Conquer Club

FabledIntegral wrote:

BaldAdonis wrote:1v1: take territories, not bonuses.
8: same as usual.

wtf are you on? Territories is key, but bonuses are nearly just as important. This isn't classic map where attacking neutrals doesn't pay off. You run over a neutral 3 in world 2.1 you usaully get it back the next turn, while the other person that took a territory might change the territory count +/- 1 with him/you.

You don't play a lot of 1v1 games, do you? Using your armies to take a bonus from neutral is not only a waste of armies (which you will probably get back), it's a waste of a turn, which you won't get back. You're letting your opponent attack you with their full strength for two rounds, while you fight back with a reduced force. A territory bonus, with that size map, is worth more than a continent bonus, because it's harder to break, and it negatively impacts your opponent. 5 territories (less than average if you have 11 to deploy) gives an effective bonus of 3, because you gain 1/2 while your opponent loses them.
If you can take territories from your opponent which give you a bonus, then do that, but don't beat up neutral for one.

BaldAdonis wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:

BaldAdonis wrote:1v1: take territories, not bonuses.
8: same as usual.

wtf are you on? Territories is key, but bonuses are nearly just as important. This isn't classic map where attacking neutrals doesn't pay off. You run over a neutral 3 in world 2.1 you usaully get it back the next turn, while the other person that took a territory might change the territory count +/- 1 with him/you.

You don't play a lot of 1v1 games, do you? Using your armies to take a bonus from neutral is not only a waste of armies (which you will probably get back), it's a waste of a turn, which you won't get back. You're letting your opponent attack you with their full strength for two rounds, while you fight back with a reduced force. A territory bonus, with that size map, is worth more than a continent bonus, because it's harder to break, and it negatively impacts your opponent. 5 territories (less than average if you have 11 to deploy) gives an effective bonus of 3, because you gain 1/2 while your opponent loses them.
If you can take territories from your opponent which give you a bonus, then do that, but don't beat up neutral for one.

Which only applies to smaller maps, such as classic (or whatever the hell it is now). On larger maps such as world 2.1, taking bonuses is key. Killing 3 neutrals to get a bonus - of course not. Killing a single neutral to get a bonus back the next turn - of course. Using the map to your advantage in terms of neutral walls and such is where you pick which bonuses you'll go after. If you take a bonus and kill a neutral which is bordering your enemy, you're fucked obviously because they'll hit it back. However such is not the case on world 2.1 in various situations. Many situations you can kill 1 enemy and 1 neutral and secure a +3/4 bonus, and then a neutral wall exists between you and your enemy. You then have that bonus for the rest of hte game virtually. Since world 2.1 games last a significantly long time, unlike classic where the difference between a +3 vs +5 deployment is huge, in world 2.1 you're getting around +15 vs +17. Those 2 armies become much more significant and you can acquire bonuses as a result.

The opposite is true: on smaller maps, you should get a bonus, even if it means killing neutrals. On larger maps, you shouldn't bother. That's just how the numbers work (taking 3 from your opponent reduces their deployment, but only until they have 11 territories, which happens a lot faster on a smaller map, so the territory gains aren't worth as much).

Your inexperience is showing when you claim World 2.1 games last a long time. With an evenly matched opponent, you might have a longer battle (in your case, where both of you attack neutrals and build up an army in one continent), but most of the time, the winner is determined in the first 4 rounds. Lets play some games and we'll see how well your theory works.

BaldAdonis wrote:The opposite is true: on smaller maps, you should get a bonus, even if it means killing neutrals. On larger maps, you shouldn't bother. That's just how the numbers work (taking 3 from your opponent reduces their deployment, but only until they have 11 territories, which happens a lot faster on a smaller map, so the territory gains aren't worth as much).

Your inexperience is showing when you claim World 2.1 games last a long time. With an evenly matched opponent, you might have a longer battle (in your case, where both of you attack neutrals and build up an army in one continent), but most of the time, the winner is determined in the first 4 rounds. Lets play some games and we'll see how well your theory works.

I never suggested building up an army on a continent. But alright.

Oh I definitely should have clarified it's only good to take neutrals when you play freestyle as you can't take advantage of the newly gained bonuses in sequential... in sequential only attack neutrals if you're playing chained/adjacent and you only need to kill 1 more territory and you're opponent is isolated from an area. Don't deploy more than 2 armies generally to kill neutrals to take bonuses although still do it depending on circumstance.

BaldAdonis wrote:The opposite is true: on smaller maps, you should get a bonus, even if it means killing neutrals. On larger maps, you shouldn't bother. That's just how the numbers work (taking 3 from your opponent reduces their deployment, but only until they have 11 territories, which happens a lot faster on a smaller map, so the territory gains aren't worth as much).

Your inexperience is showing when you claim World 2.1 games last a long time. With an evenly matched opponent, you might have a longer battle (in your case, where both of you attack neutrals and build up an army in one continent), but most of the time, the winner is determined in the first 4 rounds. Lets play some games and we'll see how well your theory works.

Are you talking about 1v1 or 8 players free for all? I have played several World 2.1 games and they never end early (which in my opinion is good by the way).

he's referring to 1v1

FabledIntegral wrote:

BaldAdonis wrote:1v1: take territories, not bonuses.
8: same as usual.

wtf are you on? Territories is key, but bonuses are nearly just as important. This isn't classic map where attacking neutrals doesn't pay off. You run over a neutral 3 in world 2.1 you usaully get it back the next turn, while the other person that took a territory might change the territory count +/- 1 with him/you.

I dont know what your rant about neutral territories is about but I think what Fabled meant is that in 1v1 there are so many territories that the reinforcements are much greater for holding a large number of territories rather than a small number of bonuses. I dont know if the following will make much sense but i think it is more important to stop your opponent from getting all the territory reinforcements than you getting them. Dont ask why or what I mean.. I am not really sure....
Anyways, that being said, territories is number one... get as many as you can but try to get key ones that stop your opponent from getting bonuses and allow to get bonuses (if your opponent chooses not to attack them which he should if he is any good).

in general, continents usually give a higher bonus than the number of territories that continent has which would itg the mor efficient bonus improvijng method

however, what adonis sais is true so I would say a mix of both is the best strategy, however ignoring the still present help of bonuses wouldnt be good.

I was misunderstanding what he said - generally we have the exact same strategy. We played 5 games 1v1, I would say all 5 had extreme dice fluctuations and were determined by the dice. He won 3, I won 2. I didn't even come close to outplaying him in the 2 I won, as in one of the games I went something along the lines of 19-5 within the first few turns, and in one of the games I lost over 5 turns he went something like 27-8. Dice are such bullshit in 1v1 if both players have proper strategy.

tzor wrote:SO now that we have exposed the original poster and left him or her naked and lying in the gutter, does anyone have any strategy for world 2.1 they would like to share?

sure, play me, and copy everything i do

These are my observations from playing some sequential games:

At the drop, you want to secure any easy territory grouping bonuses, and leave the ones filled with neutrals alone. Don't expose too many 1-army territories to your opponent.

On the offensive, you want to grab all the 1-army territories your opponent has exposed, and break his territory grouping bonuses.

Generally, sweeping through the 1-army territories (whenever possible) seems a bit more important than either securing or denying the territory grouping bonuses.

If either player gets a quick couple of grouping bonuses, and maintains or expands upon his number of territories from the drop; he probably will win the game.

The exact strategy will depend upon the drop. If you can take a bonus, of course take it, but since the initial drops are so high, its very hard to hold one. However, holding one or two can distract the opponent, and also gives you a shot at holding if he has some kind of dice disaster.

The key to this map, is every single army is important. You simply cannot make mistakes. The board is so big, that it really is possible to come back from bad dice, or even a bad drop. Most of the other big maps are just big enough to ruin you on the first turn, but not big enough to come back from it.

You really cant get hung up on take bonus/or not take bonus though, because it really does depend. However, you MUST break bonuses. Especially on fog, you essentially have to assume any bonus is taken, unless you can remember that there was a neutral, and that they didnt take a neutral.

Thats as far as Ill go with this, but any who want a game, id be happy to set one up. My settings will always be escalating, unlimited fog, and I lose plenty of them. I play it because it is fun, and ususally is not over on round one.

My Strategy

Take Oceania and do not let go of it. Its easily defensible and you can pop up all over the map to suppress your enemies.

hey guys, join my world 2.1 tourney so we will know whos strategy is best... viewtopic.php?f=90&t=99058

waradmiral wrote:My Strategy

Take Oceania and do not let go of it. Its easily defensible and you can pop up all over the map to suppress your enemies.

Oceania is the worst continent to feasibly hold (I say this because of Asia—I mean, c'mon). South America, North America, Africa, and Europe are all better, in that order.

the.killing.44 wrote:

waradmiral wrote:My Strategy

Take Oceania and do not let go of it. Its easily defensible and you can pop up all over the map to suppress your enemies.

Oceania is the worst continent to feasibly hold (I say this because of Asia—I mean, c'mon). South America, North America, Africa, and Europe are all better, in that order.

Agreed. It's not awful and on the plus side you rarely get competition for it once Australia is secured but unless Asia (or perhaps more specifically China) is held in addition it's far too easy to drop into a weak midgame position. It just can't expand anywhere else without leaving a stretched line of territories to defend.

Hello, I've not played very many games, but here's what I've gathered about playing 2.1 esc freestyle unlimited, 3-6 players:

The usual escalating tactic everyone knows, the chain reaction of killing and cashing cards... needs some alteration on 2.1. The map is so big, the bonuses are so big, that card cashes won't come into play for a long time. You can still pull off the chain reaction, but you need to time it perfectly.

While waiting for that time, you build your assets, try to grab as much territory and continents as you can. But don't spread yourself too thin, so it's too easy to break your bonuses. It's a delicate balance. Use your drop as your advantage, even if you get a bad drop, make the most you can from it.

Then, when you have a steady foothold and a steady income of troops, start harassing on your opponents. Break a bonus here, take a territory there.

As the time comes near, you pick the best target, and start preparing in advance for the slaughter. Position some troops strategically, but don't be too obvious. Do it subtly. Throw smoke, make your opponents think you're after someone else than you're really after.

Wait for it... wait for it... and bang!

You might not be able to sweep the whole board in one turn. It doesn't matter, just weaken the leftover opponent(s) enough so that you can get them the next turn. Beware, if any have 3 or more cards, they could have a set. Take precaution. Don't waste all your troops trying to take them out, if it starts to seem like you can't do it.

It could even take more than 2 turns. Ie. you kill the first one on 1 turn, reinforce to attack the next guy with the troops you got, then take the next guy on the next turn, go on to sweep most of the board, again reinforce/deploy in the right places, and on the 3rd turn you finish the job.

One more thing, with so many territories in the map, you really need to work out your attack routes in advance, that is, before you deploy. Otherwise you may find yourself in a situation where you would have had enough troops, but you end up advancing yourself into a corner...


The most important advice: THINK before you act!


Sorry if this is off topic because of the escalating thing, I'll play some flat rate 2.1 soon, I'll let you know what I think about it after.

natty_dread wrote:Hello, I've not played very many games, but here's what I've gathered about playing 2.1 esc freestyle unlimited, 3-6 players:

The usual escalating tactic everyone knows, the chain reaction of killing and cashing cards... needs some alteration on 2.1. The map is so big, the bonuses are so big, that card cashes won't come into play for a long time. You can still pull off the chain reaction, but you need to time it perfectly.

While waiting for that time, you build your assets, try to grab as much territory and continents as you can. But don't spread yourself too thin, so it's too easy to break your bonuses. It's a delicate balance. Use your drop as your advantage, even if you get a bad drop, make the most you can from it.

Then, when you have a steady foothold and a steady income of troops, start harassing on your opponents. Break a bonus here, take a territory there.

As the time comes near, you pick the best target, and start preparing in advance for the slaughter. Position some troops strategically, but don't be too obvious. Do it subtly. Throw smoke, make your opponents think you're after someone else than you're really after.

Wait for it... wait for it... and bang!

You might not be able to sweep the whole board in one turn. It doesn't matter, just weaken the leftover opponent(s) enough so that you can get them the next turn. Beware, if any have 3 or more cards, they could have a set. Take precaution. Don't waste all your troops trying to take them out, if it starts to seem like you can't do it.

It could even take more than 2 turns. Ie. you kill the first one on 1 turn, reinforce to attack the next guy with the troops you got, then take the next guy on the next turn, go on to sweep most of the board, again reinforce/deploy in the right places, and on the 3rd turn you finish the job.

One more thing, with so many territories in the map, you really need to work out your attack routes in advance, that is, before you deploy. Otherwise you may find yourself in a situation where you would have had enough troops, but you end up advancing yourself into a corner...


The most important advice: THINK before you act!


Sorry if this is off topic because of the escalating thing, I'll play some flat rate 2.1 soon, I'll let you know what I think about it after.

This is fairly in depth considering the 3 games youve played on world. Its on the generic side, but its all sound advice. It will be interesting to see how your CC career develops.

medgar20 wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:

waradmiral wrote:My Strategy

Take Oceania and do not let go of it. Its easily defensible and you can pop up all over the map to suppress your enemies.

Oceania is the worst continent to feasibly hold (I say this because of Asia—I mean, c'mon). South America, North America, Africa, and Europe are all better, in that order.

