Fighting cooks.

[skychaser]

Hahah. I didn't even know risk existed by the time. I was introduced to the shitty version called WAR at 2009 I guess. Never played at the table.

[JediJoe]

LOL, this is a hilarious thread OP. I was cracking up while reading your opening post. I've tended to focus more on 2000+ games lately (tons of games come through weekly to join), but sometimes I'll dip into public 8 player World 2.1 or Europe WW2 map for shits and giggles.

Cook's unpredictability can be a boon or a bane, considering how you handle them. I tend to use a lot of diplomacy in games, being pretty vocal. A lot of times this doesn't work well with cooks - it gives them a big target to focus on. I've learned to try to keep my mouth shut in games with lots of low level players (unless they piss me off - I just can't help it then), and stay under the radar. This is where my preference to fog games helps.

If you do need to communicate a common strategy with a cook to take out a larger threat - kill'em with kindness. Offer them some hope if they pull it off - makes a huge difference. Lay out a rational plan, and see if they take the bait. Works on higher ranked players too sometimes . A little talk can go a long way.

[puppydog85]

Actually, I sometimes lay out irrational plans for them (to my advantage of course). Sometimes they go for it. At the very least it is entertaining.

[skychaser]

I think a lot of people lay out irrational plans lol.
Count me in.

I play mostly 8 players games with random people so many times I have to deal with weak players. Most recently I engaged at a championship whith lots of them and I think keeping my fingers shut really works out.

[Dukasaur]

I think a lot of people lay out irrational plans lol.

In real life, too.

[skychaser]

Specially in real life. Last century we have seen Nazism, Fascism, Socialism. And a lot of another irrational plans in real life. Just to mention the biggest ones.

[ManBungalow]

Beat them with a spatula.

[Viceroy63]

Specially in real life. Last century we have seen Nazism, Fascism, Socialism. And a lot of another irrational plans in real life. Just to mention the biggest ones.

I think that one of the biggest ones is false Democracy. The constitution is suppose to be about protecting the rights and liberties of the individual States as well as the People. Yet when a few southern States wanted to leave the Union we had a bit of a Civil War to determine that no State of the United States of America, has that right or liberty.

[agentcom]

Specially in real life. Last century we have seen Nazism, Fascism, Socialism. And a lot of another irrational plans in real life. Just to mention the biggest ones.

I think that one of the biggest ones is false Democracy. The constitution is suppose to be about protecting the rights and liberties of the individual States as well as the People. Yet when a few southern States wanted to leave the Union we had a bit of a Civil War to determine that no State of the United States of America, has that right or liberty.

More accurately, I'd say that it's supposed to protect the rights of the People, but affords representative capacity to more than one body. One of those bodies is the National Government another is the State Government. Since the Federal Government is also a rightful representative of the people, it too, can claim to protect the interests of the citizens. However, your point is well taken even thinking it out like this.

That said, one possible justification for the Civil War under this framework would be that the National Government was protecting the interests of its citizens against the State Government, which was not providing adequate protection. I am by no means a proponent of a strong central government in the United States; however, I also feel that it is a legitimate representative of the citizenry. Therefore, this argument must be addressed if you are going to use your line of reasoning.

Now what did this have to do with strategy?

Well, I guess if the strategy conversation took this turn based on analogy between irrational plans in RL and irrational plans in CC, I suppose my argument would be properly brought back to the CC conversation by way of an analogy to seemingly irrational acts that may actually have justification. I.e. there might be more than one "right" way to look at a given situation on CC.

One example of a seemingly irrational plan that is actually rational would be the following:

I have a 3 card set, sets are worth 25, I have a single troop near an opponent's last territ which has about 35 troops on it. It's an 8 player game, I'm slightly behind in troops, and that opponent has 5 cards. At first glance it makes no sense for me to cash drop 25+3 on my single and roll 29 against the 35. That's only a 38% chance at success. Who would do this? Well, let's say that I'm in a position that if I can get that guy out of there, the next set worth 30 will virtually ensure that I will be able to take out another player who has more cards.

It may make sense for me to take the 38% chance at succeeding in the attack (and thus winning the game). This is because I think the chances of me winning the game later are less than that. Possibly less than even the 1/8 chance that I theoretically have of winning the game based only on the number of players involved.

