Play order determined by Troops Due (POLL! Please Vote)

[Metsfanmax]

Apparently the plethora of options offered by Conquer Club are what make it great, but choosing who goes first crosses the line and turns it into a different game. This viewpoint makes absolutely no sense, but you won't budge from it, so we have nothing more to discuss.

Bold word is the important one. If you don't understand it, then you're right - we have nothing to discuss.

Fine...we could have 2 options on startup:

*Fun play
*Let drop possibly decide winner

That is a suggestion I might support.

[jefjef]

we have nothing to discuss.

I just strolled through this sugg and thread.

Mets you have had your say about a dozen times. I'm sure people understand your view on this.

Now as for the sugg. As pointed out earlier in the thread the maps we get to enjoy are created to be balanced to make as equal a chance as possible for all players.

A lot of maps are also designed to make sure no one can start with a bonus and an UNFAIR advantage.

I like this sugg. Why not do it. If player A drops a bonus and player B gets to go 1st because of it he still has to recognize (strategy) and then break (luck) that bonus. Which we all know is not even close to being a guaranteed event.

I myself would be willing to forfeit 1st go to have a bonus on the drop.

This suggestion needs to be implemented.

End of discussion.

[Hopscotcher]

Well since JJ ended the discussion, I won't express my point of view

er.......... wait........ Yes I will.

This is a total waster of any reasonable change to Conquer Club. Turn order is huge in 1 v 1 and very rarely does dropping a bonus insure your success.

More often then not I find myself really excited when I actually get to start with a bonus than not. I always get a little miffed when I'm dropped a bonus and the other guy goes first and gets to break it and then it turns into a dull tedium of trying to keep a bonus i'm not even sure is beneficial for me in the last place.

What about Unlimited Reinforcements?????????? in 1 v 1 that is just plain huge. Just because you have less troops due does not mean you should get to go first, make a million forts and whoop me anyway.

Come on now, let's seriously look at how far you can take fair play. If i'm playing 1 v 1 I have to recognize that TURN ORDER OFTEN DECLARES WINNER.
not always, but very very often.

my 2 cents
-hopper

[jefjef]

Come on now, let's seriously look at how far you can take fair play.

my 2 cents
-hopper

Strategy can be scary at times.

Thank you for your thoughts. Here's your change.

[DresdenSooner]

LOL. . . . "Here's your change." . . . Oh man, that is funny. Aside from the debate going on here, that was just plain funny.

Ahhh, to the issue at hand, I agree with jefjef. Especially in 1v1 games, if you get to go first, you have a huge advantage already. If you get to go first with a bonus, you might as well not even play the game. I think it would level the playing field if the player with the bonus didn't get to go first.

Dresdensooner

[Hopscotcher]

LOL. . . . "Here's your change." . . . Oh man, that is funny. Aside from the debate going on here, that was just plain funny.

Ahhh, to the issue at hand, I agree with jefjef. Especially in 1v1 games, if you get to go first, you have a huge advantage already. If you get to go first with a bonus, you might as well not even play the game. I think it would level the playing field if the player with the bonus didn't get to go first.

Dresdensooner

for example, my +1 for having castles on Scotland? OK. yes. that is entirely too gamebreaking

[BigBallinStalin]

great, so now they have to code every map to enact this certain rule, but now a bonus amount versus total territories has to be set. A +2 in ww2 europe isn't that big, OH WAIT, what if there are multiple bonuses at the beginning? Now what?

Sounds ridiculous. If both players feel so strongly about this, then let them have a gentlemen's agreement and have them sort it out between themselves. There's no need to enforce some rule on everyone else.

[Joodoo]

Besides 1v1, maps like Pearl Harbour also need this.

[Sniper08]

bonus drops are a huge advantage in 1v1 especially on maps like pearl harbour and supermax.this is the best way to counter the luck factor with the drop.

[drunkmonkey]

great, so now they have to code every map to enact this certain rule, but now a bonus amount versus total territories has to be set. A +2 in ww2 europe isn't that big, OH WAIT, what if there are multiple bonuses at the beginning? Now what?

They wouldn't have to touch the XML for any map. Here's a little pseudocode:

Code: Select all

case
  (player1TroopsDue > player2TroopsDue)
    Player 2 goes first;
  (player2TroopsDue > player1TroopsDue)
    Player 1 goes first;
  else
    Random player goes first;
end case

Sounds ridiculous. If both players feel so strongly about this, then let them have a gentlemen's agreement and have them sort it out between themselves. There's no need to enforce some rule on everyone else.

Yeah, because gentleman's agreements would work in more than 0.1% of the games.

