Discussion Topic: Trench Warfare, A New Way of Thinking.

[Viceroy63]

This article came out in the Strategy Section of issue 70 of the Conquer Club Newsletter. Just read it below in the show/hide box and be sure to leave your comments and discussions in this thread.

Thank you!

Trench Warfare, A New Way of Thinking. by Viceroy63

show

[Viceroy63]

The Newsletter is out now and so is the article for your reading pleasure. You can read the article in the first post right here. All comments and opinions are welcomed.

Thank You!

[Dukasaur]

Thanks for starting this discussion, Viceroy.

Personally, I'm not ready to offer an opinion on trench strategy yet. I've only played a few games of it so far, and I'm only beginning to evolve an opinion.

Let's hope some of the more brilliant minds on CC step forward here and give us an analysis!

[Roussallier]

I've tripped over myself in several TW games now that I started, this will take some getting used to. I'm starting to like defending by attacking, though I have yet to try it on anything other than 1 vs 1.

[Chariot of Fire]

Now if the title had said "Trench Warfare, A New Way of Farming".....

[AndyDufresne]

I've tripped over myself in several TW games now that I started, this will take some getting used to. I'm starting to like defending by attacking

Mmhm, it is a pretty novel idea. In the Trench game I have going now, my whole strategy was to expand, expand, expand, but that may not be the best strategy with escalating cards mixed in I think I am finding out.

But in all, I am having fun with Trench.


--Andy

[Viceroy63]

I've tripped over myself in several TW games now that I started, this will take some getting used to. I'm starting to like defending by attacking, though I have yet to try it on anything other than 1 vs 1.

That's an interesting way of seeing it, "Attacking to Defend." But there is also the strategic withdraw as well in order to conserve your troop strength, if and when you can, until you get a set of spoils.

Granted I believe that no spoils make for a faster game in a way but then the winners are already determined by who holds the bonus zones. Fighting for spoils makes the bonus zones unimportant then and any one can win.

I know you did not mention spoils, I did. But my thoughts are that you "Attack to Defend" until you can get the next set spoils. Or you can also attack and withdraw (gaining a card and maintaining your forces) when you can until you get the next set of spoils.

[gimli1990]

I've tripped over myself in several TW games now that I started, this will take some getting used to. I'm starting to like defending by attacking, though I have yet to try it on anything other than 1 vs 1.

That's an interesting way of seeing it, "Attacking to Defend." But there is also the strategic withdraw as well in order to conserve your troop strength, if and when you can, until you get a set of spoils.

Granted I believe that no spoils make for a faster game in a way but then the winners are already determined by who holds the bonus zones. Fighting for spoils makes the bonus zones unimportant then and any one can win.

I know you did not mention spoils, I did. But my thoughts are that you "Attack to Defend" until you can get the next set spoils. Or you can also attack and withdraw (gaining a card and maintaining your forces) when you can until you get the next set of spoils.

i disagree viceroy if you can get a bosus and get a buffer in any direction of the enemy has to it then it is still valueable because then it will take more then one round to break. and then you have time to reinforce and possibly destroy the attacking force

but it also depends on the number of players it is a 8 player game and you manage to get the bosus with buffer's you are golden unless they all ally against you which i doubt

the strategy i like to employ is get the quick bosus and get buffer's as soon as possible if it cannot be done then i start looking for other possibilites of building my empire. i adjust to whatever the situation allows for.

[Viceroy63]

Yes; but I think he means attacking to keep the buffer as a defense. I just did not make myself too clear in that last post. I could be wrong; But if the enemy takes the buffer, I call it trench, same thing, and if you don't take it back by attacking it, then the enemy can mount an attack from the trench. So you have to attack to defend. But what if you don't have an option and an attack is mounted at the trench, and you don't have a whole lot of army? It would depend on your army, I would think? If big enough to stand toe to toe then you fight, but if not I would rather keep my army in tact and go off to the side temporarily (if I could) until I can come back with bigger numbers. I would attack a weaker spot to card and then withdraw my forces from the trench. If the enemy puts a big army in the trench and I can't take it out without losing a lot myself and if I had some place else to go that is.

[chapcrap]

Now if the title had said "Trench Warfare, A New Way of Farming".....

I guess it's hard to farm games that New Recruits can't even join.

[thehippo8]

Interresting gameplay. It makes you think more carefully about where to drop, where to attack, when to move and when to stop. I wonder if it will affect my other games!

[safariguy5]

I think you said that you suggest flat rate settings. I don't like flat rate because a quick 3 card rainbow set will severely tilt the game in favor of a single person. Escalating is the way to go for me.

