Conquer Club

Initial Troop Deployment *Pending*

Suggestions that have been archived.

Moderator: Community Team

Initial Troop Deployment *Pending*

Postby c1arinetboy on Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:25 am

Hi! I'm new here, so forgive me if this has been brought up before or if I did something stupid. I was thinking that there might be a better way to handle the placement of the armies at the beginning of the game. Having exactly 3 armies on each territory may save time with the setup, but it creates a lot of problems for gameplay (at least that's how I see it). So, my idea is this: you could have a turn at the beginning where everyone can place their armies where they like, but without sight of any opponents' troops. This way, nobody gets an advantage by going first or waiting until last, the games would move faster, and it would be truer to the original game. Of course, the current system could be retained as an option for people who prefer it that way. Is there any reason why this couldn't work?


Edit: Since it seems like a lot of people are unclear on this, yes, the current system would be kept as an option!
Last edited by c1arinetboy on Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Sergeant c1arinetboy
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:47 pm
Location: 33°23'15" N 112°03'00" W

Postby JTFR on Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:29 pm

IM all for something that closer resembles the original game that way.
User avatar
Private 1st Class JTFR
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:59 pm
Location: Lock er down!

Postby SMITH197 on Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:30 pm

this has been brought up before, but i dont think such a creative (and in my opinion brilliant) idea has been brought up before. Good job...twill or lack should definatly give this some thought. If you really feel strongly about this issue, make sure this thread gets views. and get people to support you. Lack tends to respond well to the masses asking something of him, which make him great. Keep this thread bumped up there, and maybe we could create this option. I'm behind you.

--Smitty
Image

"Did you fortify New Guinea or are you just happy to see me?"
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class SMITH197
 
Posts: 623
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: Gouverneur NY

Postby c1arinetboy on Fri Jul 07, 2006 3:24 am

Thanks for the support! :) I'll set it up as a poll too. I've seen some other people do that.
User avatar
Sergeant c1arinetboy
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:47 pm
Location: 33°23'15" N 112°03'00" W

Re: Initial deployment of the armies

Postby reverend_kyle on Fri Jul 07, 2006 3:35 am

c1arinetboy wrote:Hi! I'm new here, so forgive me if this has been brought up before or if I did something stupid. I was thinking that there might be a better way to handle the placement of the armies at the beginning of the game. Having exactly 3 armies on each territory may save time with the setup, but it creates a lot of problems for gameplay (at least that's how I see it). So, my idea is this: you could have a turn at the beginning where everyone can place their armies where they like, but without sight of any opponents' troops. This way, nobody gets an advantage by going first or waiting until last, the games would move faster, and it would be truer to the original game. Of course, the current system could be retained as an option for people who prefer it that way. Is there any reason why this couldn't work?


I see no practicality problems with this... http://www.landgrab.net has it and it works fine
DANCING MUSTARD FOR POOP IN '08!
User avatar
Sergeant reverend_kyle
 
Posts: 9250
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:08 pm
Location: 1000 post club

Postby Marvaddin on Fri Jul 07, 2006 8:46 am

Hmmm, not really alike the real life board game, since you can see the opponents troops in real life.

But how would it work? Any place with 1 army in the begginning? So, the first player could deploy and attack "1" armies? To it work better, so in the deployment turn no one can really play until its done... I didnt realize if it was your original idea. Hmm, and so, if a player lose the deployment period, so he could have 3 in each army, huh? And it could count as a turn to players being kicked out... The thing is, the deployment army should be 1 day to all players, and it shouldnt be showed in game log until action starts...
Image
User avatar
Major Marvaddin
 
Posts: 2545
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:06 pm
Location: Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Postby Ronaldinho on Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:29 am

i dont understand just keep it the same and it causes no fuss what so ever..... i mean if you really did dis-like the game you wouldent play it simple really :)

Ronaldinho. :wink:
Image
User avatar
Sergeant Ronaldinho
 
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 5:35 pm
Location: Dorset, England.

Postby c1arinetboy on Sat Jul 08, 2006 2:11 am

Marvaddin wrote:Hmmm, not really alike the real life board game, since you can see the opponents troops in real life.

But how would it work? Any place with 1 army in the begginning? So, the first player could deploy and attack "1" armies? To it work better, so in the deployment turn no one can really play until its done... I didnt realize if it was your original idea. Hmm, and so, if a player lose the deployment period, so he could have 3 in each army, huh? And it could count as a turn to players being kicked out... The thing is, the deployment army should be 1 day to all players, and it shouldnt be showed in game log until action starts...


Actually, that's exactly what I was saying, or trying to say :? . What I mean is, for the first 24 hour period, everyone would have the opportunity to place their armies on any of their territories how they like, as in the real game, but with the difference that each player can't see any of the other player's armies during this time. This is to balance out the possible advantages of placing your armies first or last. Does this make more sense?
User avatar
Sergeant c1arinetboy
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:47 pm
Location: 33°23'15" N 112°03'00" W

Postby SMITH197 on Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:44 am

so even for a seq. game, the first 24 hours would kinda be like a freestyle, with every person coming and placing the armies.

I have to disagree with ronaldinho though...I dont think this would take the place of the current system, it would just make for another option at the begining of game play. I think it would be quite exciting to see what the board looked like after everyone has placed.

Obviously, I'm focusing on the benifits that i see. But what are the bad things this might bring up? Could this cause further exploitation of the rules? Would problems arise that would make this system not worth the trouble?

