escalating is just wrong

Talk about all things related to Conquer Club

Moderators: Global Moderators, Discussions Team

Forum rules
Please read the community guidelines before posting.

Re: escalating is just wrong

Postby Viceroy63 on Fri May 03, 2013 12:10 am

Begbie wrote:Not that it particularly helps the discussion but escalating was the only card option in the original 1959 risk rules. It might be argued that the original is the best ie. original coca cola ingredients way more fun than now.....


Yeah, but only because the original Coca Cola ingredients had real Cocaine in it. LOL. A lot of people are not aware of the fact that Coca Cola was originally marketed as a medicinal drink.

As to the escalating strategy, I simply think that it is a strategy for beginners. There are 'way' toooo many variables to consider it a true "strategy" for advance players as far as I am concerned. For example you could have 5 cards and finally you got a set and another player who has 3 cards trades in and wins the game. Who could have thought that far ahead or foreseen that one player would have 5 cards and no set while the other player would get 3 cards, the set, and the game? No one!

Or what about the failed attempt? When one player fails to eliminate another player and the player who goes next wins the game simply because he is next in line to play and collects spoils from an almost eliminated player that he eliminates in a situation where otherwise he would not have been able to eliminate on his own at that particular point in the game. There are just too many random variables as I see it to consider escalating spoils a true strategical option, at least in the advance games for higher ranking players.

There is a strategy to escalating spoils but when it comes right down to it, it has always seemed to me like a "Roulette Wheel" strategy. "Round and round she goes and where she stops, no body knows?" As a beginner playing the "Roulette Wheel" strategy and playing the odds, you will win approximately 20% of your games. And when your score is low that is more than enough to go up in rank and score. But when your rank and Score are high, winning only 20% of your games with the "Roulette Wheel" Strategy, just don't pay the rent.

For those who are talkers, like myself, the pleasure of talking BS is all part of the game. I enjoy the long games because it does provide opportunities to talk about things (with other talkers) other than just, "Blue can you let me get by please? Don't want to hit your stack but I must get through (lol)." I feel that a large part of diplomacy is just being able to talk about anything. But in a game that can end by surprise with a player sweeping the board in any round now..., why bother? When the game is over, it's on to the next one. That's probably why it is more fun to play in teams because you have to talk about the game at least, and lots of people simply aren't talkative in 6 to 8 player escalating games.

And that's my take on the topic. Thanks. =)
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1239
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: Where No One Has Gone Before.
Medals: 17
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (2) General Contribution (1)

Re: escalating is just wrong

Postby Donelladan on Fri May 03, 2013 2:14 am

I dunno if you guys speaking against escalating are used to play it.
But escalating is a game with a lot of strategy.

I like to play all kind of games, no spoils and flat rate and use a lot of diplomacy, as you said Viceroy.
But I also play escalating and, well you win more than 20% of the game if you really master escalating setting.

And to everyone, there is no kind of spoils better than another, all involve strategy and skills. If you are not expert in that spoils, you may not see all the strategy involved, but there is.
User avatar
Brigadier Donelladan
 
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:48 am
Medals: 73
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (14) General Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (9)

Re: escalating is just wrong

Postby macbone on Fri May 03, 2013 2:20 am

Mr Changsha, I'm impressed if you can manage a 50% win rate on 6+ Terminator/Standard. Very impressive. I'm probably 25% at 6-player Term/Standard Escalating, better than average, but clearly not dominating.

Vice, you're going to have to provide some more concrete examples if you're going to diss Escalating, man. =)

I agree that Flat Rate and No Spoils are more strategic, though. On Classic-style maps, the map itself doesn't matter so much, and it's pretty much a waiting game - build your stacks, collect a card each round, and wait for the right time to eliminate another player.

Actually, I find the missed kills part of the fun of the setting, a feature rather than a flaw. I think we've all been there where we had a 98% chance of winning the dice battle and then coming up just short of the goal, or going for a 3v3 for an elimination and just making it.

With No Spoils and Flat Rate, the bonuses become much more important, although again one principle seems to be most important, find your spot, secure it, and push out from there. You trade the stack strategy of Escalating for the shield/creeper strategy of No Spoils/Flat Rate.

Like Vice says, though, No Spoils/Flat Rate leads to longer games, and players need to be wilier to win. Escalating is all about positioning and a quick finish, which are skills in their own right (and more enjoyable to me) Each setting requires its own set of skills to win.

