Escalating etiquette

[iviv]

If I'm going first in a 6+ player game with escalating spoils, naturally I'm only going to get 4 extra from my set. Is it frowned upon to spent a turn not attacking to prevent yourself getting another card, just fortifying your position? I know other players can do this as well, though I imagine most wouldn't. But assuming I'm in a strong enough position that I wouldn't be destroyed by other players cashing theirs in, is it a valid tactic or looked down upon as a form of turtling? To me it seems just like a good strategic move, but I thought I'd check to see what the general opinion is!

[chapcrap]

You can definitely not attack. That's not frowned upon in any way.

[aad0906]

No, in fact people do this all the time. There is no obligation to attack.

[Fewnix]

BUT not aking a tert, not getting a spoils may be bad strategy
For one example assume everyone in a 6 player games takes a tert, a poils a turn and does not cash for a set unitl they have to.
Round 6 with the sets cashed goes - 4, 6, 8, 10,12, 15,
of course when they cash a set round 6 everybo ets a tert, a spoils, so enters round 7 with 3 spoils

So expect sets worth 20, 25, 30, 35 40 being cashed around rounds 7, 8 . 9 If you have sjipped taking a tert for a poils you may not make it to round 10. Certainly in a game with escalting spoils, anybody with 3, or 4 or 6 spoils, which you will be after round 4 even if you cash your first set, is a prime target for elimination.




sets bs

[Viceroy63]

I agree with Fewnix in that the best strategy may be, not to skip, even if you have a good position, you should still card even if it is just for 4 troops. My logic being that of the timing of an engine. I know it may seem illogical to compare the set of spoils trade in this way but if you consider that after 6 sets of spoils you are in line for the 7th. And this is what I believe that Fewnix is referring to here with his math calculations.

The 6th trade in occurs on round 7 normally. Because usually the first round is the set up round and no one should be carding until round two. Providing any exceptions of course. So by round 6 everyone has their sets and on round 7 the sets get traded in. Follow me so far. I believe that this is what Fewnix is stating in other words. OK.

So now you have round 7 and 8 for 2 more additional cards because in round 7, even as you are trading in for 4 troops being the first player to trade in you are also collecting another spoils card. So by round 9 begins the second sets of spoils and if you have been playing correctly so far then this is where the first player to trade in, the same player that traded in for 4 troops will also be the first player receiving 20 troops and under the ideal conditions, this just could be enough for an elimination of just one weak player and the game could be then, over.

Most of these games are in fact over by round 9 and I have even had round 7 victories in non SoC games. Check out this game for example. Just click on the game numbers.

Game 10902804

The point is that an engine is a precise piece of engineering and goes off when it goes off and when it skips then something is badly wrong with the timing. It may seem like a disadvantage to be the first one to trade in for only 4 troops but it also means that you will be the very first one to trade in for 20 troops and that could just mean the end of the game and the victory for you.

[Kaskavel]

And I would like to add that different maps may call for different strategy. Depending the number of the players, the size of the map, the possible bonuses and autodeploys as well as the possibe neutrals between the players, the game may not be decided by the 20-25 etc troops trade. You have to think a little in advance such things...

[ChadTomer]

As a follow up question, is it okay to intentionally miss a turn (when you have 5 cards) to avoid cashing in early?
I see it all the time (at least in freestyle) but I don't know if that tactic is frowned upon.

[chapcrap]

As a follow up question, is it okay to intentionally miss a turn (when you have 5 cards) to avoid cashing in early?
I see it all the time (at least in freestyle) but I don't know if that tactic is frowned upon.

Missing turns is pretty much always frowned upon. But, as long as you don't deadbeat, it's not against the rules.

[greenoaks]

As a follow up question, is it okay to intentionally miss a turn (when you have 5 cards) to avoid cashing in early?
I see it all the time (at least in freestyle) but I don't know if that tactic is frowned upon.

and if you think someone is missing a turn as a strategy, smash their bonuses

[Lindax]

As a follow up question, is it okay to intentionally miss a turn (when you have 5 cards) to avoid cashing in early?
I see it all the time (at least in freestyle) but I don't know if that tactic is frowned upon.

and if you think someone is missing a turn as a strategy, smash their bonuses

They most likely won't have a bonus.

I personally think it's a bad strategy to not take a card or miss a turn to avoid cashing. So what if you cash first and get 4, you'll be the first to cash again when the turn-in is 20 or more, which gives you a chance to attack and sweep the map.

On the other hand, sometimes you have a game where you can't get a card (easily) the first few turns. Again, so what? Doesn't get really important until round 8, 9 or 10, when the turn-in is high enough to actually do something with your troops.

Note: Talking about 6 to 8 player games on standard maps here.

You can definitely not attack. That's not frowned upon in any way.

Just goes to show how much you know. It's often frowned upon amongst good players who play these games a lot.

Lx

[Woodruff]

As a follow up question, is it okay to intentionally miss a turn (when you have 5 cards) to avoid cashing in early?
I see it all the time (at least in freestyle) but I don't know if that tactic is frowned upon.

Rather than doing this, perhaps it might be more effective to take your turn but not take that fifth card. It takes a bit more foresight and certainly carries it's own share of risk...but probably not any more than not taking a turn with five cards already.

[nolefan5311]

You can definitely not attack. That's not frowned upon in any way.

Just goes to show how much you know. It's often frowned upon amongst good players who play these games a lot.

Lx

Games played (and won) by chap > Games played (and won) by Lindax. IJS.

[macbone]

There's never any obligation to take a card. I've never been in a game where someone said, "Hey! You didn't card that time!" You get a card if you take a tert, but there's no unwritten rule that says you have to attack.

But I usually go for the card anyway. There's always the chance that you might not get a set with 3 or even 4 cards.

[Gillipig]

It's not frown upon and especially if you don't have a shot at an easy card.

[Pershing]

Take your turn and not capture something as a strategy but no deadbeating. There are absolutely good times to do this. Yes timing is key to most Escalating games. Two my games that stand out for me. In one game I had cashed in and had over 100 troops on the board in a Classic game and still could not
take out anyone as all had high numbers of troops. In another game I had 1 troop left on the board cashed in and eliminated 5 opponents to win the game. Luck and timing cannot be underestimated.