Overall 1 v1 Strategy...

[Kaskavel]

Of course it is. I was asked to name 30 reasons, based on using one of my earlier expressions, and I found it entertaining to try.
31. Limit the number of boarders

[gas]

IronB sorry man but is better to be redundant (is it?) than inadequate. especially when someone with no experience asked for advice. the point as i understand it, is that you cannot be absolute and use words like "EVER" that can confuse people. many of us can tell stories abt how they won a game by attacking not 3-2 but 3-4 (even 3-5 - ok this is rare!). of course this is more common in escalating games where you can take -actually better to say you will take- risks that not is not going to harm you at all if you fail but will give you the game if you succeed.

[agentcom]

Kaskavel, that was an awesome list. I completely agree that there are times when any attack can be beneficial. I am impressed that you were able to come up with 30 like that.

I will say, when I'm playing with a noob as a partner, part of my preliminary advice is to not keep rolling if they get down to 3 armies. Because I have found that if they don't know this general rule, they can do me and my team a lot of harm. However, if the opportunity arises, I would of course encourage them to break this rule.

[Jippd]

I also was impressed that you were able to come up with 30

[Armandolas]

like someone said earlier...the most important of all...Keep calm..i often fail at this one when dice is not with me

[Major bob]

I enjoyed it! Freedom of speech, remember?

[jltile1]

1. Eliminate a player
2. Take an objective
3. Break an objective
4. Take a spoil
5. (nuclear) Remove your armies from a region you will probably be forced to nuke yourself next turn.
6. (team) Contact partner in order to make an advantageous reinforcement
7. (team) Contact partner in order to allow him to do an advantageous reinforcement
8. Capture a bonus
9. Break a bonus
10. Drop opponent to 3n-1 regions (11,14,17...)
11. (flat rate) Capture a region whose spoil is on hand
12. (fog) Block opponent's information to a critical action of yours.
13. (fog) Capture an irrelevant neutral giving the impression that you just conquered a bonus in the other side of the map
14. (trench) Increase your boarder line in order to prevent opponent from breaking through a critical area.
15. (automatic, chained) Block a line of communication through which opponent continusly reinforces misplaced 3s into action.
16. (automatic, chained) Open a line of communication through which you can reinforce misplaced 3s into action.
17. Engulf a thorn. Attacked region is the only one left "inside" your territory and opponent will wreck havoc if allowed to place his army there next turn.
18. Unblock third party. Open the rout to another player in order to attack with his big stack another player who is threatening to win the game.
19. (fog) Gain critical information about regions behind.
20. (escalating, fog) Any kind of bluffing-trying to seduce an opponent into an elimination attempt, based on wrong guessing of target's area positions.
21. (round limit) Last round's desperate attacks to surpass your opponent's army or creating a situation where a specific senario of conflict between two other players will lead to a win.
22. (team, round limit) Creating as much damage as possible against opponents when you are the weak player of the team and your army size does not count for the result of the game.
23. (escalating or any other case of cleaning up an area or an opponent) Make suboptimal attacks (mainly 3 vs 1 and 2 vs 1 but even 2 vs 2 sometimes) with not so much useful attackers when you need to "narrow" or "facilate" the advance of your main army in an otherwise dubious or uncertain elimination attempt.
24. Conquer a critical region where you want to reinforce in, be it an escalating block, a passing point to a game objective or anything else that matters in the game.
25. (specific maps killing armies) Use against opponents the spare army (armies) that are going to be wasted at the start of your next turn anyway.
26. (freestyle) Freestyle tricks. We can all imagine many situations where you completely bust opponents plans by interfearing with an otherwise stupid attack.
27. Irrelevant isolated battle (only for 3 vs 1 and 2 vs 1). The two regions are isolated from the game because of neutrals (for example the two south Australia regions in classic, when the upper two are neutrals). Making this 3 or 2 vs 1 assault can not hurt you in case you lose, but will provide a +1 region for you and a -1 region for opponent in case you win, FOR THE WHOLE GAME to follow.
28. (Specific maps) Bombardment. You have serious chances to hit too many regions, just with the same 3 troops.
29. (specific maps) One way assaults. Forever removing opponent's ability to use a one way assault route, thus trapping him in an unfavourable area.
30. (escalating) Encourage a favourable (!) elimination attempt by capturing an isolated region. Isn't it so nice when in a multiplayer escalating game you offer one opponent the chance to win the game (60% or 40%, really doesnt matter) but you in turn win the game yourself if he fails to do so?
You can bet I can find much more with some extra thinking. That was a funny list of me to do, but please do not miss my main point. It is wonderful when a cook thinks that "I will make this normaly unfavourable 2 vs 1 attack, because opponent's reinforcements from the south will be cut off in case I succeed, but the wasted troop in case I lose is not going to hurt my game because of its isolation". We should provide new players with some normal rules, but also encourage them for thinking creatively in order to spot the exceptions to those rules.