As for your comments about stacking, I think that really comes down to the number of players and the map. On a really large map with a lot of bonus regions like First Nations of North America, I could see all the players grabbing some bonuses and building. However, if we were to talk about a map like Classic, there are only a couple of bonus regions that reasonably could be taken. If you go for a larger bonus, it's going to take a lot longer to get and you're going to spend a lot of troops trying to get it. Not to mention the fact that people who secured the smaller bonuses will try to establish buffer zones, which makes it even harder for you to secure a larger one. Grabbing bonuses is definitely player and map dependent, factoring in certain variables like whether or not it's a spoils game and what the drop looks like.

[OliverFA]

Interresting gameplay. It makes you think more carefully about where to drop, where to attack, when to move and when to stop. I wonder if it will affect my other games!

Or said in another way, it makes you develop long term strategies

[OliverFA]

As long time player of this kind of game, back when it was called Adjacent Attacks, I'll write a few of my thougts. Of course they are my opinion, and in no way represent the absolute truth

I think the most important pro of this kind of game is that it allows for real strategy to be developed. The way in which you organize and command your troops trully matters. In "normal" game, the most you can do is establishing a strong barrier, or stacking on a key region. In trench, you can actually develop a more elaborate strategy. In fact, there is no "single" strategy. There are several strategies that can work, and they depend on the player personality, the current situation and the map. For some situations stacking everything in a stack of doom may make sense. For other situations fighting in two or more fronts can be the way to go. Sometimes a player can sacrifice a few regions in one front to secure a bonus somewhere else, or finish an enemy.

In my opinion, escalating it's not the best way to enjoy those settings. With escalating at some points the map bonus and geography lose importance, and thus the strategy gets less important too. Specially the "split in half" movement that breaks the supply lines loses importance when your enemy is about to deploy 300 troops next turn... My ideal settings are No spoils (but Flat Rate is ok too) and chained reinforcement. Specially I find chained reinforcements so cool because it creates a single very powerful movement each turn, which become the right balance between the useless adjacent reinforcement and the too powerfull unlimited reinforcements.

At first I thougt that freestyle could work well with those settings, but I have learned through experience that with trench freestyle still favours the player who can be always online, so it's better to use sequencial and if you get bored waiting for your turn just join more games.

[Viceroy63]

I agree that freestyle does not work well with Trench. Found that out the hard way! Also a lot of the strategies depend on the maps like Safariguy said...

"As for your comments about stacking, I think that really comes down to the number of players and the map."

I think that what I really need to learn is the classic map first and what setting make for a good trench game there. The next time I will try those other settings, No spoils, Chained and definitely Sequential. Got to try that next.

[rdsrds2120]

So far I prefer conquest style maps for trench.

Specifically, you can now feasibly win on AoR2 by the win condition, and I disagree that freestyle isn't optimal (unless it's casual, then I could see where that could be a chore).

-rd

[Viceroy63]

So far I prefer conquest style maps for trench.

Specifically, you can now feasibly win on AoR2 by the win condition, and I disagree that freestyle isn't optimal (unless it's casual, then I could see where that could be a chore).

-rd

I want to elaborate on my thoughts about Freestyle. The nice thing about trench is that if gives real strategy play a real chance to be played. Even in escalating games when you think that it's the size of the troops that you are about to receive for the set of spoils traded in that matters but there is also, where you drop them and for what purpose that also counts. Since there is no longer any sweeps that clean the maps then troops correctly place and positioned, have more options in the formation of game planning as in for example, the diversionary play. This means that the world is always changing and your strategy has to fit the future shape of game play to come.

Freestyle has a certain trick to it, and I call it a trick and not a strategy because this trick can only happen with Freestyle regardless of the other settings. In the trench setting, I like to call this trick, "an Alexander." This trick is when a player has the right cards and position in order to set himself up for a play by being the last person to play in the game round and then waiting to be the first or rather, the second player in the following round and so implement the second half of the plan. In trench games, this move could even lead to the surprise elimination of a player giving him no opportunity to allow a strategically played move to save himself.

This player to be eliminated could even have 5 cards but because the player who had the opportunity to eliminate him utilizing an "Alexander" did so, he actually over rode any strategical counter move from his opponent because of a trick. In other words the strategical enjoyment of the Trench setting can now be over ridden with a freestyle trick. No matter how good your strategy may be, if you fall asleep you could wake up to find yourself eliminated from the game because some one else did an Alexander on your Butt?!

And it's a trick with no real defense except for the lost of sleep as you stay on line and alert and waiting for that next round to begin so that you can quickly make your move if you are the potential target which you may never know unless you allow yourself to go asleep and be eliminated.

[danfrank]

trench doesnt work on baseball map ...

[Ace Rimmer]

trench doesnt work on baseball map ...

Because of the neutral? That has been addressed, approximately 3 years ago while Adjacent Attacks was the name of this. You can attack through killer neutrals. Read the fucking instructions before posting disinformation.

[danryan]

One thing to be very careful of with Trench is idiots. A player can be completely out of the game yet still ruin it for you through vindictive play, if they so choose, because it takes a while to eliminate them. You have to disguise your intentions much more thoroughly and avoid becoming the clear leader, especially in escalating games.

