Conquer Club

So I just started a game (I’m assuming a link to the game is OK, if not let me know and I’ll remove it - https://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=24233851 Iberia - Doubles, No Spoils, Adjacent, Trench), and one team at the start has full control over a coveted +2 corner region alongside all three of the bordering territories to that region, which with the trench warfare and no-spoils option means they are very likely to be going to get a constant +2 every round until the end of the game. In addition they have 3/4 of what seems to be the second or third best region (SW - Alentejo) with one territory within held by my team and 2/4 bordering territories all defended by a single territory that they also hold at the beginning. And as a third bonus they also have the first move in the game.

Basically this is a disaster for my team, I’m guessing that the expected win rate for the advantaged team here should be something like 95+ percent.

My suggestion then is this, prevent the generation of map starting positions where one team (i.e. one player on one team) holds an entire region at the beginning, especially the best region(s) in the game and especially with the trench warfare option, as without serious error or bad dice luck those conditions are something akin to a won game from the beginning, which one team and possibly both are likely to find unenjoyable.

I realize that on larger maps (for example the beehive map) some initial full control over minor regions is natural and not likely to have a big impact on the game (though this could tie into my related suggestion on this forum that those with an initial bonus are excluded from having the first move), but on smaller maps this is such a disadvantage to the other team that it should be eliminated as a possibility IMO.

Sorry, but that's just part of the game.
The luck of the drop is just that, the luck of the drop.
I couldn't support this even if I was paid to. It would change the game way too much from it being random.
Fighting an uphill battle is what makes it challenging.
And it being easy isn't something I can get behind.

You must have lost some games because someone dropped a bonus or two and cried yourself to sleep over it.
Its ok. I'll ask owenshooter to come pat you on the back.
Don't count on that too much though.

new maps that are being made attempt to not have any small bonus drops when possible but any old maps it was part of the map

plurple wrote: Wed Dec 31, 2025 11:50 am new maps that are being made attempt to not have any small bonus drops when possible but any old maps it was part of the map

I dont wanna play those maps.. That uphill battle that you know you wont win is the fun part...


Also, to your signature, plurple is purple. Look at your username.. Unless I'm colorblind....

plurple wrote: Wed Dec 31, 2025 11:50 am new maps that are being made attempt to not have any small bonus drops when possible but any old maps it was part of the map

Glad to hear that, seems like the site and/or mapmakers share my general opinion on this.

Would it be possible for old maps to be updated to get the suggestion to happen, or if some people like a lot of neutrals to clone the maps (they could be called something like "<mapname>2.0 update - minimal neutrals”).

This idea is Soo weak that you and I are the only people that voted.
And you voted yes...
And what a surprise.. I voted no.

.go lose some more games. You obviously have a lot of character building to do if you are foeing me because I tell the truth on your post. Weak spined crybaby.

I'll go ahead and do some work and get a ton of people to vote no just to really hurt your feelings now.

zen330 wrote: Tue Dec 23, 2025 10:35 pm

Sorry, have to agree with everyone that is saying it is just part of the game... oh! and i agree with everything that gcwca_4_life has said not only about the topic, but about you and your character and your really odd move of foe'ing him, because he disagreed with you. Based on that alone, I just voted in my first poll in over a decade, just to get foed by you as well...

The black jesus has spoken, the mods may now safely lock this down...-Jesus noir

owenshooter wrote: Sun Jan 11, 2026 5:07 am you and your character and your really odd move of foe'ing him, because he disagreed with you. Based on that alone, I just voted in my first poll in over a decade, just to get foed by you as well...

lolwut - foeing is for the weakass bitches around here, owen...

To clarify my reasoning on the “foe”-ing, it was due to this thread viewtopic.php?t=243103. Reasonable disagreement I have no problem with, being blatantly rude while misrepresenting what I wrote (even with a reasonable initial description and a later clean clarification) is a different story.

I have spent a lot of time of internet forums, and I have found that when someone displays a high degree of ignorance and hostility (including via their taglines) on one post for no apparent reason they tend to not be worth hearing from in general, especially if they choose to “spam” ones comments or threads with similar posts as I’m guessing is the case with many/most of his other replies to me on these forums so far.

I see it similarly to IRL behavior, if the online behavior of a person would get them rebuked or cast out of a respectable group of people if done face-to-face then they very likely aren’t worth my time, and certainly not if that behavior was commonplace for them. If someone has a good reason why this reasoning is unsound feel free to make the case why.

If my guess here turns out to be wrong and he has instead acted in a decent manner in most of his replies in my suggestion threads someone can let me know and I’ll reconsider my foe-ing. Otherwise I consider it a clean and logical way to avoid annoyance and the wasting of my time, as well as avoiding potential “drama” which tends to drag groups down if I were to respond in kind at some point. (Maybe I contributed to this somewhat by noting my foe-ing in another thread, IIRC I was just asking why someone on my “foe” list was still able to read and reply to my threads when it seemed that part of the “foe” function was to prevent that from happening - presumably an incorrect assumption(?)).

I spammed your post?


Well then, I thought I was responding to dumb ideas with my thoughts which is what the suggestions forum here is suppose to be for.
How lame of you to think I spammed your post.
But, when I get done working today and get back to the hospital with my lady who just gave birth the day before yesterday and my newborn child, I will be sure to spam the crap out all your threads.
Just remember, you asked for it with false accusations..
How incredibly sad it is that you will be annoyed because someone's "ignorance" was actually insight til you provoked them..

Get ready, it's coming, just like your trash ideas did.

I would have thought your lady would have preferred to have your attention on her and the baby (congratulations by the way) rather than on spamming the threads.

Apatheist wrote: Tue Jan 13, 2026 7:16 am I would have thought your lady would have preferred to have your attention on her and the baby (congratulations by the way) rather than on spamming the threads.

I do that when she is asleep and baby boy is in the NICU without us there.
But I can play this game with my kid in my arms asleep and never bother him.

But he was 2 months early, so we can't exactly take him out the NICU . He is healthy, but I've got to teach him to be a proper troll early on. How else would he learn?