Conquer Club

Authors Notes

Apologies if you find this post a bit too long to read. I've proof read this thing over and over and hopefully it won't need much editing beyond what I've already done before hitting the submit button. One last thing, if you're struggling with your game and looking for guidance from an experienced player then I'd recommend visiting the Society of the Cooks thread Calling all cooks - Society of the Cooks Forum is now open.


Glossary

Drop: Your starting territory or territories upon game initialisation.
Control Bonus: Bonus troops gained when occupying the same colour/type/group of territories, or when the special conditions are met for occupying certain territories(varies between maps, is usually indicated on the map legend).
Territory Bonus: Bonus troops gained after the default 3 per turn when you conquer and hold 12 or more territories, +1 extra and an additional +1 for every three territories after 12 that you own.
Stack: Usually refers to large numbers of troops located in one territory.


The Topic

Territory Bonus Vs. Control Bonus

More territories or bigger stacks? One of the real 'quality versus quantity' dilemmas when playing on a new map. I'm often wondering if I should go for the Territory Bonus or the Control Bonus, more often than not it depends on your drop. There are a shed load of maps to choose from and sometimes it's just not easy to decide what territory to go for(if any). It all rather seems to be a load of swings and round-abouts, but we'll try and make sense of this muddle, first off we'll start with the pros and cons of the Territory Bonus and the Control Bonus. The Territory Bonus yields low rewards to start with, but once you start accruing additional territories the rewards rack up. Losing a territory or two has little or no impact and will likely only knock off +1 from your extra troops bonus. So hard to gain and hard to lose, with low but consistent reward increments and low maintenance requiring only a very few troops to occupy your territories. On the other hand the Control Bonus yields a reward that is dependent upon the number of territories of the same colour/type/group that you're trying to control. It is also a rather all-or-nothing affair(depending on the map) where your bonus can be broken if just one of the territories you require control of is wrested from your ownership. Can be difficult to gain and sometimes easily lost again, but yields rewards directly proportionate to the difficulty of holding all the required territories, may require a few stacks to ward off attackers until your next turn.

Now lets talk through some of the factors that will influence whether you plumb for a Control Bonus or a Territory Bonus.

1) Drop
2) Map size
3) Number of players
4) Spoils

1) Drop
This will have the largest impact on your initial decision making, if you drop mostly on one colour/type/group of territories then it's that much easier to claim the remainder that lie outside your control and reap the Control Bonus it affords. If you have a difficult drop with no two territories under your control adjacent to each other, then you'll probably want to go for the Territory Bonus instead. Try to go for the cheap shots like territories with only one troop occupying them if possible. If you are playing on a map where you start with just one or two territories on your first turn then it'll be more profitable to go for the Control Bonus.

2) Map size
The larger the map, the more territories you will start with on your first turn, generally speaking. On tiny maps like Doodle Earth(total available territories is 18) it's clearly best to go for the Control Bonus, as trying for the Territory Bonus will be difficult to say the least and just make you a magnet for attack from all the other players. On huge maps like Conquerman(total available territories is 141! ) it's a lot easier to gain and hold the Territory Bonus, which starts at 12 territories owned and gets higher with every additional 3 territories. The Control Bonus is still useful, but not nearly so critical to success on a large map.

3) Number of Players
Always second to map size the number of players in the game will affect how many territories you start with in addition to how big the map is, more players means fewer territories at the start(if starting with more than one territory in the first place). So basically the same considerations as map size, what you do depends on how many territories you have at the start. Of course with each additional player comes a potential additional attacker, should someone successfully galvanise the collective to attack you on the premise that "you're getting too strong".

4) Spoils
A no spoils game will keep things nice and simple, it's just you, your opponents, and the dice. In a flat rate spoils game you'll get an occasional boost of extra troops when you cash in a set, the Territory Bonus and/or Control Bonus are still important. But your ability to retain any bonuses can change quickly when you or your opponents cash in sets, contingency planning is essential if you're to retain your hard won bonus! In an escalating spoils game, the Territory Bonus and Control Bonus will quickly become irrelevant from about round 7 and onwards(especially in games with 5 or more player). If you've managed to bag a bonus or two, don't try to hold on to them too hard once players are getting 20+ troops per set of cards, you'll just be drawing attention to yourself.


