Conquer Club

Landgrab

Landgrab provides many different options (which other sites, such as ConquerClub, do not, necessarily).

Very playable, nice layout, decent-sized community and usually at least 90 players online at a given time.

I bet he was busted as a multi and so he hates CC now.

Phobia wrote:He clearly hasn't heard of add ons such as Greasemonkey if you use Firefox. And I think he needs to update his review, there are card counters now...

I think you can also (with the basic greasemonkey script at least - roberts one I think has some compatibility issues) get Trixie or somesuch to make it work on IE as well

http://www.bhelpuri.net/Trixie/

How come for Grand Strategy 24 hour turns is "playing strategically" while on here it is "slow moving?"

Grand Strategy is a complete rip off of this website. I remember when the guy who made it, cheekily made a topic here and advertised his website to us.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3120

Im going a little off topic but the guy is full of himself. Dr. Elsahn Honarary.

He wrote a risk book and is trying to sell posters that say total diplomacy. The smuck even has his own site explaining his Doctorate degree. He's a doctor in robotics so he decide to put Dr. Elsahn Honarary on his book.

His polls for his products say Do you want more products or would you want to but any ?

All voted no

Just read some of this guys blog stuff on his site.

It reads out like a lecture.

LMAO, what a dumbass.

RobinJ wrote:I loved your comments wicked, especially this bit:

We also have a great forum community. Unfortunately, the moderators tend to be on the immature side and power abusers. But, if there is something wrong (bad feedback, inappropriate posts, ect.) they will fix it.

I don't think that was wicked… Last page she said:

wicked wrote:thanks to the jerk who used my name.

Wow.........just...........

wow.

Fucking tube is all I will say

hecter wrote:

RobinJ wrote:I loved your comments wicked, especially this bit:

We also have a great forum community. Unfortunately, the moderators tend to be on the immature side and power abusers. But, if there is something wrong (bad feedback, inappropriate posts, ect.) they will fix it.

I don't think that was wicked… Last page she said:

wicked wrote:thanks to the jerk who used my name.

Yeh just noticed that...

RobinJ wrote:Fucking tube is all I will say

why? i have tried several other risk websites and found them nothing compared to CC hence why i paid my money to join this site and have been a constant member for so long whereas i was never willing to pay money nor really play on any others, they all suck and CC rocks. thats all there is to it.

I've completed all its surveys except Best Artificial Intelligence.

This site is actually pretty much ran by the guy who created grand strategy, hence the bias against CC, there is another thread about it.

I agree that this reviewer sounds biased against CC, but there are some valid points:

1) Map: CC has some of the most gorgeous maps, no doubt, but the Classic map is one of the 5 that I won't play because I can't bear to look at it. If you are basing your review on what the RISK map looks like, CC takes a valid hit. (No offense meant to the artist here, it's just too bright and difficult for me to read.)

2) Army Display: The reason I found the CC greasemonkey scripts is because I was desperately looking for something to make the numbers more readable. It turns out that there are scripts that make this site a joy to use, but it is a valid complaint that the built-in interface (as any non-Firefox user will encounter) is lack-ing. <rim-shot>

I understand that there is always an endless to-do list, and Lack is reasonably concentrating on other things since there are greasemonkey scripts to handle UI, but it's not shocking that a reviewer would note the issues.

There is a space for people to comment on the reviews, and I think we should add a well-crafted, polite correction.

Sparqs wrote:I agree that this reviewer sounds biased against CC, but there are some valid points:

1) Map: CC has some of the most gorgeous maps, no doubt, but the Classic map is one of the 5 that I won't play because I can't bear to look at it. If you are basing your review on what the RISK map looks like, CC takes a valid hit. (No offense meant to the artist here, it's just too bright and difficult for me to read.)

2) Army Display: The reason I found the CC greasemonkey scripts is because I was desperately looking for something to make the numbers more readable. It turns out that there are scripts that make this site a joy to use, but it is a valid complaint that the built-in interface (as any non-Firefox user will encounter) is lack-ing. <rim-shot>

I understand that there is always an endless to-do list, and Lack is reasonably concentrating on other things since there are greasemonkey scripts to handle UI, but it's not shocking that a reviewer would note the issues.

There is a space for people to comment on the reviews, and I think we should add a well-crafted, polite correction.

You joined 3 days ago....

ABSOLUTE_MASTER wrote:

Sparqs wrote:I agree that this reviewer sounds biased against CC, but there are some valid points:

1) Map: CC has some of the most gorgeous maps, no doubt, but the Classic map is one of the 5 that I won't play because I can't bear to look at it. If you are basing your review on what the RISK map looks like, CC takes a valid hit. (No offense meant to the artist here, it's just too bright and difficult for me to read.)

2) Army Display: The reason I found the CC greasemonkey scripts is because I was desperately looking for something to make the numbers more readable. It turns out that there are scripts that make this site a joy to use, but it is a valid complaint that the built-in interface (as any non-Firefox user will encounter) is lack-ing. <rim-shot>

I understand that there is always an endless to-do list, and Lack is reasonably concentrating on other things since there are greasemonkey scripts to handle UI, but it's not shocking that a reviewer would note the issues.

There is a space for people to comment on the reviews, and I think we should add a well-crafted, polite correction.

You joined 3 days ago....

His points are all valid and well thought out.

poo-maker wrote:His points are all valid and well thought out.

You joined 97 days ago

sully800 wrote:

poo-maker wrote:His points are all valid and well thought out.

You joined 97 days ago

Its true though...

You have only played 171 games.

Phobia wrote:Very playable, nice layout, decent-sized community and usually at least 90 players online at a given time.

im leaving...thats so many players...

poo-maker wrote:

sully800 wrote:

poo-maker wrote:His points are all valid and well thought out.

You joined 97 days ago

Its true though...

You have only played 171 games.

seriously...who the hell mad you a mod, newbie

keep up the good work though

AAFitz wrote:seriously...who the hell mad you a mod, newbie

uhh, no one?

wicked wrote:

AAFitz wrote:seriously...who the hell mad you a mod, newbie

uhh, no one?

mod, multi hunter, tourney director, director of arts and crafts..theyre all the same to us...ie mods

ooh we do need a new arts and crafts guy... you applying?

wicked wrote:ooh we do need a new arts and crafts guy... you applying?

ill pass, but if you want, ill set up the battle royale games from now on...

this is slipping off topic here a bit...

Back to topic: CC good, GS not as good