Conquer Club

CL7 will start soon and according to the rule there will still be limitation on the number of game with trench we can play.
It was the case for all previous tournaments in the clan wars as well, and I think it is the case to most of the clan wars or even all.

I am just wondering, why do we limit trench ?
I understand people were afraid of the consequence of trench on the length of clan wars at the beginning, but I think we can see that most of them are actually finished quite fast, and anyway there is always a round limit for trench game.

I would like to see next CL and CC without limitation on trench, and clan wars not limiting this setting anymore.

There is people that don't like trench, like there is people that don't want to play flat rate, unlimited, parachute, nuclear or whatever. I don't think we need to limit trench, and i think it is actually quite annoying and wrong to limit it.

I totally agree with you that too many folk seem to be scared of trench for the reasons you've given. I often find that trench games actually finish qucker as the games 'tipping point' is reached sooner.

I agree 100%. I posted some research in the CDF forum a while back where I went back through several of the large clan wars and determined that trench wars routinely finished in the same timeframe (or faster) than typical non trench wars. I speculated there that this is probably because clans are not likely to pick settings for a game in a war that are likely to drag out for many months, and since the round limit is in place for trench games, there is an effective time limit on them anyway.

Disagree 100%

In 90% of the maps trench setting make the game strategy less.

jcmagno wrote:Disagree 100%

In 90% of the maps trench setting make the game strategy less.

How? There are more things to consider with trench, unless you just want to stack in the fog and go on a run.

I much prefer not limiting trench but a fair number of the clans we've faced seem to be scared, even with round limits. In the rare case it has been due to unfamiliarity. Trench has been around long enough to be fully integrated into clan wars now. It's different to nuclear, zombie, unlimited and flat rate in that it doesn't add a huge luck factor.

I believe this was already mentioned in one of the CDF CL7 or CC6 threads, and discussed a bit.

(Just playing devils advocate here as I personally don't have any opinion on trench)
People say it's less luck based then other settings, and that it's as fast or faster then regular. Keefie mentioned the tipping point is reached sooner. Is that an indication that it's harder to recover from bad luck in a trench game, and thus is more prone to luck? (Even tho it helps it finish it quicker)

I believe in CC5-6 the rule was listed as 20% allowance, and was negotiatable up or down from there. after the discussion my proposal was to go to 50%, as the negotiate up or down point. (My personal proposal as FALL rep, Lindax runs the events for CD)

I would be happy with a 50% balance. What I don't think is fair is the clans who commonly play without trench get an advantage over those who don't as the system leans their way. If it's 50:50 then no clan can really complain as it's even.

One could argue that if you get lucky dice/drop in trench then you can secure a virtually impenetrable bonus, but the same can also be said of non-trench with early eliminations.

As Ice suggested, 50:50, in my opinion, is the way forward.

You can make your trench league and play only trench games...

jcmagno wrote:You can make your trench league and play only trench games...

So you wouldn't compromise on a 50% balance?

jcmagno wrote:You can make your trench league and play only trench games...

You might be sarcastic ... But that's actually a very good idea

I agree with Donelladan ... And don't see the point of discriminating this particular setting ...

There is indeed some pro and cons ... Very well describe above, but that's the case of all settings ...
Does it make the game strategy less ?? Well, i.ll be happy to read why or how exactly ??

i would vote for no trench game number limit or 50% in case there is indeed a trench league coming up one day ...

There are enough ongoing competitions, a trench league isn't worthwhile. I doubt it would happen. I don't see an issue with 50% allowance and see no good reason to deny it, but if there is one please enlighten me.

iAmCaffeine wrote:There are enough ongoing competitions, a trench league isn't worthwhile. I doubt it would happen. I don't see an issue with 50% allowance and see no good reason to deny it, but if there is one please enlighten me.

For CL7, I would imagine because changes have already been discussed and the competition is now in the sign up stage.

For CC6, there may still be wriggle room, Lindax is the person to talk to.

Keefie wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:There are enough ongoing competitions, a trench league isn't worthwhile. I doubt it would happen. I don't see an issue with 50% allowance and see no good reason to deny it, but if there is one please enlighten me.

For CL7, I would imagine because changes have already been discussed and the competition is now in the sign up stage.

For CC6, there may still be wriggle room, Lindax is the person to talk to.

Yeah mate I realise that, I'm just voicing my highly coffee-fed opinion. When the CC6 discussions begin CD&F I'm sure we'll raise the issue again.

Ive also wondered why we limit trench! And i agree with u that wants to open that restriction.

jcmagno wrote:Disagree 100%

In 90% of the maps trench setting make the game strategy less.

Even if it was true, it is totally irrelevant to the question. Currently we do not forbid maps/settings because they reduce the strategy.

I'd say a large majority of games are no spoils because we think cards add a luck factor. Still, flat rate isn't restricted.
I saw many people arguing escalating was a pure luck setting with no strategy skill involved, still there is no one out there saying we should restrict the use of escalating spoils.

