Conquer Club

Many players of Risk (and CC, which is very close to Risk in terms of play) think that the games are strategic in their concept, and I am one of them (after all, they simulate war). In terms of us and our motley crew of players, there must be many good strategists out there that play this game. Now, of course, wargames are used for actual military purposes, and various National Defence Universities are out there, some for both civilian and military, some just for the military, serving as a national security think tank and as a class to bring together possible future strategists that will lead their nations' armed forces in combat. If we were to play a series of wargames in the ultimate tournament, this community versus the universities and colleges that do this for a living, do you think we stand a chance? Do you think we may actually triumph over them?

Hell yes I think the best players on here would win. The people on here do this for fun, that's a very strong motivator. Not to mention practice makes perfect.

I believe that (through Wikipedia; ALL HAIL WIKIPEDIA) the current defence universities that we know are in Finland, the US, China (PRC), Pakistan, Malaysia, Poland, Sri Lanka, India, Phillipines, Thailand, UK, and Cuba.
But FT- It's not like the students at the NDUs just sit around and take notes. And undoubtedly many of them are motivated to not lose against us, or otherwise that would be super-embarrasing. They have the funding. We have a board game, dice, and a website.

Just_essence wrote:I believe that (through Wikipedia; ALL HAIL WIKIPEDIA) the current defence universities that we know are in Finland, the US, China (PRC), Pakistan, Malaysia, Poland, Sri Lanka, India, Phillipines, Thailand, UK, and Cuba.
But FT- It's not like the students at the NDUs just sit around and take notes. And undoubtedly many of them are motivated to not lose against us, or otherwise that would be super-embarrasing. They have the funding. We have a board game, dice, and a website.

Only one way to find out I suppose.

Question is, how do we get all those people to even try it? Should we flood their contacts with requests?
"Hello, I am so-and-so, and I am a representative of the Conquer Club University, an online community that plays the wargame Risk. I am here, so chosen by our community, to request that we have a tournament against your organization in order to test our abilities. Thank you for your time."

if they played a random selection of us they might win. if they played players of our admins/CD's/CL's choice we would win.

Who is to say that some of their top guys are not already or have already been here? We need to see some starting line ups.

Maybe if you gave the best CC players about 6 months training to learn the nuances of war, then 'CCU' might stand a chance, but if not, then most likely CCU would lose.

The problem is that CC games are a poor substitute for wargames. CC games lack the uncertainty, and they require less coordination, less patience, less resistance to stress, etc. CC games cover a very limited scope of warfare; whereas, those 'NDU' wargames cover much more.

After all, they have all those multi-million funding budgets to play games with. But hey, money doesn't equal success all the time.

I took a course in college that was taught by a professor who was also an adjunct at the US Naval War College (I think). The course was entitled "History of War." Every two weeks we would study one particular conflict (e.g. the American Revolution), read selections from various books on that particular war, and then would have to write a paper on how the side that lost could have won. At the end of the course, the professor pointed out that the biggest impediment to the students doing well in a war game atmosphere (i.e. things he did at the US Naval War College) was that we did not have the requisite knowledge of technology. He indicated that we did better with our papers when the war was older.

I would note that my paper on the American Revolution, which is the only one I remember, was premised on the British destroying American towns and cities. I thought it was a great idea. The professor completely shot me down, noting that the biggest goal of the British was not subjugation and destruction, but keeping a valuable trading partner and tax payer. Needless to say, I didn't do well on the paper.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Maybe if you gave the best CC players about 6 months training to learn the nuances of war, then 'CCU' might stand a chance, but if not, then most likely CCU would lose.

The problem is that CC games are a poor substitute for wargames. CC games lack the uncertainty, and they require less coordination, less patience, less resistance to stress, etc. CC games cover a very limited scope of warfare; whereas, those 'NDU' wargames cover much more.

if those other guys are so good at tactics why haven't they learnt chess and become grand masters by now.

we know our maps, some of us know some maps really well. they dont. home ground advantage would get us over the line.

A better game for this stuff is maybe Diplomacy, but then again fans of it seem to have included JFK, and Henry Kissinger:

Less complaining about the dice I guess:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)

I have to say, Diplomacy and Risk are two of the best civilian-available wargames.

Just_essence wrote:I have to say, Diplomacy and Risk are two of the best civilian-available wargames.

I respectfully disagree.

I would go with Hearts of Iron, Europa Universalis, the Total War games, and my personal favorite Forge of Freedom.