sully800 wrote:Let's do another escalating game!
denominator wrote:In regular games, the mid-turn cash of cards is a big deal (after you eliminate a player), especially in escalating games, where it makes kill runs possible. However, how mid-turn cashes can be dealt with leaves 2 possibilities. We started touching on this in the game chat in 3613839, but I figured it's a big enough discussion to get moved to the thread where everybody can comment on it.
Basically, it comes down to two possibilities.
(1) - The territories you have at the beginning of your turn are still the only ones you can attack from. This means a kill cash only fortifies your borders, and deployed troops to newly conquered territories follow the same rules as those advanced there.
(2) - Once you deploy on a territory, it "resets" to being able to conquer new territories. This means that any territory you own when you cash cards is reopened to attacks, and a kill cash allows you to move your armies much, much quicker on all fronts.
While at first I was fully in favour of option 1, the more I think about it I believe option 2 has much relevance. I believe that any newly deployed troops should be allowed to attack, following adjacent attack rules. While I haven't played an escalating game yet, I think this would dramatically affect the strategy of setting up for a kill, even in AA.
For example, in the game above, it was clear that Haggis (pink) was on the rocks and about to be eliminated. However, in my (blue) position, it wasn't worth setting up a takeout on the prior turn because I would weaken my own borders so much by advancing into such a position. If I had been able to attack again once cashed, I certainly would have taken this gamble, because a mid-turn cash allows my armies to advance 2 territories per turn, rather than the usual 1. It would have been possible to completely fortify the Asia-North America choke point border by gaining those 2 territories in one go. In the end, it didn't matter because n00blet (red) eliminated Haggis before I even had a chance.
It's an interesting dilemma, and I think we ought to try it both ways and see if one way or the other works better. Regardless, I'm interested to see what others have to think on it.
SuicidalSnowman wrote:And strategically, it does make sense that going for a mid turn cash should give you more strength, it makes setting up and completing a kill much more important. A bigger risk for a bigger reward.
SuicidalSnowman wrote:My final point of support for this is that it only opens up territories re-deployed on, and even then, only one more space.
SuicidalSnowman wrote:Having said all that, I do understand the thought behind leaving it as it is to keep things simple and make it easier to balance. Especially as this is something new, and we know how much inertia this site has.
yeti_c wrote:Option 2 really does change the game play in a way...
Ditocoaf wrote:I still think that regions you conquer cannot attack until the next round works best... because it's as if you just finished conquering it for each region.
yeti_c wrote:The reason I dislike it - is because it has too many loopholes and can be abused - thus pretty much overriding the premise of the original idea...
For instance - you have a 20 stack - and you attack with them to conquer 1 territory - that gives you a continent... and you still have 15 left on there.
Then you attack elsewere and kill someone... now you can drop 1 troop on your 15 and attack into someone else's continent - when they should've had it safe...
Seems like a big loophole... and the sort of thing I dislike about freestyle play...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest