Conquer Club

Concise description:

• The current list of advance troop counts has several huge gaps in huge stack situations.
• If you attack with 687,346 troops it is impossible to advance 257,000 troops
• You can’t even type in that number in the selection box.

Specifics/Details:

• The current list of advance troop counts might look like 687,345 687,344 … 680,000 670,000 … 600,000 500,000 … 90,000 80,000 … 9,000 to 1,000 … 900 to 100 … 90 to 10 then 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
• Modify the “large gaps” in the advance list to include a plus sign so you can advance more after advancing that partial amount.
• Advance 200,000+ then 50,000+ then 7,000+ and finally 0
• An alternative would be to allow the user to enter any number he wants from the max to 0 in the drop down box for the count or just give the users a second box where they can just enter any legal number.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• It will allow a user to advance specific numbers of troops based on the size of the troop counts they are up against at the new location.
• It will eliminate the: I need to advance 25,000 troops to be sure I hold that territory, if I advance only 20,000 my stack will probably be taken, if I advance 30,000 I will not have enough left for the other attack I want to do.

PS: This is also true for reinforcements!

how about you just stop stacking and actually play the game? stackers represent less than .0001% of CC players... not worth programming this for the very few... the black jesus has shot this duck out of the water...-Jésus noir

owenshooter wrote:how about you just stop stacking and actually play the game? stackers represent less than .0001% of CC players... not worth programming this for the very few...

I’m in an 8 Player Escalating WWII Europe game that is down to round 85 3 players and its current bonus is now 17,525.
Also a 5 player Escalating Feudal Epic game that is down to round 174 3 players and its current bonus is now 119,450.
And finally a 12 player Escalating First Nations game that is down to round 30 8 players and its current bonus is 14,345.

The issue is not “stacking”, it is the huge size of the bonus in escalating games. Maybe you should ask CC to stop offering escalating games! No one would want that to happen!

An analysis of dice odds show that 3 vs 2 on extremely large stacks results in the attacker taking 53 while loosing only 47. Odds are on the attacker’s side. The name of the game is strategy. You don’t want to get 119,000 troops, take a region and then leave a stack that size up against your opponent’s position unless the opponent has less than 3 cards or his stack is small. In every huge stack vs huge stack attack, you want to be the attacker, not the defender.

The huge stacks are not made by hoarding, they are created by each bonus!

So, as far as your statement that this is “not worth programming this for the very few”, do your “stats” show that very few players ever play escalating games? Should CC just ignore those players who are just playing by the rules?

PapaGeek wrote:

owenshooter wrote:how about you just stop stacking and actually play the game? stackers represent less than .0001% of CC players... not worth programming this for the very few...

So, as far as your statement that this is “not worth programming this for the very few”, do your “stats” show that very few players ever play escalating games? Should CC just ignore those players who are just playing by the rules?

yes, because it is still .0001% of CC players... the time to code this would be in excess of 139 hours over the course of a few months... throw in caffeine, gator chips, commute to and from the highfalutin CC world HQ, etc, etc... and the cost benefit just does not tip in favor of Big Wham... more important things to consider... i'm sorry, but you and your friends should just meet regularly at someone's mother's house and play RISK on a hasbro board... the black jesus loves you... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

I have to agree with Owen on this one. Stacking games should be discouraged rather than facilitated.

waauw wrote:I have to agree with Owen on this one. Stacking games should be discouraged rather than facilitated.

Escalating trench game are not stacking game but can lead to huge stack because of their settings.
Either we block the combination of trench and escalating, or we should indeed do smthg to help those players.
It has nothing to do with stacking.

Donelladan wrote:

waauw wrote:I have to agree with Owen on this one. Stacking games should be discouraged rather than facilitated.

Escalating trench game are not stacking game but can lead to huge stack because of their settings.
Either we block the combination of trench and escalating, or we should indeed do smthg to help those players.
It has nothing to do with stacking.

Yeah, this. I joined one that I'm regretting and cashes just passed 20k. Not because we're stacking, because it's a damn big map and I honestly didn't know they changed the Escalating value from value's of 5 to whatever it is now.

