MichelSableheart wrote:Stalemated 1v1 No spoils where your opponent is on the defensive. Miss two turns to force your opponent to devide his defenses equaly among the different borders, then place three turns worth of troops on the weakest border to create a decisive stack difference. If you don't miss a turn, your opponent can place his troops opposite yours, thereby avoiding that stack difference.
yeti_c wrote:Not an advantage - as during those 2 missed turns the player who isn't missing should break the stalemate - also the "decisive" stack will be countered by the player not being able to use them until the following turn - by which time the non skipping player will have a turn to counter the threat.
"Should break" and "likelihood of breaking" are two different things. The turn misser can wait to see if missing a turn would be a good option, especially in fog. The turn misser can also wait an additional missed turn to see if the other player(s) have been effective enough to break. I see this as an advantage, as you can wait until it is necessary to rejoin the game. If you are making a choice as to whether you will miss a turn, miss another turn, or miss a third turn, purposefully, then it is a strategy that, for some reason, provides an advantage. (ex: miss one turn, assess the situation to see if coming back in and taking your next turn is necessary. Miss two turns, asses the situation to see if returning for the third is futile or not. or, return for the third turn just to prolong the game.)
MichelSableheart wrote:You're well defended in a three player standard game against relatively inexperienced opponents. Miss two turns to simulate a deadbeat and watch them attack each other.
yeti_c wrote:Not an advantage - you're merely citing poor play from other players.
Advantage. Its not always the best move to attack the player-who-is-missing in a 1v1v1. If you immediately follower the turn-misser and thin yourself out to "break" the turn misser, the third player to go can have a field day on either or both of the other two players. Again, the turn-misser can wait to see if missing one or two turns will work to an advantage. The players who are not missing their turns have to use diplomacy to handle the situation. Missing a turn is a strategy, and it is only a strategy because of the deferred troops. Remove the deferred troops and you eliminate the strategic option.
MichelSableheart wrote:You hold five cards in Nuclear spoils, including a territory that is threatened by a large stack of an opponent, which has to be cashed in. Miss a turn to delay the cash till after he has moved his huge stack to the territory about to be nuked.
yeti_c wrote:This could be an advantage - but it purely about this card type... perhaps a tweak to the rules for Nuke spoils saying that a player can't cash immediately after a missed turn.
I think if you find one way where it can be used to an advantage, you could easily agree to eliminate the deferred troops, rather than create a complicated coding situation to prevent a player with 5 cards from cashing.
MichelSableheart wrote:The claim that there are no situations where missing a turn is a viable strategy is just as ridiculous as the claim that there is always a huge advantage to missing a turn. In general, the negatives to missing a turn strongly outweigh the positives though, which makes the removal of deferred troops unnecessary IMO.
yeti_c wrote:You have managed to find one advantage specific to one card type that could be changed for that card type... I suggest that this suggestion be distilled into a new suggestion.
Yeti, if there are advantages to missing a turn specific to a card type, I'm sorry, but you'd have to respect the fact that an advantage exists.
". 
Well stated queen!