Flat Rate adds a wrinkle of randomness with the different values of sets, and it's no fun to hold all reds and greens on your team when your opponents are cashing rainbows all over the place, but that's one quirk of the setting.

No Spoils seems to be more about securing your position first, and standard No Spoils relies much more heavily on diplomacy than Escalating does. If you have cool players in the game, the Escalating chat can be a lot of fun, but very little diplomacy goes on in it. There are exceptions, yes, particularly in Trench (right, vice?), but in non-trench play, the majority of diplomacy-based chat in an Escalating game is "Can I have a card spot?" Again, there are exceptions, such as when one player gets greedy and the other players pitch in to break his bonus (and usually a third player sneaks out the win), or when Larry is threatened with elimination by Curly, so Moe hits Curly's stack. There is strategy involved, and you have to read the board to know who's going to make their move, but the middle of the game is generally pretty dry.

I'm playing a game with Viceroy right now, 4-team doubs, Trench, and No Spoils that's turned out to be pretty strategic. I wasn't a fan of the settings before we started playing, but it's developed into an interesting back-and-forth battle, far deeper than most two-team or large player Standard/Escalating games generally run.

Still, I prefer large-player Escalating games. I like the rush at the end of running the table, the agony of just missing an elimination, the joy at logging on and finding I've survived an elimination attempt, or better yet, am poised to take advantage of someone else's missed play. No Spoils/Flat Rate/Nuclear large-player games drag on too long for my taste, but I can understand their appeal.
User avatar
Major macbone
SoC Training Instructor
SoC Training Instructor
 
Posts: 5294
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:12 pm
Location: Looking out over Victoria Harbor, thinking about Middle Earth and how good my wife looks
Medals: 76
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (8) General Achievement (8) Clan Achievement (9)
Training Achievement (2) Challenge Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (7)

Re: escalating is just wrong

Postby Mr Changsha on Fri May 03, 2013 3:07 am

macbone wrote:Mr Changsha, I'm impressed if you can manage a 50% win rate on 6+ Terminator/Standard. Very impressive. I'm probably 25% at 6-player Term/Standard Escalating, better than average, but clearly not dominating.

Vice, you're going to have to provide some more concrete examples if you're going to diss Escalating, man. =)

I agree that Flat Rate and No Spoils are more strategic, though. On Classic-style maps, the map itself doesn't matter so much, and it's pretty much a waiting game - build your stacks, collect a card each round, and wait for the right time to eliminate another player.

Actually, I find the missed kills part of the fun of the setting, a feature rather than a flaw. I think we've all been there where we had a 98% chance of winning the dice battle and then coming up just short of the goal, or going for a 3v3 for an elimination and just making it.

With No Spoils and Flat Rate, the bonuses become much more important, although again one principle seems to be most important, find your spot, secure it, and push out from there. You trade the stack strategy of Escalating for the shield/creeper strategy of No Spoils/Flat Rate.

Like Vice says, though, No Spoils/Flat Rate leads to longer games, and players need to be wilier to win. Escalating is all about positioning and a quick finish, which are skills in their own right (and more enjoyable to me) Each setting requires its own set of skills to win.

Flat Rate adds a wrinkle of randomness with the different values of sets, and it's no fun to hold all reds and greens on your team when your opponents are cashing rainbows all over the place, but that's one quirk of the setting.

No Spoils seems to be more about securing your position first, and standard No Spoils relies much more heavily on diplomacy than Escalating does. If you have cool players in the game, the Escalating chat can be a lot of fun, but very little diplomacy goes on in it. There are exceptions, yes, particularly in Trench (right, vice?), but in non-trench play, the majority of diplomacy-based chat in an Escalating game is "Can I have a card spot?" Again, there are exceptions, such as when one player gets greedy and the other players pitch in to break his bonus (and usually a third player sneaks out the win), or when Larry is threatened with elimination by Curly, so Moe hits Curly's stack. There is strategy involved, and you have to read the board to know who's going to make their move, but the middle of the game is generally pretty dry.

I'm playing a game with Viceroy right now, 4-team doubs, Trench, and No Spoils that's turned out to be pretty strategic. I wasn't a fan of the settings before we started playing, but it's developed into an interesting back-and-forth battle, far deeper than most two-team or large player Standard/Escalating games generally run.

Still, I prefer large-player Escalating games. I like the rush at the end of running the table, the agony of just missing an elimination, the joy at logging on and finding I've survived an elimination attempt, or better yet, am poised to take advantage of someone else's missed play. No Spoils/Flat Rate/Nuclear large-player games drag on too long for my taste, but I can understand their appeal.