But I honestly don't think it's worth the effort. In 6/7 years being here, this is the first game I've ever had this problem in. (Probably because I despise Trench)

TheForgivenOne wrote:
Yeah, this. I joined one that I'm regretting and cashes just passed 20k. Not because we're stacking, because it's a damn big map and I honestly didn't know they changed the Escalating value from value's of 5 to whatever it is now.

But I honestly don't think it's worth the effort. In 6/7 years being here, this is the first game I've ever had this problem in. (Probably because I despise Trench)

Yeah they changed the increase after 100. It's awesome for escalating non trench game, they can never go to stalemate now. I really like it personally.
But it obviously fucked up the escalating trench setting. I love trench myself, but I stopped playing escalating trench after the change.

Concerning this suggestion, maybe you are right, maybe it is not worth the effort. But I think that if CC is going to offer those settings, it should make them work properly.

Donelladan wrote:

TheForgivenOne wrote:
Yeah, this. I joined one that I'm regretting and cashes just passed 20k. Not because we're stacking, because it's a damn big map and I honestly didn't know they changed the Escalating value from value's of 5 to whatever it is now.

But I honestly don't think it's worth the effort. In 6/7 years being here, this is the first game I've ever had this problem in. (Probably because I despise Trench)

Yeah they changed the increase after 100. It's awesome for escalating non trench game, they can never go to stalemate now. I really like it personally.
But it obviously fucked up the escalating trench setting. I love trench myself, but I stopped playing escalating trench after the change.

Concerning this suggestion, maybe you are right, maybe it is not worth the effort. But I think that if CC is going to offer those settings, it should make them work properly.

when that setting first came into fruition, there was an outcry to make the setting not a possible setting. all these very reasons were clearly outlined and stated, and as usual, it was all ignored. past team, past owner, so don't go bad mouthing the new guy. anyway, you just shouldn't be able to play those settings. but hey, that .0001% has to stay satisfied... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

Why do the rules for escalating have to be the same for trench and non-trench?

Donelladan wrote:

TheForgivenOne wrote:
Yeah, this. I joined one that I'm regretting and cashes just passed 20k. Not because we're stacking, because it's a damn big map and I honestly didn't know they changed the Escalating value from value's of 5 to whatever it is now.

But I honestly don't think it's worth the effort. In 6/7 years being here, this is the first game I've ever had this problem in. (Probably because I despise Trench)

Yeah they changed the increase after 100. It's awesome for escalating non trench game, they can never go to stalemate now. I really like it personally.
But it obviously fucked up the escalating trench setting. I love trench myself, but I stopped playing escalating trench after the change.

Concerning this suggestion, maybe you are right, maybe it is not worth the effort. But I think that if CC is going to offer those settings, it should make them work properly.

When we changed the escalating settings, trench was one of the main arguments used for the change, and the majority of people who weighed in agreed that it should help. I think now it is clear that this did not work like we wanted; it improved the situation for non-trench escalating games but did not fix the problems with trench.

Sadly, I don't think anyone has come up with a real solution that works well for both game types, and at any rate we should be wary of changing again how the spoils work. I would rather just do what the OP asked and make it easier to work with large troop counts.

Yeah, it shouldn't require a lot of major coding. There are already pre-set values for the number of troops to be advanced. The OP is just asking for a few extra pre-set values to be added, nothing more. It might be just adding some numbers to a pivot table, or it might be the addition of actual lines of code, but they would be lines of code that could be C+P'd from existing stock.

Dukasaur wrote:Yeah, it shouldn't require a lot of major coding. There are already pre-set values for the number of troops to be advanced. The OP is just asking for a few extra pre-set values to be added, nothing more. It might be just adding some numbers to a pivot table, or it might be the addition of actual lines of code, but they would be lines of code that could be C+P'd from existing stock.

sorry, this information that you just posted, is incorrect. i already broke down the cost benefit analysis, you must have missed that. here you go:

owenshooter wrote: the time to code this would be in excess of 139 hours over the course of a few months... throw in caffeine, gator chips, commute to and from the highfalutin CC world HQ, etc, etc... and the cost benefit just does not tip in favor of Big Wham... more important things to consider... i'm sorry, but you and your friends should just meet regularly at someone's mother's house and play RISK on a hasbro board... the black jesus loves you... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

absolutely not worth the time to help out .0001% of the community. the setting sucks, it creates massive build games that hinder/break the coding, so just don't use them. jbrettlip and i had a massive build game, just to see what would happen with the stacks. we eventually had to have lackattack go into our game and try to figure out what the hell was causing the freezes, crashes, inability to do much more than start a turn. his analysis and solution? "don't let the stacks get that big." HA!!!! that was the solution. i say give it the ol' lackattack fix and move on...-Jésus noir

First of all I did not ask for or invent Trench Escalating, it is something offered by CC, and I didn’t change the size of the escalating changes, again something done by CC.