Summary

I think that covers everything for now, I'll incorporate useful information from posts by other users, especially if it's something I've missed. I'll take the opportunity once again to recommend to new players a visit to the Society of the Cooks thread Calling all cooks - Society of the Cooks Forum is now open. You don't have to be a Cook, but it helps!

I think this whole post is a waste of space again.

Firstly, to go for a "control bonus," you are at the same time going toward a territory bonus, so that is barely even a distinction.

Secondly, the only "control bonus" according to your definition would be on the following maps: AoR III, Feudal War, Imperium Romanum, New World, and Prison Riot. These are the only maps that qualify under your definition:

Bonus troops gained when occupying the same colour/type/group of territories, or when the special conditions are met for occupying certain territories(varies between maps, is usually indicated on the map legend).

Thirdly, since the strategy (well, good strategy) for each map bares absolutely no resemblance to each other, the whole concept of grouping them together is pointless. If you want to start a thread about this for a particular map... okay... but you can't take the strategy from one non-classic gameplay map and apply it to another. Never works unless it is generic and applies to all maps.

Artimis wrote:Control Bonus: Bonus troops gained when occupying the same colour/type/group of territories, or when the special conditions are met for occupying certain territories(varies between maps, is usually indicated on the map legend).

usually? They're always indicated on the legend. If you can't find it, you're not looking hard enough.

The Neon Peon - Is that 'waste of space' because you think nobody will read it? Or 'waste of space' because you don't want people to read it? Or maybe you just expect everyone to know the be all and end of strategy from the instructions page? In which case this entire 'Strategy' forum is a 'waste of space'. Either way lets clarify something: By Control Bonus I mean owning all Australia or South America or any same type of a territory that would grant you a Control Bonus for meeting the special requirements in any given map that you're playing on. What I've posted here is a broad generalisation that can be applied to most of the maps I've played(not all of them granted).

I'm trying to contribute to the site in a meaningful manner, if you think the wording is too ambiguious, then perhaps you could suggest something to replace it?


Timminz - Point noted, I'll edit it in sometime.

Okay, if you mean continent bonus, then stop making up your own language and use the one the rest of us use.

The reasons for what I said were in my post if you cared to read it... however most of it went off of your lack of common terminology.

So, now that we have caught you up with what CC usually calls things... I will say that this is still pointless.

Firstly... The first point you made about the drop refutes the others. You just said in this point that it determines what you go for because luck makes most other options impossible, or very hard... so just look at the drop you have and go off that. The whole thing about a map with a start of one or two territories... you are talking AoR and Feudal and New World... once again, completely different strategy for each. In Feudal, you often want to go for the territory bonus by round 3... so don't give advice on maps in general.

Okay, now the map size... a bonus where you only take 1 or 2 neutral territories and some non-neutrals is ALWAYS more important than territory bonus. A territory bonus can never catch up to a continent bonus if the continent bonus is not very hard to obtain. Even the conquerman proves this... the diamonds are as important as 6 territories... you just prove yourself wrong... 18 men for territory bonus v 3 for continent...

Number of players: Half that post was explaining how this was similar to map size... usually, it is good to leave out stuff like that if you are trying to say anything in life. Don't point out flaws in your own presentation of the argument, especially not before you actually give it. This stuff is why you have been receiving a lot of negative comments in posts.

Now on to the cards... No Card setting is not about luck... if you think it is, you are playing it incorrectly. The point of no cards is to be good at positioning your main force and not attacking (for some reason, hard to have dice when you do not attack, not sure why they are not part of the deployment phase). The point of it is to take advantage of the people who choose to attack every round.

Flat rate... okay, congratulations, you have something right, but how does this apply? Your point was that continents were harder to keep but you did not even say anything about what you should do about it. Again, don't point out something bad and assume people come to the same conclusion you do about it.

Escalating... keep it simple... "neither are important, don't go for either," not that hard to explain. You should never even try to hold on to them in the first place if you are playing correctly, so what is the point of giving the advice to stop holding on?