A well-played 8 man standard no cards on 2.1 is a joy. At its best it is 3 contenders and 5 honest stripers. The skill is in reading the board, reading the play-style of the stripers, manipulating the stripers through either positioning, attacks or diplomacy and timing your surge perfectly to create either a 42%+ troops sweep or a 3 way finish which starts seriously out of balance and can hopefully be manipulated.

Playing against 7 strong players with a 100 round limit is something I am currently experimenting with. Is it possible to win 50%? Very, very hard when your opponents are regular ones and used to one's tricks.

While these kinds of game do sometimes stalemate genuinely, I think at other times weaker players see a stalemate where there really isn't one. Possibly the position of the stacking is more profound than you realise? Might two players combine on one quite ruthelessly to break the stalemate with the spoils divided in advance? High ranking games are much better when all the players are well-aware of each other, as the prospect of truly evil deals (a+b combine to kill c, then d, then fight it out..a form of diplomacy I encourage in my games) increases, stalemates happen much less, and the real CUNNING BASTARD is able to prosper.
Image
User avatar
Colonel Mr Changsha
 
Posts: 1616
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:42 am
Medals: 14
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (3)

Re: escalating is just wrong

Postby Viceroy63 on Sun May 26, 2013 7:40 am

Mr Changsha wrote:
macbone wrote:Mr Changsha, I'm impressed if you can manage a 50% win rate on 6+ Terminator/Standard. Very impressive. I'm probably 25% at 6-player Term/Standard Escalating, better than average, but clearly not dominating.

Vice, you're going to have to provide some more concrete examples if you're going to diss Escalating, man. =)

I agree that Flat Rate and No Spoils are more strategic, though. On Classic-style maps, the map itself doesn't matter so much, and it's pretty much a waiting game - build your stacks, collect a card each round, and wait for the right time to eliminate another player.

Actually, I find the missed kills part of the fun of the setting, a feature rather than a flaw. I think we've all been there where we had a 98% chance of winning the dice battle and then coming up just short of the goal, or going for a 3v3 for an elimination and just making it.

With No Spoils and Flat Rate, the bonuses become much more important, although again one principle seems to be most important, find your spot, secure it, and push out from there. You trade the stack strategy of Escalating for the shield/creeper strategy of No Spoils/Flat Rate.

Like Vice says, though, No Spoils/Flat Rate leads to longer games, and players need to be wilier to win. Escalating is all about positioning and a quick finish, which are skills in their own right (and more enjoyable to me) Each setting requires its own set of skills to win.

Flat Rate adds a wrinkle of randomness with the different values of sets, and it's no fun to hold all reds and greens on your team when your opponents are cashing rainbows all over the place, but that's one quirk of the setting.

No Spoils seems to be more about securing your position first, and standard No Spoils relies much more heavily on diplomacy than Escalating does. If you have cool players in the game, the Escalating chat can be a lot of fun, but very little diplomacy goes on in it. There are exceptions, yes, particularly in Trench (right, vice?), but in non-trench play, the majority of diplomacy-based chat in an Escalating game is "Can I have a card spot?" Again, there are exceptions, such as when one player gets greedy and the other players pitch in to break his bonus (and usually a third player sneaks out the win), or when Larry is threatened with elimination by Curly, so Moe hits Curly's stack. There is strategy involved, and you have to read the board to know who's going to make their move, but the middle of the game is generally pretty dry.

I'm playing a game with Viceroy right now, 4-team doubs, Trench, and No Spoils that's turned out to be pretty strategic. I wasn't a fan of the settings before we started playing, but it's developed into an interesting back-and-forth battle, far deeper than most two-team or large player Standard/Escalating games generally run.

Still, I prefer large-player Escalating games. I like the rush at the end of running the table, the agony of just missing an elimination, the joy at logging on and finding I've survived an elimination attempt, or better yet, am poised to take advantage of someone else's missed play. No Spoils/Flat Rate/Nuclear large-player games drag on too long for my taste, but I can understand their appeal.


A well-played 8 man standard no cards on 2.1 is a joy. At its best it is 3 contenders and 5 honest stripers. The skill is in reading the board, reading the play-style of the stripers, manipulating the stripers through either positioning, attacks or diplomacy and timing your surge perfectly to create either a 42%+ troops sweep or a 3 way finish which starts seriously out of balance and can hopefully be manipulated.

Playing against 7 strong players with a 100 round limit is something I am currently experimenting with. Is it possible to win 50%? Very, very hard when your opponents are regular ones and used to one's tricks.

