaze me". And detlef, I'd love to have you a game sometime on classic and according to your logic I'll beat you for my "first" win.

matt c. wrote:why? the classic game has it at 2

2 is too much though when you consider only 1 border to protect.

nameless1 wrote:in an esc game conts become worthless very fast.

Very true. Escalating cards are another matter. I think they also make this game all about luck.

bbqpenguin wrote:au, contrair my friend. the bonus should be bumped up to 10 or so so the entire game becomes a gloves-off deathmatch competition fighting for australia

really though, it has its tradeoffs. for instance, even though it only has 1 border to defend, this also means it only has one place to expand, and it's pretty impossible to hang onto asia anyway. south america, while having more borders, also has two relatively easy places to expand.

finally, this should be in suggestions and reports

Good point about the deathmatch for Oceana. It would be kind of fun, but I think even 2 armies is enough for a deathmatch.

wicked wrote:If this is an actual suggestion, post it in the suggestions forum and use the proper form.

Sorry about that. Feel free to move this thread.

Put it on the proper form and I will. And please learn how to use the edit button instead of posting 5-6 times in a row.

Changing Oceania to a 1 bonus is not the correct solution to the real problem with the continent bonus system in the classic risk game.

The best way is to correct them across the board. Make corrections like the following: Europe--- 6, S America ---3, S Africa ---4, and Oceania stays at 2, as North America stays at 5 and Asia stays at 7. This is how it's done over at denizengames.com on one version of their risk like map...it is an option you can choose when the game is created.

wicked wrote:If this is an actual suggestion, post it in the suggestions forum and use the proper form.

or maybe we can find a mod to move it there...-0

Not a good idea...

Oceania has but 1 border, but you can't go anywhere from there, so it balances out....
Leave it the way it is... & plan your strategy accordingly...

wrestler1ump wrote:

matt c. wrote:why? the classic game has it at 2

2 is too much though when you consider only 1 border to protect.

so? But from where will you go next?

If you get S. A after your extra armies start paying off you can move into Africa or N.A depending on armies. You can spread and slowly win cont by cont. While Aus is easy protect it can be worthless if your armies are stuck in aussie while someone take europe or N.a

Iliad wrote:

wrestler1ump wrote:

matt c. wrote:why? the classic game has it at 2

2 is too much though when you consider only 1 border to protect.

so? But from where will you go next?

If you get S. A after your extra armies start paying off you can move into Africa or N.A depending on armies. You can spread and slowly win cont by cont. While Aus is easy protect it can be worthless if your armies are stuck in aussie while someone take europe or N.a

True, but in a 4 or more player game, nobody is going to be able to capture both South America and Africa anyways.

wrestler1ump wrote:

wicked wrote:If this is an actual suggestion, post it in the suggestions forum and use the proper form.

Sorry about that. Feel free to move this thread.

Wicked, feel free to remove him from this site permanently.

wrestler1ump wrote:Oceana makes a classic game all about luck.

I had a minute, so I figured, what the hell. Let's see how true this statement is. If Oceana makes the game all about luck, then it would appear that anyone that played it enough times would trend towards the core odds of winning games. That is one game per the average number of players in games played. In other words, if there's an average of 3 players in the games you play on that map and you play enough times, you should trend towards 33% winning percentage.

I just went through page 1 of yours and found that you'd played 45 singles games on that map (I tossed out team games due to obvious complications). In those 45 games you played a range of 2 to 8 player games and the aggregate chance of winning was 33.7%. You'll need to trust me on this. So, one would expect that you'd won about 15 of those 45 games for it all to be about luck, right?

You won 7. Is this to say that you are less than half as likely to gain Oceania as the next guy? Really? Over a stretch of 45 games? Sorry, I'm having a hard time buying that. My suggestion, worry more about what you're doing wrong in the game and less about the rules being "unfair".

I occasionally take whump off ignore to read his posts when I feel like having a good laugh and then, having confirmed I was correct, slam him back on ignore right away.

detlef wrote:

wrestler1ump wrote:Oceana makes a classic game all about luck.

I had a minute, so I figured, what the hell. Let's see how true this statement is. If Oceana makes the game all about luck, then it would appear that anyone that played it enough times would trend towards the core odds of winning games. That is one game per the average number of players in games played. In other words, if there's an average of 3 players in the games you play on that map and you play enough times, you should trend towards 33% winning percentage.

I just went through page 1 of yours and found that you'd played 45 singles games on that map (I tossed out team games due to obvious complications). In those 45 games you played a range of 2 to 8 player games and the aggregate chance of winning was 33.7%. You'll need to trust me on this. So, one would expect that you'd won about 15 of those 45 games for it all to be about luck, right?

You won 7. Is this to say that you are less than half as likely to gain Oceania as the next guy? Really? Over a stretch of 45 games? Sorry, I'm having a hard time buying that. My suggestion, worry more about what you're doing wrong in the game and less about the rules being "unfair".

I am also not very good at singles games. Saying Oceana makes the game all about luck was a bit of a stretch. Saying that it adds an element of luck to the game is a more accurate statement.

Wouldn't ANY game involving dice in some way have "an element of luck" to it? The board is called "Classic" because it's the same board as it was created about 50 years ago. I accually have a board with a 1968 copyright on it, and it's the same board. There are older boards and younger boards... redrawn a bit differently in some cases, but exactly the same for game play.

If you don't like the fact that Oz gets 2 armies per, then don't play on it. Hasbro has been adding changes to Risk for years now, and Conquerclub here does the same thing by offering different maps with different ways to play what is essentually the same game.

Last thing... if a game had no element of luck, then wouldn't a game play the same way everytime? Every game would then be like Chess... the only determining factor would be stratagy and skill. Thusly if you sucked, you'd eventually stop playing, because you wouldn't be having any FUN. One of the reasons we play games is that we can have fun, and always have a chance to win.... whether you be a cook or a general.

PS: point me in the direction of a thread to talk about the gayness of the smilies.... esh.