[Viceroy63]

You just hit on something that is a truism. In real life when ever you excel at something almost everyone hates you for being so good at what ever it is that you do. Even if they do not tell you that directly.

For example; I've been hinted that my articles are too long. But no one has been saying anything directly to me. Or even discussed the article ideas per say. Good or Bad. I am no expert but I do have a keen eye for understanding things and I see things with my minds eye. I can envision the future strategies for Trench games even as I am learning all of this.

But sadly I think that writing future articles about trench games will have to be done by other writers that come into the fold of the Strategy Section of the Newsletter as I no longer desire to be seen as some "Johnny come lately know it all." What I need is a reporter who's been in the trenches for years to write for me. His words, his articles.

from now on I am going to be like you stated...

"You have to disguise your intentions much more thoroughly and avoid becoming the clear leader,..."

From now on, I am just going to do short and sweet articles that don't even raise a brow. I may even get more readership that way.

[AndyDufresne]

I have a strategy-ish question I'd like some more input / thoughts on.

Imagine you are playing a Trench game with Round Limits, and the Round Limit is coming up. Is it best to keep some giant stacks of your troops behind your main lines / fronts (protecting them from losses essentially, since # of armies is the first decider of Round Limits) and away from a large opponent stack near a front?

I am not sure I described the scenario completely, but if you get the gist of what I am saying...that would be good too!


--Andy

[danryan]

I have a strategy-ish question I'd like some more input / thoughts on.

Imagine you are playing a Trench game with Round Limits, and the Round Limit is coming up. Is it best to keep some giant stacks of your troops behind your main lines / fronts (protecting them from losses essentially, since # of armies is the first decider of Round Limits) and away from a large opponent stack near a front?

I am not sure I described the scenario completely, but if you get the gist of what I am saying...that would be good too!


--Andy

Definitely, unless you can get and hold a bonus that will compensate for the loss of troops. Also, parking your troops on the second rank will allow you to deliver the backhand blow with attackers dice. In general, trench encourages a more reactive positioning. World 2.1 with trench is going to be interesting.

[pmchugh]

I have a strategy-ish question I'd like some more input / thoughts on.

Imagine you are playing a Trench game with Round Limits, and the Round Limit is coming up. Is it best to keep some giant stacks of your troops behind your main lines / fronts (protecting them from losses essentially, since # of armies is the first decider of Round Limits) and away from a large opponent stack near a front?

I am not sure I described the scenario completely, but if you get the gist of what I am saying...that would be good too!


--Andy

If you are winning and can avoid everyone's stacks then you may be able to guarantee yourself victory. If not then you should be looking to attack your opponents stacks and gain the attackers advantage although this is true of all trench turns. I am not so sure about this for multiplayer games, as you have to valuate who to hit and how much to find the correct balance. The good thing about round limits is that you can tell precisely when the game will end and if the game is sunny exactly how many troops are needed to secure your win.

Basically, pay attention to the stats and don't be afraid to take risks because there is no more chances.

[Viceroy63]

Thank you Andy for that question!

Mind you that I am partially seeing this in my mind and my vision may not be the same as yours. But several factors come to mind.

How many players?
How close to the end?
Spoils considerations?

I would think that if it is a tight game with several players and you have a lead in troops and there is no question of a possible upset (or a very minor one) in last minute spoils trade in that Yes, A tactful retreat of your troops would be the order of the day. If I am seeing this right in my mind. Keep the troop count strong maintain the advantage, even while the advancing army cards in that their effort. If it's just a couple of rounds to go and the advancing player only has one or no spoils, what are the chances and why risk losing the advantage of the strong troop count in view of several players.

But have you ever noticed that the attacker has better dice 3 vs 2 dice?

If there are say only three players and if it looks the the advancing army player can gain a set of spoils at the last minute and again you have the lead and advantage in troops (in order to card as well depending on how many rounds are left to card trade a set) also the third player is lacking in troops and/or cards then attacking first the advancing army (again for the spoils) would be the thing to do.

I would think that if it were me that is behind in troops, that I would advance my troops and card and hope that you would not attack my troops in the trench so that I may trade for that last minute set and create an upset in troops count. But if you attack first my advancing army then (and a lot depends on how far behind this third player is?) you maintain your advantage over me rather then falling back and allow me to card off of you again. And possibly trade in a set at the last minute for an upset. After all if I am behind in troops then what do I have to lose by advancing all of my troops and slugging it out with you toe to toe.

So a lot would depend on a more precise assessment of that final situations. But most likely I think that in most trench games the one who has the lead when there are just a few rounds to go should just conserve energy and just coast it to the end. Of course if there is an easy kill of one troop, what does it hurt but engaging an army in the final rounds could cost you the game. In most games, I would tend to think.

I hope that was a good answer?