Agreed. It's not awful and on the plus side you rarely get competition for it once Australia is secured but unless Asia (or perhaps more specifically China) is held in addition it's far too easy to drop into a weak midgame position. It just can't expand anywhere else without leaving a stretched line of territories to defend.

Oceana's usefulness depends largely on whether a player is playing asia, how far progressed they are compared to you in oceana and (very importantly) how experienced/able the chap in Asia is. Finally, is the Asia player intending to head south, or will they spread east or west?

Assuming the asia player is reasonably passive towards you and gives you time to get in and settled (as sometimes happens) then oceana is a great spot to hang in there for the long game. The 14 deployment is usually enough to just about stay competitive on your borders (assuming there is no great threat from the claims and you can lay most of it towards China). However, if the Asia player is determined to head south, as he arguably should, then the oceana player must fight down to the last freakin' man (or at least appear willing to ) in an attempt to deplete asia enough to allow the middle east , europe or NA to create the war on two fronts against asia.

Assuming Asia can be defeated, the Ocena/China/India/Russia expansion is absolutely lethal in the right hands..minimal borders and massive deployment. However, the alternative is to make peace with Asia and spread into either SA or South Africa in the mid-game, which I have seen work well and have even done it myself on occasion.

Conclusion: Happy to play there, quite a good spot to swoop for the late win from, but always the possibilty that you might get an early exit at the hands of Asia.

AAFitz wrote:This is fairly in depth considering the 3 games youve played on world. Its on the generic side, but its all sound advice. It will be interesting to see how your CC career develops.

Hehe, thanks. I know I haven't played lots on the map... I've noticed a few players say that they just instantly "got" the 2.1 map when they first played it. I guess I'm one of those people... there's just something about that map. It "speaks" to me...

Actually it's a very straightforward map, it's just very very big. Most of the advice that applies on classic map applies on 2.1. With some exceptions.

It would seem to me that the more players on the map the more important continental bonuses, due to the extra competition for territory. I think this would be especialy true for games without spoils or flat rate. I also think that If there is FOW then continents become more valuable. Am I way of here? I've played many diferent strategy games but I'm pretty new to CC.

Mr Changsha wrote:Oceana's usefulness depends largely on whether a player is playing asia, how far progressed they are compared to you in oceana and (very importantly) how experienced/able the chap in Asia is. Finally, is the Asia player intending to head south, or will they spread east or west?

Assuming the asia player is reasonably passive towards you and gives you time to get in and settled (as sometimes happens) then oceana is a great spot to hang in there for the long game. The 14 deployment is usually enough to just about stay competitive on your borders (assuming there is no great threat from the claims and you can lay most of it towards China). However, if the Asia player is determined to head south, as he arguably should, then the oceana player must fight down to the last freakin' man (or at least appear willing to ) in an attempt to deplete asia enough to allow the middle east , europe or NA to create the war on two fronts against asia.

Assuming Asia can be defeated, the Ocena/China/India/Russia expansion is absolutely lethal in the right hands..minimal borders and massive deployment. However, the alternative is to make peace with Asia and spread into either SA or South Africa in the mid-game, which I have seen work well and have even done it myself on occasion.

Conclusion: Happy to play there, quite a good spot to swoop for the late win from, but always the possibilty that you might get an early exit at the hands of Asia.

Aye, peace with Asia is something I forgot to mention, that's definitely viable. Agree with the rest, especially the Asia/Oceania combo.

Ultimately though I just don't think Oceania offers anything uniquely good which is its main problem. All the other continents carry very similar options and benefits, but fewer flaws - they generally aren't dependent on the skill of one opposing player which you alluded to. Against a strong player getting a foothold in Asia it suddenly becomes very weak in comparison to other areas.

I like Africa because in a sense it is the ugly beaten stepchild of the continents. Due to its size most players don't put up a fight in Africa unless they think they can take the continent, so when playing fog its rather easy to take but difficult to expand. If you manage to take the continent then you have to cihp away at the surrounding areas. But if you get broken, you'll spend 10-15 rounds waiting to die in a flat rate no spoils game.

What do you do when you are late to asia and Oceania has a foothold already and then turtles and becomes to big to take out?
Game Click Here

Also when you are the big boy and you have all the power, how do you assert your dominance and take the game. Using BoB whats the best amount of troops to have over the opposition to successfully make the kill? Usually it comes down to three and by that time I seem to have trouble finishing the game off.... Do I just work on one guy and kill him off to make it a two v two or do I try and take them down together?