Woodruff wrote:Queen_Herpes wrote:The bottom line is simple: there is a massive benefit to the deferred troops and it is a benefit to the player who missed the turn.
Massive benefit? I can't even believe you just said that because it's not even remotely true. Can there be some benefit in certain situations (the team play situations that jefjef mentions)? Certainly. But it is in no way a generally massive benefit. The fact is that typically, outside of the team game situation, it's an anti-benefit.
It is also occasionally a benefit for a player to suicide against another player (i.e. their dice are with them). But that doesn't in any way make it a winning strategy nor a benefit in doing so.
In 1v1 or 1v1v1, here are some scenarios:
In 1v1, on a map that does not drop (+?) bonuses on specific territories, a player who holds a bonus that is defended by neutrals or by armies of 2 or more misses a turn. The opponent has reasonable difficulty in breaking the bonus of the player who missed the turn. Upon the return of the player who had missed the turn, not only does that player get awarded the bonus armies and the region/3 armies, but that player also receives the deferred bonus which is the same number of armies to drop on the map at the end of the turn. Those deferred troops were not affected by dice during the opponents turn. You can certainly argue against this by saying that the opponent might not have broken the player-who-missed even if the player-who-missed had instead taken his/her turn. However, the player-who-missed did not risk his/her armies by taking a turn and rolling the dice to attack AND the player-who-missed did not risk his/her armies by placing them on the board to be acted upon by the opponent's dice. That, right there, is the "massive" benefit. Those armies are kept out-of-play and are protected as they were not acted upon by the opponent's armies and dice.
In 1v1, again on a map that does not drop (+?) bonuses on specific territories, a player who
1) has gained a lead in the region/3 armies and
2) has reduced the opponent to a region/3 armies status equivalent to roughly 6 fewer regions suddenly
3) misses a turn. The opponent then happens to have difficulty reducing the region count of the player-who-missed-a-turn. The player-who-missed then receives the region/3 armies and a deferred bonus of the same number. Again, the player-who-missed did not risk his/her armies by taking a turn and rolling the dice to attack AND the player-who missed did not risk his/her armies by placing them on the board to be acted upon by the opponent's dice. That, again, is the "massive" benefit. Those armies are kept out-of-play and are protected from action by the dice. Arguments can be made that the player-who-missed would have continued to roll the opponent if he/she had taken his/her turn. Arguments could also be made that the opponent's dice would have prevailed. We cannot know. However, we do know for certain that the deferred troops were not acted upon.
In 1v1, on a map that does drop a (+?) bonus on specific territories, for example, Feudal Empire. You’re late into the game and both players still hold two castles and 6 regions in each realm. Stacks are equivalent. One player misses a turn, then misses another. The opponent goes in for the kill, fearing the deferred bonus or assuming the typical benefit of the attacker’s dice. Success is marginal, though, leaving a trail of “1s” back to the owned castle. Mister-missed-turns returns and blows through the armies of 1, then gets to drop 8 or 9 armies in defense somewhere on the map. While the missed turns mean that he/she lost 20 armies(they didn’t get dropped on the castles), the ability to drop those deferred troops in a targeted location offers a benefit that IMO can outweigh the 20 armies lost.
To add to the preceding example, if the map was played on escalating, and the player-who-missed held a set of 3 spoils with 3, 4, or 5 spoils in the hand, the benefit of the missed turn is more to force the opponent into being the first to “cash” and the spoils benefit outweighs the deferred troops; however, there is still a huge benefit to be able to drop those deferred troops in defense somewhere on the map.
In 1v1v1 speed, the
red player who started the game misses the first turn. As can be assumed, perhaps red bailed. However,
green cannot know that
red will not return and similarly
green cannot know that
blue will act in concert to both a) reduce
red’s region count and b) avoid attacking each other. No matter what scenario plays out,
red will get to drop armies from the deferred bonus. Those armies will have been unaffected by attacking opponents. Certainly the number of region/3 armies might be reduced, but the only equivalent scenario where no benefit is given to
red is one where
green and
blue simply drop without attacking. However, even with that being said, another “massive benefit” comes into play:
placement. red will have the benefit of seeing where
blue and
green placed their armies.
Red can then choose a strategic location to drop those deferred troops to exact a benefit. One cannot underestimate the value of being able to place those armies strategically having seen where the opponents have attacked, thinned out, etc.
In 1v1v1v1 speed and any other FFA games of any number of players, the player-who-misses gets the benefit of having armies that were not acted upon by dice AND the benefit of being able to see the board and place a stack of armies in a location that profoundly affects the gameplay. This is a benefit to the player-who-misses and detrimental to the players who did not miss turns. In FFA games where the number of players is 4 or greater, it is not necessarily beneficial to choose a strategy that includes attacking the player-who-misses. Attacking the player-who-misses is similar to attacking neutrals where the benefit of the attack is not necessarily easy to determine. The player who misses may see that his/her army count is not reduced after one or two rounds.
I could create hundreds more picayune examples of this, so, to make a long post a little shorter:
- there is no need to breathe life into a player who is already losing the game. By awarding the deferred troops to a player who is losing, then misses, the administration is simply lengthening thousands of games. The deferred troops simply makes those games last longer.
- If the game is a stalemate or the player-who-is-winning is the player-who-misses-a-turn, those deferred armies are not acted upon by the dice. It is unfair for those armies (which went without action from the dice for one or two rounds) to be placed on the board.
- Whether losing, stalemate, or winning, the player who misses a turn gets the placement benefit. The placement benefit cannot be underestimated. These troops which were not acted upon by the dice can be strategically located to alter the course of the game. Opponents who-take-their-turns do not get the same benefit.