Well, my main point was in the first couple paragraphs, but I thought that I'd at least try to bring this back to some semblance of a strategy discussion

[Viceroy63]

You're right. I guess that I got caught in an irrational current. LOL.

As to the 38% chance of winning, I agree. If another player out of the 8 player game has better odds of winning and I would think that out of 7 other players, one of them would, then I would also take the irrational play and go against the odds and go out fighting rather than just wait my turn to die.

That's one of those calls that you have to make when walking in them shoes. But I have done so before and will probably do so again. It may seem to others (if I lose) that I may have just handed the game to another player in a fit of desperation but I know the truth. That I was not going to win. So why not take those weak odds and see what happens? I have also won like that before and been consider extremely lucky then.

[waltero]

When I entered CC as a cook I did notice many of the higher ranking players trying to take advantage. And most of all trying to tell me I suck at this game. When a high ranking player suffers an assault by a Cook it is usually not taken with a Logical attitude.

My first few games, players would lambast me for attacking them. I would Explain why it was that I attacked them, they did not care nor want to try and understand Logic.

As well as players, always giving bad advice...telling me that I should never ever trade in a set (Escalating) while having under five cards. NOT TRUE!

Cooks are players and Most cooks are just as good as you. What makes you think Cooks do not know how to play this game...Risk has been around for many years, this is not the only place a person can come and play RISK.

Sorry but being a General or the Highest Ranking player in Risk means nothing to a gamer. Risk is a game of Cooks (rookies).
CC is a fun place to play. But do not let it go to your head. It is one step above Chutes and ladders. At least that is what it would sound like if one brought it up among real War Gamers.
Not dissing this game or CC...I think it is great.
Just think you high Ranking players need not be so Serious and play for the fun of it.

[skychaser]

When I entered CC as a cook I did notice many of the higher ranking players trying to take advantage. And most of all trying to tell me I suck at this game. When a high ranking player suffers an assault by a Cook it is usually not taken with a Logical attitude.

My first few games, players would lambast me for attacking them. I would Explain why it was that I attacked them, they did not care nor want to try and understand Logic.

As well as players, always giving bad advice...telling me that I should never ever trade in a set (Escalating) while having under five cards. NOT TRUE!

Cooks are players and Most cooks are just as good as you. What makes you think Cooks do not know how to play this game...Risk has been around for many years, this is not the only place a person can come and play RISK.

Sorry but being a General or the Highest Ranking player in Risk means nothing to a gamer. Risk is a game of Cooks (rookies).
CC is a fun place to play. But do not let it go to your head. It is one step above Chutes and ladders. At least that is what it would sound like if one brought it up among real War Gamers.
Not dissing this game or CC...I think it is great.
Just think you high Ranking players need not be so Serious and play for the fun of it.

But I play for fun. And I guess most players here play for fun too.

But really winning is more fun than losing so I play to win. Giving your best to acchieve victory is the best way of playing and respecting your opponents, that's the way we do.

I din't get so far as getting specialized at one map and going for bonuses so I keep the fun. But that's the deal.

And No. Cooks really are weak players. Saying that there's not difference in ranks is not true. It's true that there are high ranked people who doesn't play too fine(mostly farmers) but there is a difference.

[agentcom]

You don't "enter CC as a cook," you have to earn it.

[Dukasaur]

You don't "enter CC as a cook," you have to earn it.

Yeah, you have to lose 42 of your first 45 games like I did!

[ZeekLTK]

When I entered CC as a cook I did notice many of the higher ranking players trying to take advantage. And most of all trying to tell me I suck at this game. When a high ranking player suffers an assault by a Cook it is usually not taken with a Logical attitude.

Yeah, sorry, but no one starts as a cook. You have to be bad to "earn" that rank and, like others have said, it's pretty easy to win promotion back, so it looks bad when you have the cook rank because the question is "why?". "Why are you still a cook? You couldn't win just 1-2 games to get at least cadet?" And that's mostly true, you only need to win a couple games to go back up to a higher rank, so the people that are cooks are generally awful players and they have the rank for a reason - they never win.