Very good to say the least.

In a mid sieve map 3v1 attacks are very good if the other person is leaving ones to spread your regions epically if there is not a attacker behind you. You adv a two leaving your attacker to pick his battles.

[100mates]

i've attacked 16 with only 4 and won without losing a troop...
Sometimes its good to take that chance, low as it may be.

When playing higher ranked players, you'll find that some of them leave lots of little "poops" (2men) over each territory in an attempt to lower your chance of gaining any ground and also preventing you from getting that extra one troop for holding 12+ territories.

[Kaskavel]

1. Eliminate a player
2. Take an objective
3. Break an objective
4. Take a spoil
5. (nuclear) Remove your armies from a region you will probably be forced to nuke yourself next turn.
6. (team) Contact partner in order to make an advantageous reinforcement
7. (team) Contact partner in order to allow him to do an advantageous reinforcement
8. Capture a bonus
9. Break a bonus
10. Drop opponent to 3n-1 regions (11,14,17...)
11. (flat rate) Capture a region whose spoil is on hand
12. (fog) Block opponent's information to a critical action of yours.
13. (fog) Capture an irrelevant neutral giving the impression that you just conquered a bonus in the other side of the map
14. (trench) Increase your boarder line in order to prevent opponent from breaking through a critical area.
15. (automatic, chained) Block a line of communication through which opponent continusly reinforces misplaced 3s into action.
16. (automatic, chained) Open a line of communication through which you can reinforce misplaced 3s into action.
17. Engulf a thorn. Attacked region is the only one left "inside" your territory and opponent will wreck havoc if allowed to place his army there next turn.
18. Unblock third party. Open the rout to another player in order to attack with his big stack another player who is threatening to win the game.
19. (fog) Gain critical information about regions behind.
20. (escalating, fog) Any kind of bluffing-trying to seduce an opponent into an elimination attempt, based on wrong guessing of target's area positions.
21. (round limit) Last round's desperate attacks to surpass your opponent's army or creating a situation where a specific senario of conflict between two other players will lead to a win.
22. (team, round limit) Creating as much damage as possible against opponents when you are the weak player of the team and your army size does not count for the result of the game.
23. (escalating or any other case of cleaning up an area or an opponent) Make suboptimal attacks (mainly 3 vs 1 and 2 vs 1 but even 2 vs 2 sometimes) with not so much useful attackers when you need to "narrow" or "facilate" the advance of your main army in an otherwise dubious or uncertain elimination attempt.
24. Conquer a critical region where you want to reinforce in, be it an escalating block, a passing point to a game objective or anything else that matters in the game.
25. (specific maps killing armies) Use against opponents the spare army (armies) that are going to be wasted at the start of your next turn anyway.
26. (freestyle) Freestyle tricks. We can all imagine many situations where you completely bust opponents plans by interfearing with an otherwise stupid attack.
27. Irrelevant isolated battle (only for 3 vs 1 and 2 vs 1). The two regions are isolated from the game because of neutrals (for example the two south Australia regions in classic, when the upper two are neutrals). Making this 3 or 2 vs 1 assault can not hurt you in case you lose, but will provide a +1 region for you and a -1 region for opponent in case you win, FOR THE WHOLE GAME to follow.
28. (Specific maps) Bombardment. You have serious chances to hit too many regions, just with the same 3 troops.
29. (specific maps) One way assaults. Forever removing opponent's ability to use a one way assault route, thus trapping him in an unfavourable area.
30. (escalating) Encourage a favourable (!) elimination attempt by capturing an isolated region. Isn't it so nice when in a multiplayer escalating game you offer one opponent the chance to win the game (60% or 40%, really doesnt matter) but you in turn win the game yourself if he fails to do so?
You can bet I can find much more with some extra thinking. That was a funny list of me to do, but please do not miss my main point. It is wonderful when a cook thinks that "I will make this normaly unfavourable 2 vs 1 attack, because opponent's reinforcements from the south will be cut off in case I succeed, but the wasted troop in case I lose is not going to hurt my game because of its isolation". We should provide new players with some normal rules, but also encourage them for thinking creatively in order to spot the exceptions to those rules.