Hmmmm, a particular post keeps popping into my mind. Wait, here it is: Re: 19750 members and dropping

The bit that's flashing up in my mind.

e_i_pi wrote:The amount of shouting down that occurs in the Foundry and Tournament forums to new users who wish to contribute but don't know how

Granted this is Strategy and not the Foundry or Tournament. Maybe I am screwing up my own posts up, then again maybe I'm not, I don't want sympathy, that's not the point here. I just want to contribute, last time I checked the forum guidelines that wasn't an offence! Just what is your beef? If it's about me personally then I invite you to PM it to me, or if you want to make it public knowledge probably better take it to Flame Wars.

Okay, just reed my above post. I think you did not do that before you wrote that last one.

If you did, then I suggest you read it again.

Giving advice on subjects your lacking experience or knowledge in is the issue.

Its like Martha Stewert giving advice on Quantum Physics.

People are not talking down to you. They are pointing out the errors and in some cases uselessness of your information posted.

In Karate class I always am wary of the yellow belt when he gives advice on technique.

Iron Butterfly wrote:Giving advice on subjects your lacking experience or knowledge in is the issue.

exact-a-mundo... another useless interpretation of the rules by artimis... wonder how long before this dies down and he has to continually bump it. again, USER GROUP, that is the best thing for you artimis!! people will come that want to discuss these things with you, and you will be free of people mocking your flawed arguments and logic...-0

Artimis wrote:4) Spoils
A no spoils game will keep things nice and simple, it's just you, your opponents, and the dice.

you are sorely mistaken, if you believe this to be true. no spoils games require a great deal of strategy and positioning to be succesful, especially in team games. perhaps you should hold off on commenting on things that you know very little about, because it just makes your entire post seem to be lacking in general CC knowledge of game play and what it takes to win or to be a success at certain settings.-0

owenshooter wrote:

Iron Butterfly wrote:Giving advice on subjects your lacking experience or knowledge in is the issue.

exact-a-mundo... another useless interpretation of the rules by artimis... wonder how long before this dies down and he has to continually bump it. again, USER GROUP, that is the best thing for you artimis!! people will come that want to discuss these things with you, and you will be free of people mocking your flawed arguments and logic...-0

Hmm...I think it is good the OP is trying to contribute to the site and some of the information might be useful to a new player. The strategy forum has been pretty dead since I started reading it (and to be perfectly honest with you I stopped reading for quite a while) so I am impressed artimis is making an effort and that should be encouraged.

I suspect the great problem here is that to a lot of players there is nothing new here and nothing of any interest. However, there might be some new players who do get some benefit (you never know!) from it, so I don't see much point in shooting it down!

Mostly I think my post suffers with trying to address too much in too short a space, trying to deal with too many items for discussion at once will lead to confusion. I'm thinking I should deal with the Territory Bonus and the Control Bonus as separate issues, that'll make the posts shorter and hence more appealing to read. After all, 'less is more', right?

I'll have to ponder it for a while.

Artimis wrote:Apologies if you find this post a bit too long to read.

i execpted your apology but didnt read on...

Artimis wrote:Mostly I think my post suffers with trying to address too much in too short a space, trying to deal with too many items for discussion at once will lead to confusion. I'm thinking I should deal with the Territory Bonus and the Control Bonus as separate issues, that'll make the posts shorter and hence more appealing to read. After all, 'less is more', right?

I'll have to ponder it for a while.

1. Who is confused?
2. It is f*ing continent bonus. You eliminate 90% of the confusion by using a word that you did not make up.
3. Yes, your post tries to address too much in a little area, much of which you fail to give good advice on.

The Neon Peon wrote:

Artimis wrote:Mostly I think my post suffers with trying to address too much in too short a space, trying to deal with too many items for discussion at once will lead to confusion. I'm thinking I should deal with the Territory Bonus and the Control Bonus as separate issues, that'll make the posts shorter and hence more appealing to read. After all, 'less is more', right?

I'll have to ponder it for a while.

2. It is f*ing continent bonus. You eliminate 90% of the confusion by using a word that you did not make up.

It's zone bonus, good sir

Stroop wrote:It's zone bonus, good sir

Indeed, Zone Bonus it is, lest the Hasbro get itchy legal trigger fingers again.

