Conquer Club

I have played a sizable number of nuclear spoils games, and I have come to the conclusion that it is silly that when you hold spoils for countries that you own, they get nuked also. Many times you are FORCED to nuke your own territories once you have five spoils. I think it would be better if when you use a set of spoils that you get a two man bonus for spoils on territories you own, just like you would normally. Any other spoils for territories you DON'T own get nuked as usual. At the very least you shouldn't be penalized for using a set of spoils. That's just silly. This is a war game. No one would ever nuke themselves.

The danger of Nuking your own spot is what makes it special. While this may be more convenient for people who play nuclear spoils, the spirit of the game when playing nukes would be decreased.

-rd

rdsrds2120 wrote:The danger of Nuking your own spot is what makes it special. While this may be more convenient for people who play nuclear spoils, the spirit of the game when playing nukes would be decreased.

-rd

The spirit of Risk is to simulate war, and to use real war strategies. Name me one war were people nuked themselves, or bombed themselves. I'm sure there have been accidents, but never has someone purposely bombed themselves or been forced to bomb themselves. I also thought of one other HUGE flaw. I am sure this has happened, though I have not seen it, but I'll bet someone has used a nuke spoils set in an assassin game and took out someone that wasn't their target, and had no choice but to do so. That is stupid, and should not be allowed to happen.

Jamie wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:The danger of Nuking your own spot is what makes it special. While this may be more convenient for people who play nuclear spoils, the spirit of the game when playing nukes would be decreased.

-rd

The spirit of Risk is to simulate war, and to use real war strategies. Name me one war were people nuked themselves, or bombed themselves. I'm sure there have been accidents, but never has someone purposely bombed themselves or been forced to bomb themselves. I also thought of one other HUGE flaw. I am sure this has happened, though I have not seen it, but I'll bet someone has used a nuke spoils set in an assassin game and took out someone that wasn't their target, and had no choice but to do so. That is stupid, and should not be allowed to happen.

This isn't RISK, and we're not directly emulating war.

-rd

Jamie wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:The danger of Nuking your own spot is what makes it special. While this may be more convenient for people who play nuclear spoils, the spirit of the game when playing nukes would be decreased.

-rd

The spirit of Risk is to simulate war, and to use real war strategies. Name me one war were people nuked themselves, or bombed themselves. I'm sure there have been accidents, but never has someone purposely bombed themselves or been forced to bomb themselves. I also thought of one other HUGE flaw. I am sure this has happened, though I have not seen it, but I'll bet someone has used a nuke spoils set in an assassin game and took out someone that wasn't their target, and had no choice but to do so. That is stupid, and should not be allowed to happen.

Name one war where all odds from both sides were equal at the start and the different sides took turns hitting each other.

And nuking your spot or eliminating your enemy is part of the game. I hosted a tournament on Middle Ages with nukes, a few times the board leader was eliminated on a set of lucky spoils. All sides knew the rules going into it is my opinion. Not to sound like a dick but if you don't like it, don't play Nukes. Or submit a new suggestion called Smart Nukes where they follow your rules.

+1. it was a great tourney btw

it could be a new game type. but nukes as it is should stay. what i don t like though in the actual nukes is that it is possible to have a card, safehouse on it and that someone else has the same card. that sucks and i think they should make it impossible to happen.

betiko wrote:it could be a new game type. but nukes as it is should stay. what i don t like though in the actual nukes is that it is possible to have a card, safehouse on it and that someone else has the same card. that sucks and i think they should make it impossible to happen.

If there is more cards then terts then there will always be doubles. Only way around it is to card blanks after the tert count is reached.

GeneralRisk wrote:

betiko wrote:it could be a new game type. but nukes as it is should stay. what i don t like though in the actual nukes is that it is possible to have a card, safehouse on it and that someone else has the same card. that sucks and i think they should make it impossible to happen.

If there is more cards then terts then there will always be doubles. Only way around it is to card blanks after the tert count is reached.

yes i think this would be a good idea. safehousing is one of the points of nuke in multiplayer, and on small maps with lots of players it can just become total bs.

A less drastic change could be that if you have five cards in a nuclear game, you can choose not to turn them in, in which case you will not be allowed to attack on that turn. You can only deploy your new troops, followed immediatly by re-deploying existing troops. This would allow you to move a large pile of troops to another territory,

Jamie wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:The danger of Nuking your own spot is what makes it special. While this may be more convenient for people who play nuclear spoils, the spirit of the game when playing nukes would be decreased.

-rd

The spirit of Risk is to simulate war, and to use real war strategies. Name me one war were people nuked themselves, or bombed themselves. I'm sure there have been accidents, but never has someone purposely bombed themselves or been forced to bomb themselves. I also thought of one other HUGE flaw. I am sure this has happened, though I have not seen it, but I'll bet someone has used a nuke spoils set in an assassin game and took out someone that wasn't their target, and had no choice but to do so. That is stupid, and should not be allowed to happen.

in the 80 or so years since the atom bomb was created i can only think of two occasions of a nuke being used and it was in the same war, yet how many conflicts has this planet had?

actually using nukes is not a part of real wars. we have them here for fun, to mix things up a bit.

The (14) people have spoken! I doubt that there's going to be such a substantial change to nuke spoils as you propose. Moved to REJECTED.