Very good to say the least.

In a mid sieve map 3v1 attacks are very good if the other person is leaving ones to spread your regions epically if there is not a attacker behind you. You adv a two leaving your attacker to pick his battles.

I do not know what a mid sieve map is. If you mean a corridor (very narrow) map, you are right. If you mean the entirely opposite (a very widespread map) you also have right under some circumstances.
It is ironic, but it is on very close or very open maps that 3 vs 1 attacks are many times good. In medium shaped maps, they are usualy a bad idea.

[jltile1]

1. Eliminate a player
2. Take an objective
3. Break an objective
4. Take a spoil
5. (nuclear) Remove your armies from a region you will probably be forced to nuke yourself next turn.
6. (team) Contact partner in order to make an advantageous reinforcement
7. (team) Contact partner in order to allow him to do an advantageous reinforcement
8. Capture a bonus
9. Break a bonus
10. Drop opponent to 3n-1 regions (11,14,17...)
11. (flat rate) Capture a region whose spoil is on hand
12. (fog) Block opponent's information to a critical action of yours.
13. (fog) Capture an irrelevant neutral giving the impression that you just conquered a bonus in the other side of the map
14. (trench) Increase your boarder line in order to prevent opponent from breaking through a critical area.
15. (automatic, chained) Block a line of communication through which opponent continusly reinforces misplaced 3s into action.
16. (automatic, chained) Open a line of communication through which you can reinforce misplaced 3s into action.
17. Engulf a thorn. Attacked region is the only one left "inside" your territory and opponent will wreck havoc if allowed to place his army there next turn.
18. Unblock third party. Open the rout to another player in order to attack with his big stack another player who is threatening to win the game.
19. (fog) Gain critical information about regions behind.
20. (escalating, fog) Any kind of bluffing-trying to seduce an opponent into an elimination attempt, based on wrong guessing of target's area positions.
21. (round limit) Last round's desperate attacks to surpass your opponent's army or creating a situation where a specific senario of conflict between two other players will lead to a win.
22. (team, round limit) Creating as much damage as possible against opponents when you are the weak player of the team and your army size does not count for the result of the game.
23. (escalating or any other case of cleaning up an area or an opponent) Make suboptimal attacks (mainly 3 vs 1 and 2 vs 1 but even 2 vs 2 sometimes) with not so much useful attackers when you need to "narrow" or "facilate" the advance of your main army in an otherwise dubious or uncertain elimination attempt.
24. Conquer a critical region where you want to reinforce in, be it an escalating block, a passing point to a game objective or anything else that matters in the game.
25. (specific maps killing armies) Use against opponents the spare army (armies) that are going to be wasted at the start of your next turn anyway.
26. (freestyle) Freestyle tricks. We can all imagine many situations where you completely bust opponents plans by interfearing with an otherwise stupid attack.
27. Irrelevant isolated battle (only for 3 vs 1 and 2 vs 1). The two regions are isolated from the game because of neutrals (for example the two south Australia regions in classic, when the upper two are neutrals). Making this 3 or 2 vs 1 assault can not hurt you in case you lose, but will provide a +1 region for you and a -1 region for opponent in case you win, FOR THE WHOLE GAME to follow.
28. (Specific maps) Bombardment. You have serious chances to hit too many regions, just with the same 3 troops.
29. (specific maps) One way assaults. Forever removing opponent's ability to use a one way assault route, thus trapping him in an unfavourable area.
30. (escalating) Encourage a favourable (!) elimination attempt by capturing an isolated region. Isn't it so nice when in a multiplayer escalating game you offer one opponent the chance to win the game (60% or 40%, really doesnt matter) but you in turn win the game yourself if he fails to do so?
You can bet I can find much more with some extra thinking. That was a funny list of me to do, but please do not miss my main point. It is wonderful when a cook thinks that "I will make this normaly unfavourable 2 vs 1 attack, because opponent's reinforcements from the south will be cut off in case I succeed, but the wasted troop in case I lose is not going to hurt my game because of its isolation". We should provide new players with some normal rules, but also encourage them for thinking creatively in order to spot the exceptions to those rules.