While these kinds of game do sometimes stalemate genuinely, I think at other times weaker players see a stalemate where there really isn't one. Possibly the position of the stacking is more profound than you realise? Might two players combine on one quite ruthelessly to break the stalemate with the spoils divided in advance? High ranking games are much better when all the players are well-aware of each other, as the prospect of truly evil deals (a+b combine to kill c, then d, then fight it out..a form of diplomacy I encourage in my games) increases, stalemates happen much less, and the real CUNNING BASTARD is able to prosper.


Macbone comment)
I do have to agree with Macbone that it is exhilarating logging on to learn that you have the opportunity to win the game but it is also heart breaking when at a crucial moment the dice go against you and you can't win because of one troop still standing (actually you would stop way before then) and some one else goes on to win because of your failed attempt. It's that element of the dice that leads me onto Trench Warfare games.

While the element of the dice is still in TW games, it is not as sudden or as apparent or that much of a deciding factor in your wins or loses as it is in the Standard Escalating Game. There is also a more steady stream of decisions (Strategy) that determines the eventual outcome of the TW game that I truly appreciate. Those who make the more poorer decisions will more likely lose regardless of the dice. And in the end that is what TW games comes down to. The decisions made on the turn and why. Each situation is unique but if the decisions are good ones then you more likely end up winning because of the decisions and not because of the dice.

Mr. Changsha's comment)
I also have to say that I admire Mr. Changsha's thoughts when it comes to 8 player standard. I especially agree with the part about, "...the prospect of truly evil deals (a+b combine to kill c, then d, then fight it out..a form of diplomacy I encourage in my games) increases, stalemates happen much less, and the real CUNNING BASTARD is able to prosper." Spoken like a true 'CUNNING BASTARD' after my own heart. (LOL) =)

But seriously though, I also encourage that tie breaking strategy only I prefer to think of it as an alliance right from the start of or at some point in the mid game rather than at the end unless it is absolutely necessary. Other wise I fight against both other players (stronger one first) until some one gives, lol.

When that strategy is applied at the end (when only 3 players are left), when a tied situation looks like it's about to form, it is more dangerous then because the third party can then decide who wins the game by simply focusing on just one of the players giving the other player the winning advantage. At least that is what I do when I am the third party. I normally would focus on who ever had that thought first.

But in an alliance situation right from the start or mid game, I am just basically committing myself to that player that I will only attack him at the end after every one is gone and eliminated. That makes for a clearer understanding to everyone else in the game, during the whole game. Although I do find that others tend to shy away from that word, "Alliance." :D.

I also find that players who want to win so badly, will often announce the end of the alliance in order to gain the advantage, especially in a losing sided alliance. But that is basically the suggestion right from the start. We make an alliance and the better player wins at the end. It's a 50/50 proposition of winning or losing but no tie situation will arise or any reason to focus on just one of the two players at the end.

Regardless of what it's called, good communication is required though even in an alliance. People confuse alliance with truce, and I see a truce as a temporary situation that can be broken at any point in the game like dumping a date, lol. Where an alliance is more of a commitment, a marriage or a promise till the end. "May the better player win," and then you set about your game and see what happens. And if you lose you lose but you at least have a 50/50 shot at winning. And that to me is the best way to increase your winning odds. If you can find players of like mind that is?
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1239
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: Where No One Has Gone Before.
Medals: 17
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (2) General Contribution (1)

Re: escalating is just wrong

Postby Mr Changsha on Mon May 27, 2013 10:51 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:
Mr Changsha wrote:
macbone wrote:Mr Changsha, I'm impressed if you can manage a 50% win rate on 6+ Terminator/Standard. Very impressive. I'm probably 25% at 6-player Term/Standard Escalating, better than average, but clearly not dominating.

Vice, you're going to have to provide some more concrete examples if you're going to diss Escalating, man. =)

I agree that Flat Rate and No Spoils are more strategic, though. On Classic-style maps, the map itself doesn't matter so much, and it's pretty much a waiting game - build your stacks, collect a card each round, and wait for the right time to eliminate another player.

Actually, I find the missed kills part of the fun of the setting, a feature rather than a flaw. I think we've all been there where we had a 98% chance of winning the dice battle and then coming up just short of the goal, or going for a 3v3 for an elimination and just making it.

With No Spoils and Flat Rate, the bonuses become much more important, although again one principle seems to be most important, find your spot, secure it, and push out from there. You trade the stack strategy of Escalating for the shield/creeper strategy of No Spoils/Flat Rate.