A cook playing a terminator game could win promotion by just eliminating a handful of players before being eliminated himself. So it really is baffling when cooks try to claim they are "just as good as anyone else" - no, if you were then you wouldn't be a cook! lol

[agentcom]

+1. Nothing against you if you just like to play and don't mind losing, but it takes quite a few losses and a pretty amazing lack of wins to stay at cook for very long. Probably should be an indication to re-evaluate your gameplay. There are plenty of people on this site that can tell you the basics.

[waltero]

I have played cooks and High ranking players...there is A difference in playing high rank players while being a cook.

Not a matter...win or lose but how you play the game.
Sure I like to win. The best games are not when I win but when I take an arrogant Arse hole out along with me.

Some games develop into a grudge match between two or three players.
Most Cooks are not arrogent *ss holes. Many top ranking players are .

As of recent, this game begins to bore me...I no longer care about my rank.
When I was a Cook I entered knowing that I was as good as the rest and better than the best.

I refer to White Hat Cooks. When I speak of them being no better or worse than a High ranking player. They are new to this sight...not the game.

[ZeekLTK]

The best games are not when I win but when I take an arrogant Arse hole out along with me.

This is exactly what this thread is about. The point of the game is to play to win, not to play to make someone else lose along with you. That is why cooks are cooks, because they generally DON'T play to win, they play to mess up other players, which makes the game no fun for anyone else (and is why they end up being cooks, because it means they never win).

And that's why there is a strategy guide called "fighting cooks" (aka this thread). lol

[waltero]

Each game is different. A game can evolve into a grudge match. Cooks are not always cooks because they ''don't'' play to win...sometimes Cooks are just cooks because they are new to this sight.

So what is it that you play for in a game that is over before it even begins? Sometimes the war is between two individual players rather than win the entire War. That is called playing for fun.
Often times you might find yourself teaming up against a single player.

The point of the game Is NOT to Win! It is to have fun Play anyway you like.
Sometimes the point of the game can be the way you die.
The game is played many different ways and for many different reasons.
Just like Strategy...everybody is entitled to play how ever they wish.

If you find yourself in a game that you have no chance to win...what is the point, continuing to play.

Some people find no point and simply drop others find some other way to amuse themselves and continue.

Now that I am bored with this game I will try some off the wall strategy's and I even might become a Cook just to pounce on Higher ranking players (too piss em off).

[BeauJyles]

I understand your point that players do what they do to have fun and if winning isn't part of that equation, that's fair enough. I have to remind you though that this is part of a strategy page which outlines how to play against people who have certain ways of having fun.

Yes, this thread might have some pompousness about it but I guess it comes with the territory when you're strategizing about how to successfully handle a player who has a tendency to have fun by taking someone out. Let's not forget that this thread is not a "look how sh*t the cook players are" but how to survive against players that may suicide against you without any kind of warning. This makes the game more fun for players who want to win their games.

My two cents

[skychaser]

I have played cooks and High ranking players...there is A difference in playing high rank players while being a cook.

Not a matter...win or lose but how you play the game.
Sure I like to win. The best games are not when I win but when I take an arrogant Arse hole out along with me.

Some games develop into a grudge match between two or three players.
Most Cooks are not arrogent *ss holes. Many top ranking players are .

As of recent, this game begins to bore me...I no longer care about my rank.
When I was a Cook I entered knowing that I was as good as the rest and better than the best.

I refer to White Hat Cooks. When I speak of them being no better or worse than a High ranking player. They are new to this sight...not the game.

Yep. You got a cook heart and mind.
Good to know cause I thought these people only didn't know how to play but now I know they may know but prefer playing in childish way.

A tip. You may elliminate a higher ranked play but victory is the best "revenge". And while eliminatin him from a game he will win over another games so it's not a big deal. If you suicided on me I wouldn't feel bad about it. It's like in a poker game when a bad beat turns for someone, be it.
Furthermore. If you suicide agains a higher ranked player. He will lose lesser points than he could lose if you win the game.

[skychaser]

You don't "enter CC as a cook," you have to earn it.

Yeah, you have to lose 42 of your first 45 games like I did!

Lol. Impossible losing so much.

[waltero]

Good enough.
I wish to point out that I usually do not enter a game just to take somebody out along with me. The game develops that way.
I am not sure If I have ever entered into a game that a player simply plays to take a single player out (besides High rank taking out Cooks)

Although I find that some players Target Cooks right off the bat.
Sure you can devise a strategy to Counter a Cooks Suicide run.