Very good to say the least.

In a mid sieve map 3v1 attacks are very good if the other person is leaving ones to spread your regions epically if there is not a attacker behind you. You adv a two leaving your attacker to pick his battles.

I do not know what a mid sieve map is. If you mean a corridor (very narrow) map, you are right. If you mean the entirely opposite (a very widespread map) you also have right under some circumstances.
It is ironic, but it is on very close or very open maps that 3 vs 1 attacks are many times good. In medium shaped maps, they are usualy a bad idea.

My iPad has a mind of its own. I ment mid sized map ha ha. But maybe that's a new word for map sizes. It really depends on the situation, like I said if your opponent has singles every where and you have 3s to attack to increase your regions it is a smart move to at least try once since you can only loose one troop. But it all depends like spoils or none ect. Classic is a perfect example. But you will do anything to get a kill 3v3 if needed at times. However a very small map attacking with a three is very stupid move.

[Kaskavel]

1. Eliminate a player
2. Take an objective
3. Break an objective
4. Take a spoil
5. (nuclear) Remove your armies from a region you will probably be forced to nuke yourself next turn.
6. (team) Contact partner in order to make an advantageous reinforcement
7. (team) Contact partner in order to allow him to do an advantageous reinforcement
8. Capture a bonus
9. Break a bonus
10. Drop opponent to 3n-1 regions (11,14,17...)
11. (flat rate) Capture a region whose spoil is on hand
12. (fog) Block opponent's information to a critical action of yours.
13. (fog) Capture an irrelevant neutral giving the impression that you just conquered a bonus in the other side of the map
14. (trench) Increase your boarder line in order to prevent opponent from breaking through a critical area.
15. (automatic, chained) Block a line of communication through which opponent continusly reinforces misplaced 3s into action.
16. (automatic, chained) Open a line of communication through which you can reinforce misplaced 3s into action.
17. Engulf a thorn. Attacked region is the only one left "inside" your territory and opponent will wreck havoc if allowed to place his army there next turn.
18. Unblock third party. Open the rout to another player in order to attack with his big stack another player who is threatening to win the game.
19. (fog) Gain critical information about regions behind.
20. (escalating, fog) Any kind of bluffing-trying to seduce an opponent into an elimination attempt, based on wrong guessing of target's area positions.
21. (round limit) Last round's desperate attacks to surpass your opponent's army or creating a situation where a specific senario of conflict between two other players will lead to a win.
22. (team, round limit) Creating as much damage as possible against opponents when you are the weak player of the team and your army size does not count for the result of the game.
23. (escalating or any other case of cleaning up an area or an opponent) Make suboptimal attacks (mainly 3 vs 1 and 2 vs 1 but even 2 vs 2 sometimes) with not so much useful attackers when you need to "narrow" or "facilate" the advance of your main army in an otherwise dubious or uncertain elimination attempt.
24. Conquer a critical region where you want to reinforce in, be it an escalating block, a passing point to a game objective or anything else that matters in the game.
25. (specific maps killing armies) Use against opponents the spare army (armies) that are going to be wasted at the start of your next turn anyway.
