Conquer Club

Metsfanmax wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:@72o, Mets, and whoevs:

I've always wondered about the marginal benefits/costs of leaving 2s on the board compared to the marginal benefits/costs of leaving 1s on the board (with the tradeoff of having a more concentrated, thus effective, force)...

Based on 72o's quantitative evidence (which is very small), it seems that the concentration method is superior to "the 2s/3s" method. With qualitative evidence--i.e. if we asked the big shots about it--I'd expect that they'd support varieties of the concentration method too.

But perhaps there is someone out there who uses the 2s/3s method and garners a lot of points on 6+ escalating games... (If someone provided this existence proof, then we would have more reason to support Mets doubt on 72o's claim.

I agree that the sample group is rather small at this point.

Right. I don't necessarily doubt the method, I'm just being properly skeptical since all we have is fairly anecdotal evidence at this point.

As I pointed out, it is hard to properly extricate the main variable here from other relevant factors, such as inherent skill of the player. Still, I imagine that if you found some equally high rated players who used this method and lost their 6-8 player games most of the time, that would be better proof. But the fact that no one at high levels uses the method would not necessarily be proof, even if it's strong circumstantial evidence.

DoomYoshi wrote:I actually experimented with this in I Walk Alone. Brandoncfi played 170ish 1v1s in a row. Every game, I left a 2 on every pile. He beat me by like 2 or 3 games. So, as a base strategy, it is only slightly worse. Obviously, strategies are situational though, but for all you anti-2, 3ers, there isn't too much validity.

Dukasaur wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:I actually experimented with this in I Walk Alone. Brandoncfi played 170ish 1v1s in a row. Every game, I left a 2 on every pile. He beat me by like 2 or 3 games. So, as a base strategy, it is only slightly worse. Obviously, strategies are situational though, but for all you anti-2, 3ers, there isn't too much validity.

1v1 strategy is a different kettle of fish entirely. So is 3- and 4- player.

What is being debated here is strategy for 5 or more players.

In 1v1 there is no point helping your opponent to get cards, so definitely you want to deny him carding opportunities when possible. In games with 5 or more players, however, the key is helping player B accumulate as many cards as possible, so that you can later take them and use them to your own benefit in fighting players C, D, and E. Since you don't know the identities of B, C, D, and E at the beginning, you want to help all the players accumulate cards.

DoomYoshi wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:I actually experimented with this in I Walk Alone. Brandoncfi played 170ish 1v1s in a row. Every game, I left a 2 on every pile. He beat me by like 2 or 3 games. So, as a base strategy, it is only slightly worse. Obviously, strategies are situational though, but for all you anti-2, 3ers, there isn't too much validity.

1v1 strategy is a different kettle of fish entirely. So is 3- and 4- player.

What is being debated here is strategy for 5 or more players.

In 1v1 there is no point helping your opponent to get cards, so definitely you want to deny him carding opportunities when possible. In games with 5 or more players, however, the key is helping player B accumulate as many cards as possible, so that you can later take them and use them to your own benefit in fighting players C, D, and E. Since you don't know the identities of B, C, D, and E at the beginning, you want to help all the players accumulate cards.

Keeping a trail of 2s does help your opponent card though. If you have 10 territories, then you 20 troops spread out and a 2 is easy to take compared to a stack of 11.