I can’t believe that either modifying the existing box or adding a new one where I can just enter that I want to advance 46,572 troops and not be forced to either advance 40,000 or 50,000 troops is that much coding. The code should already be there to advance the number requested, all that is needed is to allow a player to say how much that is!

If CC would find the energy and the resources to make that change requested, it would be great to give another possibillity besides 'attack' and 'auto attack'. I would like to have a third option: 'autoattack minus 1 or 2' When i want to break down a big stack of an opponent to a single or 2 armys, but i dont want to conquer the territory the only option for me is to press a lot of times attack...... If the stacks are larger than a few thousand this takes far too much time and reduces the fun in gameplay. lol.
An 'autoattack minus 1 or 2' button would really help out here, because sometimes such a move can give you victory.
Another option would be a dropdown auto: autoattack 1000, autoattack 500, autoattack 100, autoattack 50, autoattack 10.

It might be that a small number of players play these settings, but i like those settings (for now), because it gives completely different type of tactical games, it would be nice the software would support different strategys...

owenshooter wrote:

PapaGeek wrote:

owenshooter wrote:how about you just stop stacking and actually play the game? stackers represent less than .0001% of CC players... not worth programming this for the very few...

So, as far as your statement that this is “not worth programming this for the very few”, do your “stats” show that very few players ever play escalating games? Should CC just ignore those players who are just playing by the rules?

yes, because it is still .0001% of CC players... the time to code this would be in excess of 139 hours over the course of a few months... throw in caffeine, gator chips, commute to and from the highfalutin CC world HQ, etc, etc... and the cost benefit just does not tip in favor of Big Wham... more important things to consider... i'm sorry, but you and your friends should just meet regularly at someone's mother's house and play RISK on a hasbro board... the black jesus loves you... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

We ran out of hasbro arms

Schildpad wrote:An 'autoattack minus 1 or 2' button would really help out here, because sometimes such a move can give you victory.
Another option would be a dropdown auto: autoattack 1000, autoattack 500, autoattack 100, autoattack 50, autoattack 10.

this was suggested for an overall gaming option when auto was first introduced. people wanted to be able to auto attack, but stop if you hit a certain amount and advance a certain amount if you won. that would have made freestyle and speed and freestyle/speed, INSANE!!! anyway, they never got around to it... must have been too difficult.-BJ

Schildpad wrote:If CC would find the energy and the resources to make that change requested, it would be great to give another possibillity besides 'attack' and 'auto attack'. I would like to have a third option: 'autoattack minus 1 or 2' When i want to break down a big stack of an opponent to a single or 2 armys, but i dont want to conquer the territory the only option for me is to press a lot of times attack...... If the stacks are larger than a few thousand this takes far too much time and reduces the fun in gameplay. lol.
An 'autoattack minus 1 or 2' button would really help out here, because sometimes such a move can give you victory.
Another option would be a dropdown auto: autoattack 1000, autoattack 500, autoattack 100, autoattack 50, autoattack 10.

It might be that a small number of players play these settings, but i like those settings (for now), because it gives completely different type of tactical games, it would be nice the software would support different strategys...

I totally agree with your other suggestion. The ability to auto attack until your opponent is knocked down to a reasonable level, not totally eliminated, would be a great improvement to the Trench Escalating games that were created by CC.

The dropdown would also work great, just like the advance button, if you do nothing you advance everything but you can change the size of your advance as desired. The same type of selection for auto attack would be a great option. The default would be zero, auto attack until the opponent was totally eliminated, but you could also choose 10 or 100 or 1000. If you chose 10, you could easily do normal attacks until the opponent is down to what you actually want. There is not enough time to do single attacks when you have huge stacks.