I realize some of you drop a bonus and think, "Sweet! I got a win in the bag." Many of us don't mind earning them though.

[Metsfanmax]

The amount of fun you have while playing shouldn't be based on whether you're actually winning or losing. If you have fun because you enjoy strategizing and determining where the best place is to deploy and attack from (which is the reason I enjoy playing), you should still be able to do that even if you're losing because your opponent got lucky. In fact, it's obviously more challenging to win in that circumstance, so you have to be really careful and play well if you want to win. That's a lot more likely to engage the side of Risk that I enjoy anyway. If you're only playing Risk because you enjoy winning, you're doing it wrong.

[carlpgoodrich]

The amount of fun you have while playing shouldn't be based on whether you're actually winning or losing. If you have fun because you enjoy strategizing and determining where the best place is to deploy and attack from (which is the reason I enjoy playing), you should still be able to do that even if you're losing because your opponent got lucky. In fact, it's obviously more challenging to win in that circumstance, so you have to be really careful and play well if you want to win. That's a lot more likely to engage the side of Risk that I enjoy anyway. If you're only playing Risk because you enjoy winning, you're doing it wrong.

The argument isn't that its no fun when you lose because of the drop, the argument is that its not fun if the game is decided by the drop, be it win or lose. There are so many things that are already done to make the drops fair that you don't have a problem with, for example neutral territories which change the game a lot, why are you so opposed to this one?

[Metsfanmax]

The argument isn't that its no fun when you lose because of the drop, the argument is that its not fun if the game is decided by the drop, be it win or lose.

Irrelevant to the point I was making. I was saying that it should always be fun to play, independent of whether you're in a winning position or a losing one. The only thing that winning does is determine whether your points go up or down after the game. The fact that you can play really well and still lose, because of bad dice, means you shouldn't care that much about the points anyway.

There are so many things that are already done to make the drops fair that you don't have a problem with, for example neutral territories which change the game a lot, why are you so opposed to this one?

I am opposed to anything which changes the fundamental mechanics from that of our favorite board game.

[drunkmonkey]

I am opposed to anything which changes the fundamental mechanics from that of our favorite board game.

You mean like having neutral armies on the board which can't attack or make reinforcements? Or placing manual troops secretly, as opposed to one at a time in sequence? What about removing wild cards from the deck? Or not letting players choose how many attacking/defending dice to roll? Or letting players only move 1 troop to a conquered territory despite rolling 3 dice? Should we even mention bombardments?


The best part of this suggestion is you could implement it and naysayers would never know.

[Metsfanmax]

You mean like having neutral armies on the board which can't attack or make reinforcements? Or placing manual troops secretly, as opposed to one at a time in sequence? What about removing wild cards from the deck? ... Or letting players only move 1 troop to a conquered territory despite rolling 3 dice?

I'm confused. What makes you think I support any of those mechanics? It should be pretty obvious that I don't, given my statement

I am opposed to anything which changes the fundamental mechanics from that of our favorite board game.

Or not letting players choose how many attacking/defending dice to roll?

Unfortunate, but necessary (at least in the case of defending dice, obviously). The attacking dice thing is mostly irrelevant, since nearly 100% of the time attackers have no reason not to roll three.

Should we even mention bombardments?

No, because bombardments don't exist on the Classic Map and so they don't affect my point.

The best part of this suggestion is you could implement it and naysayers would never know.

Yeah, and an admin can ban you, and I'd never really notice either...

[drunkmonkey]

You mean like having neutral armies on the board which can't attack or make reinforcements? Or placing manual troops secretly, as opposed to one at a time in sequence? What about removing wild cards from the deck? ... Or letting players only move 1 troop to a conquered territory despite rolling 3 dice?

I'm confused. What makes you think I support any of those mechanics? It should be pretty obvious that I don't, given my statement

I am opposed to anything which changes the fundamental mechanics from that of our favorite board game.

Well, everything I mentioned is part of CC. Why are you still here?

Yeah, and an admin can ban you, and I'd never really notice either...

Aww...you huwt my feewings.

[Metsfanmax]

Well, everything I mentioned is part of CC. Why are you still here?

Because the site is still great despite those things. It could be better. Don't make it worse.

I've had my say - don't want to spam the thread with my point of view anymore.

[Woodruff]

The amount of fun you have while playing shouldn't be based on whether you're actually winning or losing. If you have fun because you enjoy strategizing and determining where the best place is to deploy and attack from (which is the reason I enjoy playing), you should still be able to do that even if you're losing because your opponent got lucky. In fact, it's obviously more challenging to win in that circumstance, so you have to be really careful and play well if you want to win. That's a lot more likely to engage the side of Risk that I enjoy anyway. If you're only playing Risk because you enjoy winning, you're doing it wrong.

