Moderator: Community Team
jsnyder748 wrote:gordon1975 wrote:jsnyder748 wrote:standard escalating games actually take much more skill than standard flat rate or no spoils. Flat rate and no spoils are mindless games that can take forever or be decided by an idiot move. Not that they aren't fun and can't be challenging.
To prove a point people who reach high ranks often play escalating games because if you know how to play them (pretty simple actually) it is way easier to win. Everyone is on even grounds playing flat rate or no spoils, but those who are more skilled in escalating will win more often.
I love the feeling of sweeping the entire board in one round and ending up with 300 troops
if somthings way easier to win,why would it take more skill?
It is easier to win vs people with less skill. In my opinion cooks are as good as anyone if you play flat rate. Obviously they miss turns and play irrationally but the skill required is attack, get bonus, attack others, get bonus. In escalating a cook will go for bonuses for 7 rounds and on round 8 you will sweep the board with cards.
Mr Changsha wrote:jsnyder748 wrote:gordon1975 wrote:jsnyder748 wrote:standard escalating games actually take much more skill than standard flat rate or no spoils. Flat rate and no spoils are mindless games that can take forever or be decided by an idiot move. Not that they aren't fun and can't be challenging.
To prove a point people who reach high ranks often play escalating games because if you know how to play them (pretty simple actually) it is way easier to win. Everyone is on even grounds playing flat rate or no spoils, but those who are more skilled in escalating will win more often.
I love the feeling of sweeping the entire board in one round and ending up with 300 troops
if somthings way easier to win,why would it take more skill?
It is easier to win vs people with less skill. In my opinion cooks are as good as anyone if you play flat rate. Obviously they miss turns and play irrationally but the skill required is attack, get bonus, attack others, get bonus. In escalating a cook will go for bonuses for 7 rounds and on round 8 you will sweep the board with cards.
I don't think you understand standard flat/no cards at all. The skill is actually about looking 10+ rounds ahead, positioning troops to influence the board, using diplomacy to influence the board. Never mind that one must survive the opening, stay active but not too active in the middle and then try to drag your troops percentage over 40 percent so that a sweep become possible.
The actual problem with no cards/flat before was stalemates between good players...and it stopped me playing in 2010. However, round limits have in my view made the game good again and it is great to be able to match wits with some excellent standard no cards players on standard games...rather than 8 man dubs (my previous solution) or even trips.
Begbie wrote:Not sure I agree. Flat rate 'formula' - consoliodate, acquire, build, extend, acquire, build, overpower - to me is more robotic and does not have the variety of tactical approaches allowed by the staggered injection of increasing numbers of armies. If it were MMA it would be 'ground and pound' vs a stand up striker, both very valid but one better to look at than the other (depending on who's watching!).
betiko wrote:i don't think that escalating has anything to do with a formula. you need to decide to skip spoils sometimes, not double trade even if you can at some other times, kill a first guy but not a second because it's too much risk ect ect... escalating is actually the game type with the most factors to be taken into consideration, nor robotic at all. you need to weight lots of your decisions regarding attacks and placements, risk taking and momentums.
yeah here in france it's always been flat rate with territory bonus .you deal the cards with the territories, place your troops and give them back to start. Then during the game you reuse those same cards but for different purposes; they have either armies, cavalry or canon on them for different trade values.. Only thing is that there is a joker that basically can be any card and can help you maximize your trade (a bit like if you had a yellow spoil that basically could be red, green or blue on CC).
So what are the spoil rules in the US?? no spoils?
oh and i didn't know about "conquete du monde". I've seen some pretty old risk games here in france and they are always called risk. So some french dude invented it and sold the concept to hasbro then?
betiko wrote:i don't think that escalating has anything to do with a formula. you need to decide to skip spoils sometimes, not double trade even if you can at some other times, kill a first guy but not a second because it's too much risk ect ect... escalating is actually the game type with the most factors to be taken into consideration, nor robotic at all. you need to weight lots of your decisions regarding attacks and placements, risk taking and momentums.
yeah here in france it's always been flat rate with territory bonus .you deal the cards with the territories, place your troops and give them back to start. Then during the game you reuse those same cards but for different purposes; they have either armies, cavalry or canon on them for different trade values.. Only thing is that there is a joker that basically can be any card and can help you maximize your trade (a bit like if you had a yellow spoil that basically could be red, green or blue on CC).