Like Vice says, though, No Spoils/Flat Rate leads to longer games, and players need to be wilier to win. Escalating is all about positioning and a quick finish, which are skills in their own right (and more enjoyable to me) Each setting requires its own set of skills to win.

Flat Rate adds a wrinkle of randomness with the different values of sets, and it's no fun to hold all reds and greens on your team when your opponents are cashing rainbows all over the place, but that's one quirk of the setting.

No Spoils seems to be more about securing your position first, and standard No Spoils relies much more heavily on diplomacy than Escalating does. If you have cool players in the game, the Escalating chat can be a lot of fun, but very little diplomacy goes on in it. There are exceptions, yes, particularly in Trench (right, vice?), but in non-trench play, the majority of diplomacy-based chat in an Escalating game is "Can I have a card spot?" Again, there are exceptions, such as when one player gets greedy and the other players pitch in to break his bonus (and usually a third player sneaks out the win), or when Larry is threatened with elimination by Curly, so Moe hits Curly's stack. There is strategy involved, and you have to read the board to know who's going to make their move, but the middle of the game is generally pretty dry.

I'm playing a game with Viceroy right now, 4-team doubs, Trench, and No Spoils that's turned out to be pretty strategic. I wasn't a fan of the settings before we started playing, but it's developed into an interesting back-and-forth battle, far deeper than most two-team or large player Standard/Escalating games generally run.

Still, I prefer large-player Escalating games. I like the rush at the end of running the table, the agony of just missing an elimination, the joy at logging on and finding I've survived an elimination attempt, or better yet, am poised to take advantage of someone else's missed play. No Spoils/Flat Rate/Nuclear large-player games drag on too long for my taste, but I can understand their appeal.


A well-played 8 man standard no cards on 2.1 is a joy. At its best it is 3 contenders and 5 honest stripers. The skill is in reading the board, reading the play-style of the stripers, manipulating the stripers through either positioning, attacks or diplomacy and timing your surge perfectly to create either a 42%+ troops sweep or a 3 way finish which starts seriously out of balance and can hopefully be manipulated.

Playing against 7 strong players with a 100 round limit is something I am currently experimenting with. Is it possible to win 50%? Very, very hard when your opponents are regular ones and used to one's tricks.

While these kinds of game do sometimes stalemate genuinely, I think at other times weaker players see a stalemate where there really isn't one. Possibly the position of the stacking is more profound than you realise? Might two players combine on one quite ruthelessly to break the stalemate with the spoils divided in advance? High ranking games are much better when all the players are well-aware of each other, as the prospect of truly evil deals (a+b combine to kill c, then d, then fight it out..a form of diplomacy I encourage in my games) increases, stalemates happen much less, and the real CUNNING BASTARD is able to prosper.


Macbone comment)
I do have to agree with Macbone that it is exhilarating logging on to learn that you have the opportunity to win the game but it is also heart breaking when at a crucial moment the dice go against you and you can't win because of one troop still standing (actually you would stop way before then) and some one else goes on to win because of your failed attempt. It's that element of the dice that leads me onto Trench Warfare games.

While the element of the dice is still in TW games, it is not as sudden or as apparent or that much of a deciding factor in your wins or loses as it is in the Standard Escalating Game. There is also a more steady stream of decisions (Strategy) that determines the eventual outcome of the TW game that I truly appreciate. Those who make the more poorer decisions will more likely lose regardless of the dice. And in the end that is what TW games comes down to. The decisions made on the turn and why. Each situation is unique but if the decisions are good ones then you more likely end up winning because of the decisions and not because of the dice.

Mr. Changsha's comment)
I also have to say that I admire Mr. Changsha's thoughts when it comes to 8 player standard. I especially agree with the part about, "...the prospect of truly evil deals (a+b combine to kill c, then d, then fight it out..a form of diplomacy I encourage in my games) increases, stalemates happen much less, and the real CUNNING BASTARD is able to prosper." Spoken like a true 'CUNNING BASTARD' after my own heart. (LOL) =)

But seriously though, I also encourage that tie breaking strategy only I prefer to think of it as an alliance right from the start of or at some point in the mid game rather than at the end unless it is absolutely necessary. Other wise I fight against both other players (stronger one first) until some one gives, lol.

When that strategy is applied at the end (when only 3 players are left), when a tied situation looks like it's about to form, it is more dangerous then because the third party can then decide who wins the game by simply focusing on just one of the players giving the other player the winning advantage. At least that is what I do when I am the third party. I normally would focus on who ever had that thought first.