Whether trench is a setting that does involve strategy or not, or has a higher luck factor should not be taken into account when wondering if we should allow it, because we don't do that for the other settings.

And, of course, it couldn't be more wrong, trench games are way more strategic that no-trench games but this might be slightly subjective.

Donelladan wrote:

jcmagno wrote:Disagree 100%

In 90% of the maps trench setting make the game strategy less.

Even if it was true, it is totally irrelevant to the question. Currently we do not forbid maps/settings because they reduce the strategy.

I'd say a large majority of games are no spoils because we think cards add a luck factor. Still, flat rate isn't restricted.
I saw many people arguing escalating was a pure luck setting with no strategy skill involved, still there is no one out there saying we should restrict the use of escalating spoils.

Whether trench is a setting that does involve strategy or not, or has a higher luck factor should not be taken into account when wondering if we should allow it, because we don't do that for the other settings.
And, of course, it couldn't be more wrong, trench games are way more strategic that no-trench games but this might be slightly subjective.

Zombie spoils and non reinforcement are not restricted?

jcmagno wrote:

Donelladan wrote:

jcmagno wrote:Disagree 100%

In 90% of the maps trench setting make the game strategy less.

Even if it was true, it is totally irrelevant to the question. Currently we do not forbid maps/settings because they reduce the strategy.

I'd say a large majority of games are no spoils because we think cards add a luck factor. Still, flat rate isn't restricted.
I saw many people arguing escalating was a pure luck setting with no strategy skill involved, still there is no one out there saying we should restrict the use of escalating spoils.

Whether trench is a setting that does involve strategy or not, or has a higher luck factor should not be taken into account when wondering if we should allow it, because we don't do that for the other settings.
And, of course, it couldn't be more wrong, trench games are way more strategic that no-trench games but this might be slightly subjective.

Zombie spoils and non reinforcement are not restricted?

They're newer, and and only to the same degree if not less. No forts has been gradually accepted by some clans. Trench is widely accepted. Flat rate brings a lot of luck and some clans play it almost exclusively e.g. UM8. Unlimited can be very lucky but that's not restricted. The list goes on.

You have no solid argument against trench, you just don't like it. Your own clan uses it.

I think trench should not be limited

trench is only setting that can bring you loss on turn 1 on every map

benga wrote:trench is only setting that can bring you loss on turn 1 on every map

That's a stupid thing to say.

benga wrote:trench is only setting that can bring you loss on turn 1 on every map

I agree there are some maps where the player/team going first can take and secure a bonus in a way that can't be broken. But how does this work on, say Feudal Epic?

Doc_Brown wrote:

benga wrote:trench is only setting that can bring you loss on turn 1 on every map

I agree there are some maps where the player/team going first can take and secure a bonus in a way that can't be broken. But how does this work on, say Feudal Epic?

there are few maps that can go around trench, but feudal isn't one of them, if you have bad dice and fall behind in taking territories there is no way to get back in the game, feudal is all about expansion

benga wrote:trench is only setting that can bring you loss on turn 1 on every map

If trench was such a "Luck based" setting as you seem to say, win rate of good players using trench wouldn't be high.
I invite you to check the win rate of Kaskavel on Conquer Rome poly 4 trench, or random21 on USA 2.1 poly 4 trench.
It clearly show trench is all about skills and has nothing to do with luck.
If anything, trench strongly reduce luck in most maps.

The only way I can see one game decided turn 1 when playing trench, is if you are playing 1vs1.

Speaking about feudal epic, if you have terribly bad dice in the first turns, it might cost you the game, true enough, but trench or not trench, it is the same, with terribly bad dice you lose.
Otherwise, everyone go out more or less at the same pace, and it give pretty balanced game. Because everyone need the same number of round to reach first village.
While in a non trench game, very good dice in the first turn can allow you to be out round 2, and sometimes have a village round 3. ( speaking 1vs1), and actually strongly increase the luck factor in the 1st rounds.
I think I never saw a dub trench game decided in the first turns. They are very often decided next to a village.

I agree there are some maps where the player/team going first can take and secure a bonus in a way that can't be broken.

This means, 1st turn + lucky drop + relatively good dice.
Trench or not trench you should win the game.
Well I don't have an extensive experience on all maps in trench+team ofc, but on the ones I play, it is extremely rare a bonus big enough can be secured turn 1 to give you the game. And if one team can secure a bonus T1, usually the other one can do it too, like for example on Eurasia, poly 3 or poly 2, you can definitely secure a bonus T1, but your opponent can very probably do it too, so doesn't matter.

I am not talking about a noob at some map playing skillful player, I am talking of players of the same skill. If I lose my edge in non trench game I there are ways in leveling things, there is no such thing in trench. Bigger maps give you more options to regain edge on trench, but it is more likely to regain edge on non trench maps. It will always be so, no matter what.

I am all for trench w/o restrictions (by now all should know hot to play it), but also have to be fair in saying that trench limits options in most cases.