Again, could CC support the game styles they made available to us?

This would also help with other game types. If you are attacking with 100 vs 90 and you just want to leave 1 or 2 left, you currently have to hit the single attack button about 90 times to eliminate 180 of the 190 troops involved in the attack and defense. Those are not super stacks, but they still take 90 clicks to get the job done.

The auto attack is brute force, a huge part of the CC games is strategy.

PapaGeek wrote:Again, could CC support the game styles they made available to us?

Good point.

Counter Suggestion: CC should prevent players from starting games with both trench and escalating settings.

Benefit: It will prevent players from making the grave mistake of playing trench escalating. As a bonus it will prevent threads such as this.

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:
Counter Suggestion: CC should prevent players from starting games with both trench and escalating settings.

Good Point, they could take away some of the things that certain players enjoy, or take the steps to improve what they have.

I'm sure that all of the members who read this want CC to remove some of the features they have added because some do not like them.

While we are at it can we go back in time and remove the ability to have games with more than 8 players! And of course the idea that they do have a 13+ option there, that + sign is a horrible thing according the those who looked at this post!

Point is: why delete features that a few people enjoy, Owen said that less that .0001% of the players enjoy these games, not sure where he got his stats, I know i was never surveyed! why not continue to improve the game instead of destroying it bit by bit.

PapaGeek wrote:

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:
Counter Suggestion: CC should prevent players from starting games with both trench and escalating settings.

Good Point, they could take away some of the things that certain players enjoy, or take the steps to improve what they have.

I'm sure that all of the members who read this want CC to remove some of the features they have added because some do not like them.

While we are at it can we go back in time and remove the ability to have games with more than 8 players! And of course the idea that they do have a 13+ option there, that + sign is a horrible thing according the those who looked at this post!

Point is: why delete features that a few people enjoy, Owen said that less that .0001% of the players enjoy these games, not sure where he got his stats, I know i was never surveyed! why not continue to improve the game instead of destroying it bit by bit.

well, see... i don't like a lot of the added features and some of the settings, but i know people enjoy them. you enjoy a setting that breaks the machine... escalating trench was openly discussed as not being a good setting and they gave it a shot... guess what, it just doesn't work...-Bj

I get 13,912,782 results for finished games on the game finder
I get 178,656 results for escalating, trench finished games.
I get 113,473 results for escalating, fog trench finished games.

Looks like Owen might have been a couple of decimal points out, but not as far of the mark as Papa believes. We ARE talking about a minority here.

PapaGeek wrote:Point is: why delete features that a few people enjoy, Owen said that less that .0001% of the players enjoy these games, not sure where he got his stats, I know i was never surveyed! why not continue to improve the game instead of destroying it bit by bit.

One possible argument for this is that these decisions don't happen in a vacuum. Time spent supporting escalating trench is time not spent supporting some other, more widely used game mode. So by removing things that aren't played much, we can actually make the other things better.

Another option is to go back to the original rule in the Risk game that CC was originally designed to copy.

In those Escalating games the sets were worth 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15 and “after the sixth set has been traded in, each additional set is worth 5 more armies”.

The game I am stuck in is now up to set 251. Someone at CC decided that the bonus should increase the increase by 5 more each set after the 23rd set. Like I said this game is now up to set number 251 and that one is scheduled to be 131,770 troops, 252 will increase by 1,150 troops so the set will be worth 132,920, 253 will increase by 1,155 to 134,075, and so forth!

The problem is not caused by the traditional escalating trench idea of the original game rules, it is caused because someone decided to change the original rule of the Risk escalating game.

Instead of blocking the entire concept of escalating trench that is a part of the original game CC was designed after, if you want to do something, why not go back to the original rules of the game of Risk?

Does anyone know why CC decided to change the original rules of the game and create this HUGE bonus situation?

If you decide to eliminate escalating games then you should remove the phrase “Originally inspired by the board game RISK™” from your home page.

If you don’t want to support escalating trench the way it is now, then change it back to the original rule of the game you say inspired the entire website!

Nobody mentioned removing escalating or even trench.

Removing them in combination.

Trench is not part of the board game.