But in an alliance situation right from the start or mid game, I am just basically committing myself to that player that I will only attack him at the end after every one is gone and eliminated. That makes for a clearer understanding to everyone else in the game, during the whole game. Although I do find that others tend to shy away from that word, "Alliance." :D.

I also find that players who want to win so badly, will often announce the end of the alliance in order to gain the advantage, especially in a losing sided alliance. But that is basically the suggestion right from the start. We make an alliance and the better player wins at the end. It's a 50/50 proposition of winning or losing but no tie situation will arise or any reason to focus on just one of the two players at the end.

Regardless of what it's called, good communication is required though even in an alliance. People confuse alliance with truce, and I see a truce as a temporary situation that can be broken at any point in the game like dumping a date, lol. Where an alliance is more of a commitment, a marriage or a promise till the end. "May the better player win," and then you set about your game and see what happens. And if you lose you lose but you at least have a 50/50 shot at winning. And that to me is the best way to increase your winning odds. If you can find players of like mind that is?


I choose my opposition very carefully for my private standard games to try and ensure an open, interesting game.

These days that means a combination of real-life friends who have over the years bought into my philosophy of standard play and some players from the wider CC world who have impressed me with their willingness to be brutal in their attacks and diplomacy, yet (and this is absolutely key) are unlikely to suicide IF the play is more vindictive than they are used to.

Alliances in these games form extremely easily. Two players surge away early and they will more than likely form a non-aggression pact..and this is absolutely reasonable. The rest of the board will unite - probably 3-4 who are theoretically still in it - and combine 2 on 1 to deal with the non-aggression pact. That doesn't mean everyone throws like mad on round 33, but it does mean that stacks are positioned, positions are chipped away at and the top 2 are aware that not only do they have to face each other in the end, but that each also has to deal with minor power alliances.

What I find most interesting is that after a number of these types of games players become aware of each other's styles. Niggling annoyances and vendettas transfer over to new games, rivalries develop over many games regardless of the position. Some players are more likely to seek alliances with other players and less with others. These days, if I see agent 86 and potager1 form up as neighbours then I KNOW there will be a nasty fight, there always is, and I can strategise accordingly. Players like 86 and scholtz know my play so well, and I theirs, that it is incredibly difficult to trick them...though I try. Finally, I know of no other standard games I have played where it is possible in a reliable way to form up 3 or 4 players into an attack pattern, set their routes, lay the orders (rather like one would in a trips) and prosecute against a game leader or two, I also know of no other in which I am so nervous of pushing for a sweep, as I know that 3 or 4 players will immediately form up under someone's direction and, team game style, do their best to wreck my chances.

I would point out that my roughly 50% goal is applicable to public games and not these private ones. I would be very happy with a 30% win rate over time against this standard of opposition..very happy indeed. But I don't set them up exclusively to win (though of course I like to), but rather to create a really well-played game that everyone enjoys.

The round limit has made all of this possible. I gave up on my favourite form back in 2010 as I find it absolutely gut-wrenching to see games stalemate around round 70. Round limits are not perfect and I know everyone wants to avoid the game coming down to it (it is rather akin to a penalty shoot out in that a win will always be somewhat tainted), but they mean that players have to really try and prosecute their victory if they can, and also try to work out how they will be positioned around round 90 to see if they can come out on top on round 100.
Image
User avatar
Colonel Mr Changsha
 
Posts: 1616
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:42 am
Medals: 14
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (3)

Re: escalating is just wrong

Postby jacaf on Tue May 28, 2013 1:59 pm

first off theres a great strat to esc opts. i think its a great setting and option, takes plan in and skill. the best is when ur playing with three other players and get there cards and going into muti esc. just my opinion of course to each his own
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class jacaf
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 2:16 pm
Location: united states
Medals: 15
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)

Re: escalating is just wrong

Postby clowncar on Tue May 28, 2013 4:13 pm

I will preface my comments with the fact that as bad as I am at no spoils, flat rate and nuclear ... I am atrocious at escalating and I am sure my results play a part in my dislike for escalating .. in other words, I am biased.

And I am not saying that the strategy in escalating games is any more or less involved than other settings. That is to say, I think it is mentally challenging to play. My problem with the setting is that the game at that setting is boring. B-O-R-I-N-G, boring.