Might be better to simply treat Cooks like any other player.
Do not provoke them.
It is not just cooks that call vendetta.

Only when Victory is no longer an option do others chose another player to go down with em...don't act like this is something that only cooks do. You do it...Everybody does it.

Here is one Example: Every player in the game Decided to gang up on red (red had no real problem with this). I would attack Red and Along with red I would attack blue up north. Well Blue Started to cry because I never allowed him to Gain bonus for his Territory. So I felt sorry For the General and did not attack him for two turns. The only thing Blue did was to Put all is units Next to my Border and continue to tell me Red was the Target. He never attacked Red! Not once (before or after I no attack him). So when I continued my attacks against him, He could not understand for the life of him why I attacked him.
Continued to tell me Red was the Target.
At that point It became a game for second place.

Was a good fun game. I came in Second. Had more than a few games like this.
This is The way the game is played. Suicide or what ever you want to call it...we have all played a game like this.

[BeauJyles]

I completely agree that we've all done the suicide attack at some point or another. I think the main strategy is in your post above: "Do not provoke them" because they will most likely retaliate without keeping the "winning" objective in mind. I also agree with your point of treating cooks like any other player because if a cook gets a hint of foul-play or prejudice against them, the chances are that they will attack hard and give their game up to get back at someone.

I think one of the major differences with cooks and higher ranked players is that cooks tend to get provoked easier. And when provoked, they don't mind that they are minimising their chance of winning by acting vindictively towards another player. I think the mentality of "Oh well, it's just another loss (not caring about the win). At least I get to teach this other player a lesson before I get eliminated" is more prominent in cooks than higher ranked players.

Your example above is something that happens in many games. There is always a player that tries to get other people to do the dirty work (whilst they build a stack of their own). I think that's a great strategy, specially when the other players don't realise it (not like the one above). I think cooks are more susceptible to these kinds of manipulations and therefore better players use this to their advantage.

I think this thread is trying to highlight the more volatile behaviour or emotions if you will, of cooks and how to evade/use those emotions to your advantage. Playing against cooks can be frustrating but I think it adds an extra dimension to the game. I certainly don't mess with cooks when I play against them. My opinion is that they are a really good option to form alliances with as the liklihood of them overcommiting on the offensive and giving you the game (as the final two or three players) is higher than the paranoid higher ranked players that don't want to lose the upper hand.

[ZeekLTK]

So what is it that you play for in a game that is over before it even begins? Sometimes the war is between two individual players rather than win the entire War. That is called playing for fun.
Often times you might find yourself teaming up against a single player.

The point of the game Is NOT to Win! It is to have fun Play anyway you like.
Sometimes the point of the game can be the way you die.
The game is played many different ways and for many different reasons.
Just like Strategy...everybody is entitled to play how ever they wish.

If you find yourself in a game that you have no chance to win...what is the point, continuing to play.

"No chance to win" is subjective and cooks seem to jump to that conclusion sooner than they should. If you ACTUALLY have no chance of winning, then you wouldn't have enough troops to do any kind of damage to one of the other players in the game. But if you are strong enough to seriously damage another player's chance of winning, then you are strong enough to stay in the game and try to win yourself.

This is the problem with a lot of cooks (and low ranked players in general) IMO. They fall behind a little in the game (maybe they failed to take a bonus they were going for or whatnot), and rather than figure out a way to stay competitive in the game and try something else, they just give up, say "well, I can't win now", and go on a suicide run which actually does ruin their own chance of winning.


I remember a 3-player game I was in with a cook on the USA map. He was trying to hold the Rockies or something and I broke that up early since I had the West bonus. After a few turns of failing to take it back from me, he simply gave up and spent the rest of the game suiciding on me to allow the other player to win, and then he had the gall to blame ME for it because even though there were like 7-8 bonuses on that board, in his mind he HAD to have THAT ONE in order to win, and since I wouldn't let him have it, clearly I had just ruined his whole game and he was going to "make me pay". lol

Looking at the situation logically, a normal player would have been like "well damn, I can't hold this bonus right now, so I'll try to get a different one and come back to this later" - but a cook looks at the situation as "well, since I can't have this bonus, I can't win, so I'm just going to give up". lol