So what are the spoil rules in the US?? no spoils?
oh and i didn't know about "conquete du monde". I've seen some pretty old risk games here in france and they are always called risk. So some french dude invented it and sold the concept to hasbro then?
Crazyirishman wrote:In the US it is technically an escalating game, but in reality it almost never gets to a point where escalating spoils becomes a factor. Every game that I've tried to play with my family and/or friends becomes an arbitrary "pick some spots on the board and lets battle" with cards rarely playing a significant role in the game.
jsnyder748 wrote:Don't play with people who have never played cc...it is horrible now. Play monopoly instead
gordon1975 wrote:jsnyder748 wrote:standard escalating games actually take much more skill than standard flat rate or no spoils. Flat rate and no spoils are mindless games that can take forever or be decided by an idiot move. Not that they aren't fun and can't be challenging.
To prove a point people who reach high ranks often play escalating games because if you know how to play them (pretty simple actually) it is way easier to win. Everyone is on even grounds playing flat rate or no spoils, but those who are more skilled in escalating will win more often.
I love the feeling of sweeping the entire board in one round and ending up with 300 troops
if somthings way easier to win,why would it take more skill?
Mr Changsha wrote:Round limits have made high ranking flat/no cards standard games far more viable.
I still believe that a public 8 man standard no cards with a good mix of ranks is the greatest strategic challenge...one must really try to win 50% of those. Diplomacy is obviously massively important on these settings. In my view a good mix of ranks doesn't require a round limit.
I personally feel the way standard escalating has developed is a bit of a perversion. Is it really how the game was meant to be played?
Don't deride taking bonuses...this game is based on that for standard and team games. Standard escalating sees bonuses as pointless, so then why have bonuses on the map? Presumably standard escalating players would be happiest on a basic splurge of colour and borders with no bonuses at all?
Mr Changsha wrote:I personally feel the way standard escalating has developed is a bit of a perversion. Is it really how the game was meant to be played?
Begbie wrote:Not that it particularly helps the discussion but escalating was the only card option in the original 1959 risk rules. It might be argued that the original is the best ie. original coca cola ingredients way more fun than now.....
macbone wrote:Mr Changsha, I'm impressed if you can manage a 50% win rate on 6+ Terminator/Standard. Very impressive. I'm probably 25% at 6-player Term/Standard Escalating, better than average, but clearly not dominating.
Vice, you're going to have to provide some more concrete examples if you're going to diss Escalating, man. =)
I agree that Flat Rate and No Spoils are more strategic, though. On Classic-style maps, the map itself doesn't matter so much, and it's pretty much a waiting game - build your stacks, collect a card each round, and wait for the right time to eliminate another player.
Actually, I find the missed kills part of the fun of the setting, a feature rather than a flaw. I think we've all been there where we had a 98% chance of winning the dice battle and then coming up just short of the goal, or going for a 3v3 for an elimination and just making it.
With No Spoils and Flat Rate, the bonuses become much more important, although again one principle seems to be most important, find your spot, secure it, and push out from there. You trade the stack strategy of Escalating for the shield/creeper strategy of No Spoils/Flat Rate.
Like Vice says, though, No Spoils/Flat Rate leads to longer games, and players need to be wilier to win. Escalating is all about positioning and a quick finish, which are skills in their own right (and more enjoyable to me) Each setting requires its own set of skills to win.
Flat Rate adds a wrinkle of randomness with the different values of sets, and it's no fun to hold all reds and greens on your team when your opponents are cashing rainbows all over the place, but that's one quirk of the setting.
No Spoils seems to be more about securing your position first, and standard No Spoils relies much more heavily on diplomacy than Escalating does. If you have cool players in the game, the Escalating chat can be a lot of fun, but very little diplomacy goes on in it. There are exceptions, yes, particularly in Trench (right, vice?), but in non-trench play, the majority of diplomacy-based chat in an Escalating game is "Can I have a card spot?" Again, there are exceptions, such as when one player gets greedy and the other players pitch in to break his bonus (and usually a third player sneaks out the win), or when Larry is threatened with elimination by Curly, so Moe hits Curly's stack. There is strategy involved, and you have to read the board to know who's going to make their move, but the middle of the game is generally pretty dry.
I'm playing a game with Viceroy right now, 4-team doubs, Trench, and No Spoils that's turned out to be pretty strategic. I wasn't a fan of the settings before we started playing, but it's developed into an interesting back-and-forth battle, far deeper than most two-team or large player Standard/Escalating games generally run.
Still, I prefer large-player Escalating games. I like the rush at the end of running the table, the agony of just missing an elimination, the joy at logging on and finding I've survived an elimination attempt, or better yet, am poised to take advantage of someone else's missed play. No Spoils/Flat Rate/Nuclear large-player games drag on too long for my taste, but I can understand their appeal.
Mr Changsha wrote:macbone wrote:Mr Changsha, I'm impressed if you can manage a 50% win rate on 6+ Terminator/Standard. Very impressive. I'm probably 25% at 6-player Term/Standard Escalating, better than average, but clearly not dominating.
Vice, you're going to have to provide some more concrete examples if you're going to diss Escalating, man. =)
I agree that Flat Rate and No Spoils are more strategic, though. On Classic-style maps, the map itself doesn't matter so much, and it's pretty much a waiting game - build your stacks, collect a card each round, and wait for the right time to eliminate another player.
Actually, I find the missed kills part of the fun of the setting, a feature rather than a flaw. I think we've all been there where we had a 98% chance of winning the dice battle and then coming up just short of the goal, or going for a 3v3 for an elimination and just making it.
With No Spoils and Flat Rate, the bonuses become much more important, although again one principle seems to be most important, find your spot, secure it, and push out from there. You trade the stack strategy of Escalating for the shield/creeper strategy of No Spoils/Flat Rate.
Like Vice says, though, No Spoils/Flat Rate leads to longer games, and players need to be wilier to win. Escalating is all about positioning and a quick finish, which are skills in their own right (and more enjoyable to me) Each setting requires its own set of skills to win.
Flat Rate adds a wrinkle of randomness with the different values of sets, and it's no fun to hold all reds and greens on your team when your opponents are cashing rainbows all over the place, but that's one quirk of the setting.
No Spoils seems to be more about securing your position first, and standard No Spoils relies much more heavily on diplomacy than Escalating does. If you have cool players in the game, the Escalating chat can be a lot of fun, but very little diplomacy goes on in it. There are exceptions, yes, particularly in Trench (right, vice?), but in non-trench play, the majority of diplomacy-based chat in an Escalating game is "Can I have a card spot?" Again, there are exceptions, such as when one player gets greedy and the other players pitch in to break his bonus (and usually a third player sneaks out the win), or when Larry is threatened with elimination by Curly, so Moe hits Curly's stack. There is strategy involved, and you have to read the board to know who's going to make their move, but the middle of the game is generally pretty dry.
I'm playing a game with Viceroy right now, 4-team doubs, Trench, and No Spoils that's turned out to be pretty strategic. I wasn't a fan of the settings before we started playing, but it's developed into an interesting back-and-forth battle, far deeper than most two-team or large player Standard/Escalating games generally run.
Still, I prefer large-player Escalating games. I like the rush at the end of running the table, the agony of just missing an elimination, the joy at logging on and finding I've survived an elimination attempt, or better yet, am poised to take advantage of someone else's missed play. No Spoils/Flat Rate/Nuclear large-player games drag on too long for my taste, but I can understand their appeal.
A well-played 8 man standard no cards on 2.1 is a joy. At its best it is 3 contenders and 5 honest stripers. The skill is in reading the board, reading the play-style of the stripers, manipulating the stripers through either positioning, attacks or diplomacy and timing your surge perfectly to create either a 42%+ troops sweep or a 3 way finish which starts seriously out of balance and can hopefully be manipulated.
Playing against 7 strong players with a 100 round limit is something I am currently experimenting with. Is it possible to win 50%? Very, very hard when your opponents are regular ones and used to one's tricks.
While these kinds of game do sometimes stalemate genuinely, I think at other times weaker players see a stalemate where there really isn't one. Possibly the position of the stacking is more profound than you realise? Might two players combine on one quite ruthelessly to break the stalemate with the spoils divided in advance? High ranking games are much better when all the players are well-aware of each other, as the prospect of truly evil deals (a+b combine to kill c, then d, then fight it out..a form of diplomacy I encourage in my games) increases, stalemates happen much less, and the real CUNNING BASTARD is able to prosper.
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users