Each player stacks at access points across the map in most games .. maybe moving a terit or two for position but there is little action in the game itself other than the occasional game where one player doesn't know ( I am still learning myself ) traditional cc escalating strategy. This means turns like this ( although my color order will be wrong ) ....

green deploys 2 troops on X
green deploys 1 troop on X
green assaults a 1 stack and advances 0 and gets spoil
green ends turn
blue deploys 2 troops on x
blue deploys 1 troop on x
blue assaults a 1 stack and advances 0 and gets a spoil
blue ends turn
yellow deploys 1 on x
yellow deploys 1 on x
yellow deploys 1 on x
yellow assaults a 1stack and advances 0 and gets a spoil
yellow ends turn
purple deploys 1 on x
purple deploys 1 on x
purple deploys 1 on x
purple assaults a 1 stack and advances 0 and gets a spoil
purple ends turn
cyan deploys 2 on x
cyan deploys 1 on x
cyan attacks a 1 stack and advances 0 and gets a spoil
cyan ends turn
red deploys 2 on x
red deploys 1 on x
red ends turn ( timing spoils )


Sure there is strategy going on while that is happening ... calculations being made and so on ... but what a dull game and for MOST of the players in the game they will never engage in the fun aspect of actual battles ... it will usually be 1 or 2 players who do ( depending on first attempt to win success/fail ).

I can't be the only one who finds that a dull version of the game. Then again, maybe it is just because I get my ass kicked at the setting ...
User avatar
Lieutenant clowncar
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 4:12 am
Medals: 18
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: escalating is just wrong

Postby Funkyterrance on Wed May 29, 2013 11:55 pm

Mr Changsha wrote:
I choose my opposition very carefully for my private standard games to try and ensure an open, interesting game.

These days that means a combination of real-life friends who have over the years bought into my philosophy of standard play and some players from the wider CC world who have impressed me with their willingness to be brutal in their attacks and diplomacy, yet (and this is absolutely key) are unlikely to suicide IF the play is more vindictive than they are used to.

Alliances in these games form extremely easily. Two players surge away early and they will more than likely form a non-aggression pact..and this is absolutely reasonable. The rest of the board will unite - probably 3-4 who are theoretically still in it - and combine 2 on 1 to deal with the non-aggression pact. That doesn't mean everyone throws like mad on round 33, but it does mean that stacks are positioned, positions are chipped away at and the top 2 are aware that not only do they have to face each other in the end, but that each also has to deal with minor power alliances.

What I find most interesting is that after a number of these types of games players become aware of each other's styles. Niggling annoyances and vendettas transfer over to new games, rivalries develop over many games regardless of the position. Some players are more likely to seek alliances with other players and less with others. These days, if I see agent 86 and potager1 form up as neighbours then I KNOW there will be a nasty fight, there always is, and I can strategise accordingly. Players like 86 and scholtz know my play so well, and I theirs, that it is incredibly difficult to trick them...though I try. Finally, I know of no other standard games I have played where it is possible in a reliable way to form up 3 or 4 players into an attack pattern, set their routes, lay the orders (rather like one would in a trips) and prosecute against a game leader or two, I also know of no other in which I am so nervous of pushing for a sweep, as I know that 3 or 4 players will immediately form up under someone's direction and, team game style, do their best to wreck my chances.

I would point out that my roughly 50% goal is applicable to public games and not these private ones. I would be very happy with a 30% win rate over time against this standard of opposition..very happy indeed. But I don't set them up exclusively to win (though of course I like to), but rather to create a really well-played game that everyone enjoys.

The round limit has made all of this possible. I gave up on my favourite form back in 2010 as I find it absolutely gut-wrenching to see games stalemate around round 70. Round limits are not perfect and I know everyone wants to avoid the game coming down to it (it is rather akin to a penalty shoot out in that a win will always be somewhat tainted), but they mean that players have to really try and prosecute their victory if they can, and also try to work out how they will be positioned around round 90 to see if they can come out on top on round 100.

Wow, I'm having deja vu all over again...
Image
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (3) General Contribution (1)

Re: escalating is just wrong

Postby Viceroy63 on Thu May 30, 2013 1:12 am

Actually; Only now and I playing with round limits. I never really explored that option before but I intend to do so in the future with all of my games regardless. In the future I will provide more opinion about that. =)
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1239
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: Where No One Has Gone Before.
Medals: 17
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (1) Training Achievement (2) General Contribution (1)

Re: escalating is just wrong

Postby gordon1975 on Sun Jun 23, 2013 5:03 pm

evryones got very valid points,ive started playing the Eurasia map,its made for flat rate in my opinion,best ive played so far,my board is from 1985,and im in the uk,it was flat rate,the big diffrence back then was the mission cards,why dont we have that here? great drop,but shit mission(Conqeur AISIA and AFRICA!) nooo!
God can judge my enemies, i will arrange the meeting.
User avatar
Lieutenant gordon1975
 
