Conquer Club

I know that sometimes playing freestyle can make things a little unfair, but the games do go a lot faster, and it seems like when you check your games there are more opportunities for you to play in the freestyle games. I haven't really minded too much when others have had two turns before I get mine. What the heck, I've won a few games like that too. I haven't done it with the intention of cheating. It's just that when I check my games the chance to play is there, so I take it. Now, however, I see that a new tactic is becoming more popular. I've been in several games lately where people have waited for me to start eliminating someone, and then come in at the last minute, during my turn, and taken out my intended victim before I can get to their last man. Soooo, big deal. Why cry about it? That was my attitude the first couple of times it happened. Now, I see it happening every day. Obviously, this has become a popular strategy, to sit there at the computer and watch someone else battling so that you can swope in and pick up the pieces before their turn is finished......

I'll just run more sequential games.

Scarus

There's life beyond Risk...., but apparently not for all.

I'm with you, Scarus. Freestyle, in my opinion, suits the less capable players that have lots of time just fine.

Those people have to try the game the way it was originally intended and see how well they can do.

Freestyle I can do, but I'm losing interest specifically in 6-player Freestyle Escalating. There's almost no strategy... Take Australia if you can, S. America if no one else is, Africa if your placement gives it to you in the first turn. Otherwise avoid continents like the plague. Build up and get up close to whoever looks likely. Then around round 7-8 (a little earlier with the Asia map sometimes) be online constantly, to make sure you're there to move at exactly the right moment to go on a rolling elimination. It's a formula whose success or failure depends on whether you go outside today. All the games I've enjoyed the most have been sequential flat-rate games, where every move counts and if you win it means there's been something clever that happened.

I totally agree! I still play some freestyle to get the games a little faster but I do check the background history of the people enloisted in those freestyle games. I takes a lot more time (and sometimes the game starts while I'm doing the research ) but that way you are almost shure that your not playing cheaters or holders...

Ive known this could be a tactic for some time now & new it would emerge sooner or later. While ive never tried this tactic, i have placed men (when chance & opportunity suddenly presented themselves) on a particular spot & stopped some1 from taking me or a teammate out during their turn.........lol......i bet they were as surprised to what happened to their killing drive as i was to see what was happening to me or my team. I'm like you scarus, i just pop in & take my turn as i see green lights, nothing more, nothing less.......... but it sure seems that has handicapped me in several games ive played in. Oh well, i'm just glad to have a life beyond my puter, even tho it seems i spend most of that life on it.............lmao

YP

yeah most of the games, actually almost all of them are free style. and latley ive been loosing a lot because im not on the computer at the right time... maybe i should play sequential more often. maybe ill win a couple then....

Im with you all. Now, I only play sequential games, if standard. For doubles, freestyle is part of the strategy, but its a pain. Someone suggested it: how about if in sequential doubles, each member of the team could move as freestyle, but the team itself as sequential? It would also take less time playing, I think it would be really good.

I have problems with games with escalating cards as well. Later in the game when trade ins are worth 30, 40 armies a piece it just makes it feel like it doesn't matter nearly as much what you have at that point. Even if you've played a good game, and have a firm hold on a continent, you could suddenly be unseated by a player who's almost out with a trade in. I've long since stopped playing freestyle games with double turns allowed. I'm ok with freestyle games that don't allow double turns, sometimes things get unfair, but I don't think it's too bad, especially without escalating cards, where games won't be decided in a turn anyway.

Gee, now I finally have something to blame this big losing streak on, that damn freestyle! I agree with YP, I have totally tried to jump in when I see all the sudden someone that is close to me is taking there turn andhave prevented takeover a few times, but still have been taken over wayyyyyyyyyyyyy to many times and now i'm back down to private bitch again. Maybe sequential is the way to go and maybe i'd get a little homework done then as well. LOL.

I think you're all on the right track. Personally, I go a step farther.

1. I only play games that I initiate. I always get to play the rules that I like, and I always get to be red.

2. From now on, I only play sequential, no cards. The reason is this: when the server draws everyone's countries at the beginning of a game, it automaticly distributes 3 armies to every country, as opposed to Risk, where you get to place your armies to suit your own strategy for that game. I understand that this difference is a matter of pure practicality, and I don't mind it, but the effect is that your 'luck of the draw' at the beginning has a much greater impact on your chances of success. In Risk, the cards add an element of random chance to the game, in order to provide balance. Depending on the cards you draw, you may get 10 extra armies in round 4, or you may get no extra armies until round five, and then only if you manage to take a country every turn. In my opinion, having both of these elements of chance unbalances the game, and marginalizes the use of good strategy and tactics. A poor player who happens to get a good draw, and then happens to get good cards, can easily overpower a good player. Adding freestyle play, where the order of turns depends on when the players manage to get to their computers, amplifys the imbalance. So, I play with no cards, sequential games, where strategy and tactics are more important than luck.

Until our Beloved Leader (no sarcasm - you rock!!) gets around to programming realtime games, where personalized army placement at the beginnig of a game would be feesable, that's about the best one can do.

No Card is very difficult sometimes. If a player gets a continent in the first couple of turns (i.e. Australia or S. America) they can just wear everyone else down, leveraging their bonus armies to keep everyone from continents. Then the game needs to become a mess of alliances. I'm finding that a No Card game can be really interesting if it starts without any player in a position of clear advantage, forcing everyone to spend several rounds building up huge armies before even beginning to move. I haven't played one on it yet, but it looks like No Card is better on the Asia map, where the continents are easier to capture. But if any one player gets TWO continents in a No Card game and holds them two turns then that game is over.

I play sequential all the time apart from every so often it's better as you can have a break from cc

It's sequential for me everytime.

I've played doubles on the sequential to see how it played, and we won that one as well.

Although I do think it needs tweaking as suggested above

Max, you misspelled 'prevail' in your signature.

Max misspells his own name.

Hoosiercheetah wrote:Max, you misspelled 'prevail' in your signature.

I would have thought that you would have PM me that as it's off topic and everyone is having a go at me for it

Well, then you would have thought wrong. And you can cure your problem by correcting the spelling error. If you choose not to do so, then you choose to continue to be harrassed about it.