Conquer Club

[Scorched Earth Setting]
How about a new game setting called Scorched Earth. In this game setting you have the option of advancing your entire stack leaving behind a neutral 1. This would allow you to quickly move across a map doing ultimate destruction.

The practice of "scorched earth has been used in famous military battles throughout history. It was most famously used by Joseph Stalin against the German Army in the Second World War, by William Tecumseh Sherman during his March to the Sea in the American Civil War, by Lord Kitchener against the Boers, and by the Russian army during the failed Napoleonic invasion of Russia.

I can see this setting bringing an interesting twist to many forms of strategy.
1. It would be easier to advance into enemy territories for a surprise elimination
2. You could destroy your enemies bonuses/resources without exhausting your entire hoard.
3. You can move a large stack through an undesirable area without leaving behind valuable troops in the undesirable area.

This would radically change nuclear strategy.

Some issues. With unlimited forts, can I just fort all my troops to a stack on the first turn?

Are you aware this would let people bypass not only killer neutrals but also the trap in Labyrinth?

DoomYoshi wrote:Some issues. With unlimited forts, can I just fort all my troops to a stack on the first turn?

I think this could only be used when attacking. Not sure what andyr601 intended.

DoomYoshi wrote:Are you aware this would let people bypass not only killer neutrals but also the trap in Labyrinth?

I'm not sure what you mean. You mean moving off of killer neutrals leaving them with 1 instead of 17 (an example from Lunar War)? Maybe this should work the opposite of trench. With trench you can attack an extra space through a killer neutral. With scorched earth you must leave a troop on a killer neutral?

chapcrap wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:Some issues. With unlimited forts, can I just fort all my troops to a stack on the first turn?

I think this could only be used when attacking. Not sure what andyr601 intended.

DoomYoshi wrote:Are you aware this would let people bypass not only killer neutrals but also the trap in Labyrinth?

I'm not sure what you mean. You mean moving off of killer neutrals leaving them with 1 instead of 17 (an example from Lunar War)? Maybe this should work the opposite of trench. With trench you can attack an extra space through a killer neutral. With scorched earth you must leave a troop on a killer neutral?

The suggestion is that you could leave 0. I don't mean leaving 1, I mean leaving 0. Another problem with this:
You have 18 troops left, split amongst all your territories. Every time you leave one behind, a troop is created. For every territory you own you can put an extra troop between you and your opponent. You can get an effect of 4 or 5 extra defending troops and just safely card in a corner by yourself.

I don't see that as being a very good strategy, but I guess someone could.

I was asking about the killer neutral, because I didn't understand at first what you were saying. I think you should be forced to leave a troop on the killer neutral.

I agree, as well as for trap territories.

To clarify my idea:
I am talking about leaving 0 troops behind and advancing your whole stack. For example, lets say you are attacking 10 vs 1 and you win, 1 troop automatically advances (9 on your original and 1 on your newly acquired territory). In scorched earth setting, you have the option to advance all of your remaining troops to your newly acquired territory leaving behind zero troops on the old territory and now you have your entire 10 stack on the new territory. The old territory that you left turns into a neutral 1 ( a string of neutral 1's is the scorched earth).
In regards to maps with killer neutrals, they will revert back to their original neutral count like they normally do.
I might have to play a couple of games on a risk board game to see how the game goes, but I think it would be a fun new idea to see come to life.

So you can attack off a territory, but you cannot reinforce off a territory? What is the distinction?

advancing through killer neutrals makes the idea a no-sell for me, as well as the fact that you can basically add a ton of troops to the board for free.

playing on the RISK board won`t tell you much. in the hypercompetitive world of CC, someone will figure out the strategy to get maximum free neutrals. Also, it basically completely changes nuclear (since you can pretty much self-nuke at any time), flat rate and escalating (since you can card a lot easier).

DY, how would they get 'free' neutrals? Attacking incurs some risk, thus cost; therefore, it's not free. You couldn't generate an infinite amount of troops. You just wouldn't have to deduce your stack by 1 each time you take a territory...

Scorched Earth seems to imply that each unit is more valuable since the stack retains greater numbers as it advances (no need to leave garrison troops behind, thus the 1-man neutrals). If everyone can do this, then I don't see how this lends anyone a particular advantage--other than the current attacker's advantage.

BigBallinStalin wrote:DY, how would they get 'free' neutrals? Attacking incurs some risk, thus cost; therefore, it's not free. You couldn't generate an infinite amount of troops. You just wouldn't have to deduce your stack by 1 each time you take a territory...

Scorched Earth seems to imply that each unit is more valuable since the stack retains greater numbers as it advances (no need to leave garrison troops behind, thus the 1-man neutrals). If everyone can do this, then I don't see how this lends anyone a particular advantage--other than the current attacker's advantage.

I think its a specialized enough strategy that only a few people would be able to implement effectively.

this sug is about leaving behind 0 when we currently leave behind 1 troop.

no thanks, this is not a big enough difference on what we have to warrant inclusion.

ps. killer neutrals reset if owned. with this they would not reset they'd be left as a neutral 1, allowing another player cheap passage across.

Surely if you were to scorch the earth it should reset to neutral 3, this would then add the element that its not so easy to back track, kind of like if you scorched the earth in a real battle

cookie0117 wrote:Surely if you were to scorch the earth it should reset to neutral 3, this would then add the element that its not so easy to back track, kind of like if you scorched the earth in a real battle

it can't be 3 as there is nothing left to generate that 3.

not to mention, you could just backtrack across that territory if you realized you forgot an enemy over there. In a map like Hive, you could just criss cross around the board without worrying about blocking yourself in somewhere.