26. (freestyle) Freestyle tricks. We can all imagine many situations where you completely bust opponents plans by interfearing with an otherwise stupid attack.
27. Irrelevant isolated battle (only for 3 vs 1 and 2 vs 1). The two regions are isolated from the game because of neutrals (for example the two south Australia regions in classic, when the upper two are neutrals). Making this 3 or 2 vs 1 assault can not hurt you in case you lose, but will provide a +1 region for you and a -1 region for opponent in case you win, FOR THE WHOLE GAME to follow.
28. (Specific maps) Bombardment. You have serious chances to hit too many regions, just with the same 3 troops.
29. (specific maps) One way assaults. Forever removing opponent's ability to use a one way assault route, thus trapping him in an unfavourable area.
30. (escalating) Encourage a favourable (!) elimination attempt by capturing an isolated region. Isn't it so nice when in a multiplayer escalating game you offer one opponent the chance to win the game (60% or 40%, really doesnt matter) but you in turn win the game yourself if he fails to do so?
You can bet I can find much more with some extra thinking. That was a funny list of me to do, but please do not miss my main point. It is wonderful when a cook thinks that "I will make this normaly unfavourable 2 vs 1 attack, because opponent's reinforcements from the south will be cut off in case I succeed, but the wasted troop in case I lose is not going to hurt my game because of its isolation". We should provide new players with some normal rules, but also encourage them for thinking creatively in order to spot the exceptions to those rules.

Very good to say the least.

In a mid sieve map 3v1 attacks are very good if the other person is leaving ones to spread your regions epically if there is not a attacker behind you. You adv a two leaving your attacker to pick his battles.

I do not know what a mid sieve map is. If you mean a corridor (very narrow) map, you are right. If you mean the entirely opposite (a very widespread map) you also have right under some circumstances.
It is ironic, but it is on very close or very open maps that 3 vs 1 attacks are many times good. In medium shaped maps, they are usualy a bad idea.

My iPad has a mind of its own. I ment mid sized map ha ha. But maybe that's a new word for map sizes. It really depends on the situation, like I said if your opponent has singles every where and you have 3s to attack to increase your regions it is a smart move to at least try once since you can only loose one troop. But it all depends like spoils or none ect. Classic is a perfect example. But you will do anything to get a kill 3v3 if needed at times. However a very small map attacking with a three is very stupid move.

I only partly agree. First of all, it is not only the size of the map, but also it's shape. If there are many fronts or not. Let me explain.
It is easy to find as many reasons as you like to make a 3 vs 1 attack. Surprisingly, it is much much more difficult to find reasons NOT to make a 3 vs 1 attack. As Jippd asked earlier, why would nt you want to make a 75% favourable attack? Basicaly there are only two reasons, albeit very serious ones.
1. You do not want to expose one of the regions, be it the attacking one or the attacked one, to a 4 vs 1 counterattack, which is more favourable than the one you just made.
2. You expect to increase your 3 vs 1 odds, by improving next round to a 4 vs 1 attack instead.

If none of the above applies (and you cannot think of another reason of not doing the attack), then you should do the attack.