Spill it

--Smitty
Image

"Did you fortify New Guinea or are you just happy to see me?"
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class SMITH197
 
Posts: 623
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: Gouverneur NY

Postby c1arinetboy on Sat Jul 08, 2006 4:28 pm

The one issue I can think of is that two or more people would try for the same goal. For instance, there's a possibility that up to four players could all try to take Australia and as a result they'd all kill each other. But I think this is actually a good thing. It could add another element of strategy, to try to anticipate the opponent's plans, place your armies in the most flexible spots, and to play off other's fears. And if you don't like that, the current system would still be an option.
User avatar
Sergeant c1arinetboy
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:47 pm
Location: 33°23'15" N 112°03'00" W

Postby SMITH197 on Sat Jul 08, 2006 7:41 pm

i agree...that would add an exciting variation on the game. Also, it almost gives the play more control. As it stands, the start of the game is luck based, ie, you're stuck with what you're given. This new method allows for some flexiblity to the player.
Image

"Did you fortify New Guinea or are you just happy to see me?"
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class SMITH197
 
Posts: 623
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: Gouverneur NY

Postby c1arinetboy on Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:11 am

Yeah, but it still looks like 8/18 people still think it shouldn't even be an option :?. It makes me wonder how many of them actually read my initial post.
User avatar
Sergeant c1arinetboy
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:47 pm
Location: 33°23'15" N 112°03'00" W

I would.....

Postby kwolff on Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:49 am

That every country should start with one ......then with the random start you place your armies during your turn with everyone seeing where the previous player put theirs .......yea people would get screwd, but no diff than now .....and even maybe the last player would be able to stay alive longer than now because they would put all their guys on one country to stick longer .......
User avatar
Major kwolff
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: pittsburgh PA

Postby wcaclimbing on Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:46 pm

i like the idea but the way armies are set out now should be kept as a game option cause its sometimes easier to just start that way

(i start games on the board game with 3 guys per country at my house sometimes)
Image
User avatar
Private 1st Class wcaclimbing
 
Posts: 5598
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 10:09 pm
Location: In your quantum box....Maybe.

Postby killerbee on Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:48 pm

Hi all,

I think it's an interesting option and i know Scarus would love it.

Killerbee
up the bees
User avatar
Captain killerbee
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 6:16 pm
Location: Hanwell, London

Postby phishn80 on Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:22 pm

i like the idea, maybe as an alternative to the current way as you suggested. cheers.
User avatar
Lieutenant phishn80
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:35 pm

Postby StellarTek on Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:05 am

I'm for it but I think the admins are rejecting it for now. I put a post about in : http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1214&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15[/url]
User avatar
Corporal StellarTek
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:06 am
Location: Indy

Postby reverend_kyle on Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:23 am

If you want it I suggest you play at a diff site also.
DANCING MUSTARD FOR POOP IN '08!
User avatar
Sergeant reverend_kyle
 
Posts: 9250
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:08 pm
Location: 1000 post club

Postby AndyDufresne on Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:29 am

Yep, dissent strikes again. ;)


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24935
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Postby reverend_kyle on Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:42 am

AndyDufresne wrote:Yep, dissent strikes again. ;)


--Andy


Not so much dissent as it is filed under "rejected"... that doesnt make it seem like its going to happen. playing at 2 sites isnt hard.. I do it.. and I'm starting at waw game too.
DANCING MUSTARD FOR POOP IN '08!
User avatar
Sergeant reverend_kyle
 
Posts: 9250
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:08 pm
Location: 1000 post club

Postby gavin_sidhu on Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:05 am

dislike the idea very much.
Highest Score: 1843 Ranking (Australians): 3
User avatar
Lieutenant gavin_sidhu
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 6:16 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby StellarTek on Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:07 am

key word "option" the freedom of choice. if ya dont like that style then dont play it. some of us would like it. i wouldnt stop playing the other styles, it would just add more to the game. no need to get your panties in a bunch.
Silence is golden & Duct tape is silver.
Subsiste Sermonem Statim

free space online 2gigs plus fast uploads
https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTM1ODU5Njg5
User avatar
Corporal StellarTek
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:06 am
Location: Indy

Postby Loudawg on Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:50 am

it take forever for some people to just take their turn let alone one piece here one piece there .. this would take days if not weeks ... thats why it could only be done if there was a live game option where everyone had to show up at the same time .. good luck with that
she ate my enema and left me nothing to lick
User avatar
Colonel Loudawg
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:10 pm
Location: hong kong macau vietnam philippines taiwan thailand indonesia

Postby nyg5680 on Sat Jul 29, 2006 6:34 am

c1arinetboy wrote:
Marvaddin wrote:Hmmm, not really alike the real life board game, since you can see the opponents troops in real life.

But how would it work? Any place with 1 army in the begginning? So, the first player could deploy and attack "1" armies? To it work better, so in the deployment turn no one can really play until its done... I didnt realize if it was your original idea. Hmm, and so, if a player lose the deployment period, so he could have 3 in each army, huh? And it could count as a turn to players being kicked out... The thing is, the deployment army should be 1 day to all players, and it shouldnt be showed in game log until action starts...


Actually, that's exactly what I was saying, or trying to say :? . What I mean is, for the first 24 hour period, everyone would have the opportunity to place their armies on any of their territories how they like, as in the real game, but with the difference that each player can't see any of the other player's armies during this time. This is to balance out the possible advantages of placing your armies first or last. Does this make more sense?
thats is a bad idea because if one of the players isnt there durin that 1st few hours that evry 1 is there they get a really bad advantage they wont get an advantage
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class nyg5680
 
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:50 am
Location: united states

Potential Problem

Postby chezza21 on Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:03 am

This is a great idea.

The only problem I can see is the greater potential for undetected alliances. Ie alliances placing troops such that they gain an initial advantage but showing no signs of alliance throughout the game. As the initial turns can be critical this could give a significant advantage.

Just a thought
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class chezza21
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:04 am
Location: Australia

Next

Return to Archived Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users