Nuclear

[ScavengerType]

Haven't seen much about the strategy if nuclear spoils on here. What do people do to adapt to nuclear games?

[Joodoo]

viewtopic.php?f=549&t=120968&start=0

[She Khan]

Just curious, if you eliminate a player using a nuclear trade in do you get his cards?

[chapcrap]

Just curious, if you eliminate a player using a nuclear trade in do you get his cards?

YES!!

[Onefistjel]

Haven't played it much, but large stacks are pretty much a no-go. Nuclear is a good choice for people who like the game to keep moving without the irritation of sweeping victories that so often happen in escalating. You can't just stack troops, so for the most part, I would play it pretty straight: expand steadily, don't entrench your troops too much, and then maybe move some of your medium stacks around a bit to avoid other players planning your demise.

Also, you can try to let your own sets dictate your moves. If you can entice an opponent to stack some troops on one of your spoils, say a pivotal border spot, then do so. In World 2.1, I held the Mexico bonus for some time, but I retreated my troops and expanded them elsewhere, allowing another opponent to take over Mexico and stack some troops on the border, where I was waiting with my spoils. It might not always work, but it did then. Use what you have to your advantage, but otherwise, don't grow stagnant, and try to build up in mostly a standard manner.

[chapcrap]

Haven't played it much, but large stacks are pretty much a no-go. Nuclear is a good choice for people who like the game to keep moving without the irritation of sweeping victories that so often happen in escalating. You can't just stack troops, so for the most part, I would play it pretty straight: expand steadily, don't entrench your troops too much, and then maybe move some of your medium stacks around a bit to avoid other players planning your demise.

Also, you can try to let your own sets dictate your moves. If you can entice an opponent to stack some troops on one of your spoils, say a pivotal border spot, then do so. In World 2.1, I held the Mexico bonus for some time, but I retreated my troops and expanded them elsewhere, allowing another opponent to take over Mexico and stack some troops on the border, where I was waiting with my spoils. It might not always work, but it did then. Use what you have to your advantage, but otherwise, don't grow stagnant, and try to build up in mostly a standard manner.

You can stack troops on a territory for a card you own. Then just don't get any more cards and you won't have to kill yourself or have your stack eliminated.

[Onefistjel]

Yes, that is a common strategy that I have since employed. You can meet with a couple of glitches when using it, though. Eventually, you'll want your troops in a key location for attacking opponents, if you gain the upper hand. Either you're moving them to a spot that is in danger of being taken out, or you have to wait until they attack an adjacent territory before you can make your stack be of any use. I've seen players who complain about how lucky someone was to knock out their big stack on the one turn when they had to move it out of the way of their own cards and place it on a territory (in fog of war, so others couldn't see where). Sure, it's lucky for the other player to have just the right card at the right time and use it without knowing you had your stack there, but that's the rick you run, when you put all your armies on one spot. Eventually, you need to move them to make a significant impact on the game, and at that point, who knows what will happen? It makes it harder if it's adjacent or even chained reinforcement, instead of unlimited. Also, it depends on the size of the map. In a big map like World 2.1, you'd probably want to expand consistently, but in a small map, use the stack. Some kind of combination could work well, too.

[Roussallier]

Thanks for the thread - looks like this is going to become one of my favorite settings.