Queen_Herpes wrote:Nothing really different? You are completely wrong. They do not deploy and end their turn because there are strategic benefits missing the turn in a variety of situations with a variety of settings on a variety of maps.
Since you are such a big proponent of this, could you provide 5 concrete situations where missing a turn gives an advantage.
I only need to supply one. I'll do my best to come up with more, but you, DB, and you, TFO, seem to be asking me to describe the blackness of the iron pot.
Any team game on Classic, but lets look at a quads game. Player one on Team One has an army in Sydney, while his
teammate(s) dropped and hold Perth, Port Moresby, Jakarta, Bangkok, Mumbai, Hong Kong in a spattering that would give none of his teammates the opportunity to hold the Oceania bonus. Essentially, Player one's team has a lock on the Oceania Bonus, but it would require attacking all three teammates for one of those teammates to garner the bonus. IMHO, Team One would be better focused upon the enemy and other bonuses. The army in Sydney is sufficiently insulated from attack from Team Two such that Player one wouldn't realistically feel threatened that he could/would be taken out.
Still in this example:
Escalating Spoils: Player One attacks with his forward units (those not locked in Sydney) and gains one territ per turn, earning one spoil per turn until he has 5 cards. Everyone else in the game also earns 5 cards, but, remember, player one went first. Being a smart player one, he knows that if he takes his turn he will receive the least reward when cashing his spoils if he is to cash first. So, smartly, he intentionally misses his turn. Perhaps Playa 1 on Team 2 is smart and misses his turn as well, but lets pretend that Playa 1, Team 2 cashes. Automatically, Player One, Team one is in a better position. Certainly, he risks losing his cards to elimination, but his teammates will have a better shot at grabbing his cards (seeing as Player One is locked in the corner in Sydney behind his teammates.) Certainly, this could be considered a deferred card bonus and not a deferred troop bonus. However, the deferred troops certainly aren't a negative. Player One still gets to drop those extra 3 (or more) troops wherever he wishes upon the board at the end of his turn.
Escalating Spoils: Player One gets the five cards and for whatever reason, not everyone else lands 5 cards. Player One then bides his time. Misses one turn to see what happens, misses a second turn to see what happens, and upon his third turn, player one has the choice to miss his third turn, and turn over his five cards and all of his territories to one of his teammates. Here, now, you could argue that the end benefit would be to turn over cards and territoried armies to a teammate. You could argue that this is not a deferred troop bonus, and that the player (and his team) lost those troops in the deferral because player one missed all three turns. However, on each of those turns, player one could use the strategy of missing the turn and wait to play to defer those troops, or wait to pass his boarded troops, territories, and cards over to a teammate. As such, player one (and his team) benefit from the knowledge that those troops are there, if necessary.
I have other ideas popping into my head and will post them as I have time. [FFA games, 1v1]
I do concede that in many situations, deferred troops are not a bonus on the AOR maps and similar maps like the Feudals where there are auto-deploys.