Kamikaze....is it really a good final move?

[Noslen]

Okay so here's the real question:

When I am down facing overwhelming odds I like to take my biggest stack and just blow through the opponent in the hope that I might actually get lucky. This can sometimes take away valuable bonuses and punch holes in the opponent's defence that others might be able to use.

So is this a good idea or bad idea?

[FabledIntegral]

Suiciding? Will throw you on ignore - you're already weak, if you're out of the game, don't friggin' trash it for others. That's just stupid.

I for one would put you on foe the second you did that to anyone in a game. I know you're asking for help so I shouldn't be so harsh, but you might want to realize it most likely contributes to the reason you're a cook.

[BlacKnighT]

Well if you are in the position where you're likely to be taken out by stronger players, that is your last hope to get lucky and stay in the game. I think it's a legitimate move but it can be frustrating for players that feel that they had already won and that's just a cheap tactic. As, for instance, Fabled here. It's how people play the game, and sometimes it benefits them or else people wouldn't do it. In the end it is just everyone trying to win however they can and people either like it or not.

[Timminz]

In a situation where you are exceptionally weak, and one other player is exceptionally strong, you should attack them, but not down until you've got nothing left. If the other people in the game know what they're doing, they'll hit the strong player too, and possibly bring the field back to level. It won't work every time, but it's a hell of a lot better than the "kamikaze" attack.

[barterer2002]

There is a difference, at least in my mind, between attacking the stronger player simply to break bonuses with no hope that you'll survive another round or two and taking a shot at the game. In a situation where I've got the same number of armies that I'm going to need to take out to eliminate a player I'll make the play realizing that its a long shot. There are times it works and times when it doesn't but I'll always take the chance on the win in that situation, in the situation you're talking about, however, it sounds like you can't take out one of the players and are just hitting hard at the leader. In general I'd break a bonus if I could but I'm not going to go out and weaken him enough to give another player the game.

[Noslen]

I for one would put you on foe the second you did that to anyone in a game. I know you're asking for help so I shouldn't be so harsh, but you might want to realize it most likely contributes to the reason you're a cook.

Or of course it could just be that people are better than me.


But serious as a last resort tactic, let's say that on the Montreal map...you hold only the small little island and you face someone who holds the rest of the map, or at least a significant portion and you have nowhere else to go. Taking what you have and just attacking in an attempt to save yourself? I've only ever done this twice on CC but did wonder what others think about it. I must say I never thought of it as a 'cheap' tactic...just a last resort.

[danodukebb]

Suiciding? Will throw you on ignore - you're already weak, if you're out of the game, don't friggin' trash it for others. That's just stupid.

I for one would put you on foe the second you did that to anyone in a game. I know you're asking for help so I shouldn't be so harsh, but you might want to realize it most likely contributes to the reason you're a cook.

he'll put ANYONE on foe for anything, he put me on foe because I beat him, and he couldn't take it....

[FabledIntegral]

Suiciding? Will throw you on ignore - you're already weak, if you're out of the game, don't friggin' trash it for others. That's just stupid.

I for one would put you on foe the second you did that to anyone in a game. I know you're asking for help so I shouldn't be so harsh, but you might want to realize it most likely contributes to the reason you're a cook.

he'll put ANYONE on foe for anything, he put me on foe because I beat him, and he couldn't take it....

You <NS EDIT> - way not to only take this offtopic but spew your lies as well. Show me the fucking game you beat me in you <NS EDIT>. If I recall, I put you on ignore for your <NS EDIT> in the forums, but even then, I find myself clicking the "show post" to see if you've gotten even slightly more intelligent. Apparently not.

Most recent game I've played with you before I put you on foe?

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2837021

And you haven't won a single goddamn game we've been in together... <NS EDIT>.

[MeDeFe]

I for one would put you on foe the second you did that to anyone in a game. I know you're asking for help so I shouldn't be so harsh, but you might want to realize it most likely contributes to the reason you're a cook.

Or of course it could just be that people are better than me.


But serious as a last resort tactic, let's say that on the Montreal map...you hold only the small little island and you face someone who holds the rest of the map, or at least a significant portion and you have nowhere else to go. Taking what you have and just attacking in an attempt to save yourself? I've only ever done this twice on CC but did wonder what others think about it. I must say I never thought of it as a 'cheap' tactic...just a last resort.

Exactly what situation are you talking about here? If there's you and only one other player left you attack, no question, if there's more than one player besides yourself left you make damn sure you stay in the game. There's a world of a difference between two players left and three players left. If you're the weakest player in a situation with three or more players left and start suiciding you would probably end up on my foe list as well.

[Noslen]

If there's just one other person left....I mean it may be possible there's still some neutrals around hence 'all or most of the map'

[XML7p]

This does say Kamikaze....is it really a good final move? for a reason, and yes it is a good final move in my opinion but it is not likely to win the game.

[FabledIntegral]

This does say Kamikaze....is it really a good final move? for a reason, and yes it is a good final move in my opinion but it is not likely to win the game.

Then no, it's not a good move... ffs how can you say it's a good final move if it's not likely to win the game. Play your odds, it's that simple.

[XML7p]

I meant by, its a good last resort that has 35% chance of getting you back on your feet.
So its good late game when your dieing because it is a last resort.

[FabledIntegral]

I meant by, its a good last resort that has 35% chance of getting you back on your feet.
So its good late game when your dieing because it is a last resort.

Incorrect. First of all, in his situation where someone else has most of the map, it is not a good "last resort" strategy. Secondly, if he was getting to that situation, you should have acted sooner. If you didn't act sooner, it's your own fault for sucking, and should not suicide at the end. Most likely other players will not take the opportunity to kill the stronger player but capitalize on your weakness.

[gdeangel]

In mulitplayer, it's pretty much always got to have a balance. If you are the weakest player, and the other players are ganging on you then yes, it is probably best to suicide on someone, but of course you've got to announce it to give them an incentive to stop ganging on you.

If it's 1v1, and your really looking at a long shot, the odds on attack vs. defense are just slightly more favorable for attack BUT I have seen very seriously crap waves of attack dice, so you want to sort-of attack just enough to bait the other player to attack you, but hope the other guy catches the string of twelve consecutive 0-2 rolls thats out there in the dice file somewhere.