Posts: 351
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:07 pm
Location: Scotland
Medals: 17
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (2) General Achievement (1)

Re: escalating is just wrong

Postby Dukasaur on Sun Jun 23, 2013 5:24 pm

clowncar wrote:Each player stacks at access points across the map in most games .. maybe moving a terit or two for position but there is little action in the game itself other than the occasional game where one player doesn't know ( I am still learning myself ) traditional cc escalating strategy. This means turns like this ( although my color order will be wrong ) ....

green deploys 2 troops on X
green deploys 1 troop on X
green assaults a 1 stack and advances 0 and gets spoil
green ends turn
blue deploys 2 troops on x
blue deploys 1 troop on x
blue assaults a 1 stack and advances 0 and gets a spoil
blue ends turn
yellow deploys 1 on x
yellow deploys 1 on x
yellow deploys 1 on x
yellow assaults a 1stack and advances 0 and gets a spoil
yellow ends turn
purple deploys 1 on x
purple deploys 1 on x
purple deploys 1 on x
purple assaults a 1 stack and advances 0 and gets a spoil
purple ends turn
cyan deploys 2 on x
cyan deploys 1 on x
cyan attacks a 1 stack and advances 0 and gets a spoil
cyan ends turn
red deploys 2 on x
red deploys 1 on x
red ends turn ( timing spoils )


Sure there is strategy going on while that is happening ... calculations being made and so on ... but what a dull game and for MOST of the players in the game they will never engage in the fun aspect of actual battles ... it will usually be 1 or 2 players who do ( depending on first attempt to win success/fail ).

I can't be the only one who finds that a dull version of the game. Then again, maybe it is just because I get my ass kicked at the setting ...

See, I find those games interesting. I usually have eight to twelve of them going at the same time. And you're right, in any given one of those games, often only one player will actually get to fight. Sometimes two or three, if things get messy. But for the majority of the players, the game will end without their even getting a chance to fire a shot.

That's for one single game, though. Just as in anything else, you take the bad with the good. Even though 5/6 of the games will be uneventful, the sixth one, where you are the one doing the steamrolling, that is the payoff. And there's no legal high better than that great feeling of sweeping the board in one turn. A whole bunch of games that go nowhere are totally worth it from my point of view.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Dukasaur
Head Socialite
Head Socialite
 
Posts: 9539
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
Medals: 126
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (18)
General Achievement (13) Clan Achievement (5) Training Achievement (2) Challenge Achievement (3) Tournament Contribution (31)

Re: escalating is just wrong

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Jun 23, 2013 10:45 pm

Escalating is so immoral. It uses electricity and burning trees is just wrong.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3601
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: escalating is just wrong

Postby Gabriel13 on Mon Jun 24, 2013 12:37 am

It all depends on what you are playing to be honest. When I want a game that I know will be completely based off of the spoils and nothing else rather than fast-thinking, fast attacking, and fast connection, I make an FS speeder with esc spoils on Doodle Earth. Obviously, the bonuses won't come into play on this map with the spoils raising at a fast pace. I enjoy these games more than anything. They are just like the Annual BR's we have, which is why I'm one of the best at those. I think flat rate completely ruins any 1v1 on small maps because it will give the game away if somebody gets a rainbow at 3 cards, while the other doesn't have a set at all. On bigger maps, this generally will not happen, so it is fine. I believe FS escalating games are the best if you want strategy to be involved, or staying up all night waiting for your next turn to make the kill, which is why I enjoy the speeders much more!
User avatar
Brigadier Gabriel13
Discussions Moderator
Discussions Moderator
 
Posts: 855
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:12 pm
Medals: 82
Monthly Leader Bronze (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3)
Terminator Achievement (3) Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (4) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (7)
General Achievement (9) Clan Achievement (7) Challenge Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (1)

Re: escalating is just wrong

Postby stotzi on Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:46 am

Escalating brings a new dimension of strategy into a game. I like it very much especially on "standard" maps. What I do not like is, when the escalating mode kills the mechanics of a otherwise highly strategic map (e.g. Stalingrad, Conquer Rome).
Click image to enlarge.
image
User avatar
Colonel stotzi
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:15 am
Location: Austria
Medals: 19
Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (3) Training Achievement (2)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Colemanus and 2 guests

Login