Insurgency Spoils

[Pikeman_Poon]

My idea would be to add another option to the Card spoils called "Insurgency",

With this option, when a person hands in match set of cards, if the terts are owned by an enemy then that tert would become the person handing in the set with the following reductions:

Red set: minus 60 percent of standing armies on the tert

Green set: minus 50 percent of standing armies on the tert

Blue set: minus 30 percent of standing armies on the tert

Mixed set: minus 10 percent of standing armies on the tert


I believe this would would really "liven" the games up with some challenging obstacles.

[ljex]

My idea would be to add another option to the Card spoils called "Insurgency",

With this option, when a person hands in match set of cards, if the terts are owned by an enemy then that tert would become the person handing in the set with the following reductions:

Red set: minus 60 percent of standing armies on the tert

Green set: minus 50 percent of standing armies on the tert

Blue set: minus 30 percent of standing armies on the tert

Mixed set: minus 10 percent of standing armies on the tert


I believe this would would really "liven" the games up with some challenging obstacles.

Interesting suggestion, would the percentages be rounded up or down? also why no option to capture all the troops on a region? Lastly what happens if you turn in your own card?

[nietzsche]

No. This is a strategy game.

If you want games with more options try xbox and ps3 and that shit.

TRENCH SUCKS BALLS AND I WILL NOT UPGRADE UNTIL A CHANGE IS MADE THAT MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO AVOID ALTOGETHER THESE KIND OF GAMES

[maxfaraday]

what's an xbox?

[ljex]

No. This is a strategy game.

If you want games with more options try xbox and ps3 and that shit.

TRENCH SUCKS BALLS AND I WILL NOT UPGRADE UNTIL A CHANGE IS MADE THAT MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO AVOID ALTOGETHER THESE KIND OF GAMES

its called looking at the settings and then joining only if you want to play them.

[nietzsche]

No. This is a strategy game.

If you want games with more options try xbox and ps3 and that shit.

TRENCH SUCKS BALLS AND I WILL NOT UPGRADE UNTIL A CHANGE IS MADE THAT MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO AVOID ALTOGETHER THESE KIND OF GAMES

its called looking at the settings and then joining only if you want to play them.

Didn't you have me foed?

But you must be right since, as you claimed, you will be more successful than me in life. My apologies.

[ljex]

No. This is a strategy game.

If you want games with more options try xbox and ps3 and that shit.

TRENCH SUCKS BALLS AND I WILL NOT UPGRADE UNTIL A CHANGE IS MADE THAT MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO AVOID ALTOGETHER THESE KIND OF GAMES

its called looking at the settings and then joining only if you want to play them.

Didn't you have me foed?

But you must be right since, as you claimed, you will be more successful than me in life. My apologies.

how does your status as a foe of mine have anything to do with this?

its really not that hard to look at games before joining so just do it and stop complaining.

[nietzsche]

No. This is a strategy game.

If you want games with more options try xbox and ps3 and that shit.

TRENCH SUCKS BALLS AND I WILL NOT UPGRADE UNTIL A CHANGE IS MADE THAT MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO AVOID ALTOGETHER THESE KIND OF GAMES

its called looking at the settings and then joining only if you want to play them.

Didn't you have me foed?

But you must be right since, as you claimed, you will be more successful than me in life. My apologies.

how does your status as a foe of mine have anything to do with this?



its really not that hard to look at games before joining so just do it and stop complaining.

You make the extra effort to read my posts.

[koontz1973]

Interesting suggestion but I would go this way instead.
Red set: minus 25 percent of standing armies on the tert

Green set: minus 50 percent of standing armies on the tert

Blue set: minus 75 percent of standing armies on the tert

Mixed set: All armies turn your colour. So you would have that territ with all of the armies on it.

If you own the card, the effect is the same.

[AndyDufresne]

Interesting idea. I wonder if trying to associate percentages would make it difficult to code though. Would you still support this general idea, if it instead essentially converted all troops an opponent owns on a region to your own? That seems like it might be more imbalanced, but might be easier to code.


--Andy

[squishyg]

I like the option of the terts becoming yours if you cash in those cards!

[agentcom]

I don't know that there is a need for the percentages. But without percentages, hasn't this been suggested before? Called something like rebel spoils or something like that.

[AndyDufresne]

I don't know that there is a need for the percentages. But without percentages, hasn't this been suggested before? Called something like rebel spoils or something like that.

Rebel / Ninja Spoils: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 1&t=107042


--Andy

[Pikeman_Poon]

Yes that thread was very similiar. I like koontz well thought out version. I don't think coding should be a prob as it would only be an equation vs a defined number. I like percentages because of the way some games go with big build-ups and they were wrangling on the other thread about what to call it and I believe my name for it is the best fit for what would happen. Like nuclear, if the tert is already yours, then you would just have the troop reductions unless you had a mixed set.

[karel]

hmmmm this could make the game very interesting thats for sure,like the idea

[Count Belisle]

I think it's a great Idea, is there any way they could at least try it out like a BETA setting?

[peanutsdad]

anything like this that makes the game more interesting or give more options to those of us that play is a welcomed thought. Great idea, i'm all for it. with or without the percentages.

[woopintroysbutt]

Adding new options keeps the game interesting. Maybe if you have a Red, Green or Blue set, you would get a reduction in Troops based on a set percentage. But with a mixed set you would take ownership of the Tert and take all the troops as well. It would add a level of complexity to Team Games as well.

Good ideas.

[betiko]

i like it

[Pikeman_Poon]

Has this suggestion been left here to die or has a determination been made concerning it? Just curious

[AndyDufresne]

I think it is on Lack's consideration list, along with a number of other spoil ideas (like Zombie Spoils; Rebel / Ninja Spoils; Anti-Fog Spoils; Player Specific Cash-ins; Revolving Escalating Spoils; and maybe another one or two ideas).


--Andy

[OliverFA]

I like the idea, but I would change it a bit in order to make it more balanced and strategic.

Instead of reducing percentages from any territory or even using spoils, let's introduce insurgency in a way that resembles more real life.

- If you have your troops in a territory, you CONTROL it.
- If you control a territory for X or more turns, or if you start with that territory you OWN it.

So a territory con be owned by a player and controlled by a different player. Once the new controllers holds the territory long enough, that player becomes the new owner.

- During the deploy fase, you can deploy to your owned territories, controlled or not. Deploying on a territory you own but not control it's called insurgency. Right after deploying finishes, automatic combat happens betwen the insurgents and the controllers. That's an all or nothing combat.