Good idea as it could be fun on some maps but overall I think there are a lot of holes or natural issues with the concept.

I could see the map team making a couple maps with this feature built in it but would not support it outside of that.

I think this is a very good idea. In fact, it implies a good trade off, as by not leaving any garrison behind the player is not getting extra deploy. So it's like pushing forward with the hope of destroying the player but sacrifying future income, which you will regreet if you don't kill your objective.

As for killer neutrals, it gets solved if you force players to leave at least 1 troop in killer neutrals, and for that type of territories it will work like it is now. It would also work with the solution proposed above of resetting killer neutrals upon leaving.

patrickaa317 wrote:not to mention, you could just backtrack across that territory if you realized you forgot an enemy over there. In a map like Hive, you could just criss cross around the board without worrying about blocking yourself in somewhere.

that's a good point. planning your advance and splitting your force to get every territory would be a thing of the past.

that makes my 'no thanks' a little larger

greenoaks wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:not to mention, you could just backtrack across that territory if you realized you forgot an enemy over there. In a map like Hive, you could just criss cross around the board without worrying about blocking yourself in somewhere.

that's a good point. planning your advance and splitting your force to get every territory would be a thing of the past.

that makes my 'no thanks' a little larger

I don't understand. Isn't that the whole purpose of this setting? Then why is this a negative point?

Honestly, I believe that people mistake the introduction of a new setting with the obligation to play it.

I like this; it works like Diplomacy. It would be even cooler if we could leave the territories completely empty.

Metsfanmax wrote:...It would be even cooler if we could leave the territories completely empty.

That's exactly what I was thinking. This would be the downside to using this strategy. Not leaving any troops behind would imply that there is no one there to oppose any army that wants to move in. So if player 1 attacks and advances, leaving empty territories in his wake, then player 2 could follow that path without having to attack anything. He could claim the territories by leaving troops behind, but doesn't have to.

And though I would not be opposed to this, I think there are other features I would like to see first, and this one would not be at the top of my priorities list.

I am not sure that leaving the territory completely empty would work. There has to be some cost for moving through a not controlled territory.

OliverFA wrote:I am not sure that leaving the territory completely empty would work. There has to be some cost for moving through a not controlled territory.

It's probably too radical a change to ever happen, but I don't know that it would be unplayable.

OliverFA wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:not to mention, you could just backtrack across that territory if you realized you forgot an enemy over there. In a map like Hive, you could just criss cross around the board without worrying about blocking yourself in somewhere.

that's a good point. planning your advance and splitting your force to get every territory would be a thing of the past.

that makes my 'no thanks' a little larger

I don't understand. Isn't that the whole purpose of this setting? Then why is this a negative point?

Honestly, I believe that people mistake the introduction of a new setting with the obligation to play it.

right now you have to guestimate how many troops to move right while leaving enough to go left. don't advance enough and fail on the right, advance too many to the right and you may fail on the left.

this option totally removes that dilemma. backtracking is permitted as the region you advanced from is neutral again, and again, and again.

i see that as a problem.

greenoaks wrote:

OliverFA wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:not to mention, you could just backtrack across that territory if you realized you forgot an enemy over there. In a map like Hive, you could just criss cross around the board without worrying about blocking yourself in somewhere.

that's a good point. planning your advance and splitting your force to get every territory would be a thing of the past.

that makes my 'no thanks' a little larger

I don't understand. Isn't that the whole purpose of this setting? Then why is this a negative point?

Honestly, I believe that people mistake the introduction of a new setting with the obligation to play it.

right now you have to guestimate how many troops to move right while leaving enough to go left. don't advance enough and fail on the right, advance too many to the right and you may fail on the left.

this option totally removes that dilemma. backtracking is permitted as the region you advanced from is neutral again, and again, and again.

i see that as a problem.

This option changes the way in which you play, that's one of the reasons why it's worth as a new option.

I think that this setting idea is very interesting. If someone has tested it on the board game i d be interested to know. Note that by not leaving 1s behind you don t get land bonus, so it s an interesting choice. Nevertheless, with a 4 stack and extreme luck you could run any board, not sure taht s good..

greenoaks wrote:

OliverFA wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:not to mention, you could just backtrack across that territory if you realized you forgot an enemy over there. In a map like Hive, you could just criss cross around the board without worrying about blocking yourself in somewhere.

that's a good point. planning your advance and splitting your force to get every territory would be a thing of the past.

that makes my 'no thanks' a little larger

I don't understand. Isn't that the whole purpose of this setting? Then why is this a negative point?

Honestly, I believe that people mistake the introduction of a new setting with the obligation to play it.

right now you have to guestimate how many troops to move right while leaving enough to go left. don't advance enough and fail on the right, advance too many to the right and you may fail on the left.

this option totally removes that dilemma. backtracking is permitted as the region you advanced from is neutral again, and again, and again.

i see that as a problem.

My argument for that is that you still have the decision to split the stack, because if you have to track back across 4-5 neutrals you could lose more against them than it's worth and it's probably better to just split the stack. Plus, you have to choose whether or not to scorch the earth. People can still make the wrong decision there. I think it's a good setting.