In narrow corridor-style maps of the Feudal-Peloponesian style, no matter the size, none of the above two is a factor. The armies clash in 1-3 major fronts. Here, there are no worries of exposing an 1 if you do the 3 vs 1 attack and there is no way to improve to 4 vs 1 by avoiding the attack, the opponent will counterattack or, in best case senario, waste a single troop to improve to a 2. Not only there is no reason to make the 3 vs 1 attack, but it also allows you to favourably balance your army in case you win. You do not advance the surviving troop, you leave it behind. Then you make your reinforcement in the conquered area. Thus, you have lets say 6 in the front and 2 in the back, much superior to having 1-8 and one less region. (This logic is Peloponesian style, based upon the assumption that opponent will probably succeed in counterattacking by adding more than 10 troops)

In very wide maps, comes the point you and Jippd mentioned. The battle soon becomes very chaotic and, especialy in small maps, opponent will always have chances to attack 1s. In this case, you may, under circumstances, make the 3 vs 1 attacks. Basicaly, you want to compare the probability loss by making a 3 vs 1 attack that you could improve to 4 vs 1 next round to the possibility of gaining something tangible by conquering a reason, either being the drop from 15 to 14 or the more complicated foresight thinking Jippd mentioned. Basicaly, it gets more complex in wide maps. The world's best tend to avoid those attacks more often than not, but it is not entirely obvious, to me at least, if they are always right.

In more medium-shaped maps, like the classic 1 vs 1, where neutrals may narrow some fronts but widen some others, 3 vs 1 is usualy a bad idea whenever the rule of exposing a 1 applies. You have reasonable chances to keep your boarders full of 2s and if you can do that, then you should.

[Kaskavel]

In previous to last paragraph, I meant "especialy in BIG maps" and "by conquering a REGION"

[jltile1]

Ok so my point exactly I would never attack a 3v1 if his troops are behind me. But if he leaves singles you attack adv a 2. Would not make the attack unless it helped me by cutting his regions or me picking some up. I would not attack with 11 regions to try for 12 when I know it will be broken easy. There are so many diff scenarios you can post as you did you prob could of came with 60. The point really is play smart and look at every game with all eyes open regions, bonus, and I can go on.

[jonofperu]

Loved the list

[macbone]

Your list is redundant. You say stuff to say stuff so you can hit 30.

Yeah, but not too often. Nice list!

[Crazyirishman]

it's fun watching generals argue about attacking.

[macbone]

And informative, too! I'm taking notes. =)

[King Engineer]

Amazing list, I myself learnt a lot from it!

[Heavy-D]

Kaskavel makes an excellent point. If you want to win consistently over an extended period of time, maps and scenarios then developing your thinking ability is key. If you want to have a higher than normal probability of winning on the same map repeatedly and redundantly then follow a text book.
General's are where they are as are Fueld Marshals and Majors and so on because of their ability to think. It's a lot like chess. Masters master openings and closings, Grand Masters master the ability to think.
Just my two cents.

[chang50]

Kaskavel makes an excellent point. If you want to win consistently over an extended period of time, maps and scenarios then developing your thinking ability is key. If you want to have a higher than normal probability of winning on the same map repeatedly and redundantly then follow a text book.
General's are where they are as are Fueld Marshals and Majors and so on because of their ability to think. It's a lot like chess. Masters master openings and closings, Grand Masters master the ability to think.
Just my two cents.

I agree totally,I wouldn't bother playing if I thought,as many seem to,that the game is nearly all down to luck.Of course with a dice based game,your personal luck will swing backwards and forwards,if you can't handle that,then maybe dice based games are not for you..

[Viceroy63]

Well I get General Kaskavel's point! If you limit your attacking to the odds of the dice then you basically throw away a whole lot of options in strategical play.

A couple of things could be considered repetitive such as 2, 3, 8 and 9 but a bonus is not always an objective. I found this list quite impressive and anyone who can come up with a list such as this to prove his word has to have a hell of a strategical mind.

I think that if we go into the specific details of this list, that even a book could be written and published.

Good work general.