Stroop wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:

Artimis wrote:Mostly I think my post suffers with trying to address too much in too short a space, trying to deal with too many items for discussion at once will lead to confusion. I'm thinking I should deal with the Territory Bonus and the Control Bonus as separate issues, that'll make the posts shorter and hence more appealing to read. After all, 'less is more', right?

I'll have to ponder it for a while.

2. It is f*ing continent bonus. You eliminate 90% of the confusion by using a word that you did not make up.

It's zone bonus, good sir

yea, and it's region bonus, not territory bonus.

Phlaim wrote:yea, and it's region bonus, not territory bonus.

That too, pedantic smart arse!

I don't get it, why the f*ck is a corporal writing all these up? It's quite apparent he doesn't know what he's doing if he's only gained 112 points since he's started on this site. His strategy thus is completely irrelevant and generally invalid no matter how accurate it truly is because he can't back it up with his own score. If his strategy was spot on he wouldn't be ranked so terribly.

Just because people don't have high ranks doesn't mean they are bad at the game or bad at strategy. They are probably just in the game playing the modes and games they think are the funnest to play, not necessarily playing the modes and games that will win them points and are boring.

Kalano Sanchin wrote:Just because people don't have high ranks doesn't mean they are bad at the game or bad at strategy. They are probably just in the game playing the modes and games they think are the funnest to play, not necessarily playing the modes and games that will win them points and are boring.

Of course it does. If he's giving advice on something to others on playstyles, then he should be able to execute what he's advising on and win from it.

If they are playing the modes and games they think are the most fun to play and are LOSING, that's fine, but they then should NOT be advising others on strategy. Every single player on this site generally plays whatever they feel are the most fun modes to play, otherwise they'd be playing others. Hence the reason Max says he farms, he enjoys winning like 95% of the time and upping his score. That's the most fun mode to him, its' not like he gets on CC everyday and goes "f*ck, I have to play these peopel again, I hate this chore but I'm doing it for the points."

FabledIntegral wrote:Of course it does. If he's giving advice on something to others on playstyles, then he should be able to execute what he's advising on and win from it.

If they are playing the modes and games they think are the most fun to play and are LOSING, that's fine, but they then should NOT be advising others on strategy. Every single player on this site generally plays whatever they feel are the most fun modes to play, otherwise they'd be playing others. Hence the reason Max says he farms, he enjoys winning like 95% of the time and upping his score. That's the most fun mode to him, its' not like he gets on CC everyday and goes "f*ck, I have to play these peopel again, I hate this chore but I'm doing it for the points."

But did you stop to think that perhaps I don't really care about my score at this point? So I'm not a Field Marshal, so what? Just how valuable do you think your rank of Brigadier is anyway? If I wanted to be a Brigadier or better overnight then I'd go out and farm too. But I don't want to partly because it cheapens the whole rank system, you don't have to be good to gain points when you farm. Just so as we're not losing sight of which forum we're posting in, there's a time and a place for this pointless bickering and it's certainly not here!

*Back on topic* - This thread needs ditching or laying to rest or something, because the original post is trying to describe too much in too little space and it's already too long for ease of reading to start with.

Firstly...

I played two games with Artimis, and will say his strategy in real life for these issues.

One was assassin, and he chose to hit a neutral 10 (apparently going for a territory bonus)... for some reason, that was not the best position to go for a territory bonus.

The other was on an Oasis map, with all majors+, in that game, he chose to attack territories outside the desert and going for territory bonus again... 100% of the people had more men than him by round 2, and for some reason, he did not notice that the people that were most successful in any round in that game were the ones who had most oases.

I really don't think you can tell anyone much about either of these. In the first game you proved you did not know when to not hit a neutral stack that does not give a continent bonus, so I doubt you there. And in the second game, you proved you do not realize that never even trying for a simple, one territory to hold continent bonus is more valuable than territories.

This is why I doubt any of this advice.

Artimis wrote:*Back on topic* - This thread needs ditching or laying to rest or something, because the original post is trying to describe too much in too little space and it's already too long for ease of reading to start with.

pretty much like most of the threads you have created... pm a mod and ask them to lock it, i'm sure they will oblige... or change the topic to [PLEASE LOCK]...-0

Locked via OP's request.