Yes, but there are LEVELS of enjoyment. A game that is close, intense and very much up in the air is ALWAYS (yes, ALWAYS) going to be more enjoyable than a game that has already been decided, regardless of the strategic elements still involved in that game.

[Hopscotcher]

I Utterly, Epically, and Completely Fail to see how instituting this would in any way really change 1 v 1.

Turn Order still Trumps Dropped Bonusses any day of the week. Anything other than random turn order is just plain goofy to be honest.

You can get dropped a bonus, but still be hosed in other ways because your drop won't allow you to support that bonus. And several bonusses are simply not significant enough to make this alteration meaningful.

[greenoaks]

why can't this be implemented

it should also be implemented for round 2 for those games where a player obtained a drop that allowed them to get a bonus their opponent could not break or match

it should also be implemented for round 3 for those games where a player obtained a drop that allowed them to get a bonus their opponent could not break or match

it should also be implemented for round 4 for those games where a player obtained a drop that allowed them to get a bonus their opponent could not break or match

it should also be implemented for round 5 for those games where a player obtained a drop that allowed them to get a bonus their opponent could not break or match

it should also be implemented for round 6 for those games where a player obtained a drop that allowed them to get a bonus their opponent could not break or match

it should also be implemented for round 7 for those games where a player obtained a drop that allowed them to get a bonus their opponent could not break or match



all random drop advantages should be eliminated

chess anyone

[Metsfanmax]

it should also be implemented for round 5 for those games where a player obtained a drop that allowed them to get a bonus their opponent could not break or match

Round 5 is clutch. I support this suggestion.

[drunkmonkey]

Here's an example of a real test of strategy: Game 7844990

[Woodruff]

Here's an example of a real test of strategy: Game 7844990

But that was obviously much more enjoyable than a close, intense game where strategy actually matters.

[CubColtPacer]

What game am I trying to turn it into? Monopoly? I've never played a game of Risk where we started with 3 troops on each territory, played on teams, or couldn't see troops in non-adjacent territories. And I've certainly never played it on 169 of these maps. So, maybe this isn't Risk after all.

As long as Sequential, Manual, Chained, Escalating (No Fog of War) exists, there will always be a game that's pretty much exactly the same as the board game. With this implementation put in as the default behavior for all games, we would not have that.

There are many versions of the board game rules. The last time I checked there were 7 different rulebooks that have been released for the official game. Chained and Adjacent fortifications for example are both in an official version of the rulebook. Escalating and flat rate are also both in official versions. Picking your territories and drawing them from the deck are also both official ways to play. There can be no set of rules that can be exactly like the board game because the board game itself cannot figure out what its own rules are!

As far as the suggestion itself, it sounds great to begin with (although I don't play 1 vs 1) but my question is this. Is going first the bigger advantage or having a bonus the bigger advantage? If going first is the bigger advantage it would be somewhat counter intuitive to hope that the other player gets a bonus on the drop just to make sure that you have 100% chance of getting the first turn vs just a 50% chance at it.

[Woodruff]

What game am I trying to turn it into? Monopoly? I've never played a game of Risk where we started with 3 troops on each territory, played on teams, or couldn't see troops in non-adjacent territories. And I've certainly never played it on 169 of these maps. So, maybe this isn't Risk after all.

As long as Sequential, Manual, Chained, Escalating (No Fog of War) exists, there will always be a game that's pretty much exactly the same as the board game. With this implementation put in as the default behavior for all games, we would not have that.

There are many versions of the board game rules. The last time I checked there were 7 different rulebooks that have been released for the official game. Chained and Adjacent fortifications for example are both in an official version of the rulebook. Escalating and flat rate are also both in official versions. Picking your territories and drawing them from the deck are also both official ways to play. There can be no set of rules that can be exactly like the board game because the board game itself cannot figure out what its own rules are!

As far as the suggestion itself, it sounds great to begin with (although I don't play 1 vs 1) but my question is this. Is going first the bigger advantage or having a bonus the bigger advantage? If going first is the bigger advantage it would be somewhat counter intuitive to hope that the other player gets a bonus on the drop just to make sure that you have 100% chance of getting the first turn vs just a 50% chance at it.

With an even drop, going first is absolutely an advantage...a crucial one in an unlimited-fortification game, even. But I would personally consider the bonus to be the greater advantage, though that of course depends on the "breakability" of that bonus. Really though, the usefulness of this suggestion for me is to avoid the individual getting the bonus ALSO going first, which is essentially a game-over situation.