Game option: NO Deferred troops

[Metsfanmax]

I've seen situations in trench games where a player was able to skip turns without jeopardizing a bonus and then came back for an deferral-enhanced coup de grace.

No to mention, in tight situations where attacjk priority becomes critical, a player who skipping turns may be interpreted as a low-priority deadbeat... when that is not actually the case.

I've got to ask- would you make that kind of mistake?

It's not necessarily a mistake, there's game theory involved which can support it, which is what Thorthoth is talking about. Suppose you're on a three player Classic map standoff. Each player has about equal bonuses and troops, and cannot attack any other player for fear of letting the third win. Every player is just building slowly and not attacking. Suppose further that player C misses two turns, and that player A takes their turn and just drops and passes to player B. After player B's turn, they know that either player C will return, or player C will forfeit. If they do nothing and then player C forfeits, player A will immediately be able to attack player B, and since attacking troops have statistical advantage in this game, player A will likely win. So there is an incentive to attack A pre-emptively, so that if C does forfeit, they do not lose because of it. Obviously, if they do attack A pre-emptively and then C returns, then player B will probably lose. So there is a real dilemma there. And the dilemma also applies to player A after player C's second missed turn, who has to decide whether player B is the kind of person who would pre-emptively attack, and then decide whether to pre-pre-emptively attack to counteract that (again, based on player A's estimation of whether player C is likely to return). If you're player A or player B in this situation, it cannot really be judged a "mistake" to attack. You have to make your best judgment of the odds of the situation and then act.

So this is a real expected advantage to player C, assuming they plan to return, because at best one of the two players attacks the other, and at worst nothing happens and the game continues where it was before.

I understand that, but that's been long part of the game- It seems like a part of the strategy of play (a risky (no-pun intended)) one.

I think that the suggestion will result in punishing more casual players of the game though.

You make a solid argument, but I'm still a bit sceptical. I think that this option, if implemented, would turn up in a lot of games set up by older players, that new players would join.

I don't support the OP, mostly for this reason: I think it hurts more than it helps. But I do want the debate to be honest about what the pros and cons are.

[riskllama]

status quo is fine.

[Arama86n]

100% support.
I would of course support the total removal of deferred troops.
And this is coming from somone who misses a turn every now and then. If I miss a turn I do not deserve any fricking deferred spoils. Making missing turns have heftier consequences will be positive for the site!

Look, this site has declined greatly, and that it would suddenly be hit with a tremendous influx of new players who would see this as negative is rather unlikely.
Can CC please cater to it's actual paying customers, and not ficticious potential new customers that may or may not like this change.

I garantee you that 95% of paying members would approve this situation.
99%?

Down with deferred spoils.

#suggestionoftheyear

[Donelladan]

@Arama86n - would you explain how deferred troops are a problem for you ?

I've seen situations in trench games where a player was able to skip turns without jeopardizing a bonus and then came back for an deferral-enhanced coup de grace.

No to mention, in tight situations where attacjk priority becomes critical, a player who skipping turns may be interpreted as a low-priority deadbeat... when that is not actually the case.

I don't see how the first part is possible. Meaning : there is no advantage gained in a trench game by missing turn so that you can deploy deferred troops at the end of your turn. None at all.

2nd case, yes, that's actually the only case where missing turn is an advantage but actually the deferred troops aren't even necessary for that strategy.

Btw then for this as well :

It's not necessarily a mistake, there's game theory involved which can support it, which is what Thorthoth is talking about. Suppose you're on a three player Classic map standoff. Each player has about equal bonuses and troops, and cannot attack any other player for fear of letting the third win. Every player is just building slowly and not attacking. Suppose further that player C misses two turns, and that player A takes their turn and just drops and passes to player B. After player B's turn, they know that either player C will return, or player C will forfeit. If they do nothing and then player C forfeits, player A will immediately be able to attack player B, and since attacking troops have statistical advantage in this game, player A will likely win. So there is an incentive to attack A pre-emptively, so that if C does forfeit, they do not lose because of it. Obviously, if they do attack A pre-emptively and then C returns, then player B will probably lose. So there is a real dilemma there. And the dilemma also applies to player A after player C's second missed turn, who has to decide whether player B is the kind of person who would pre-emptively attack, and then decide whether to pre-pre-emptively attack to counteract that (again, based on player A's estimation of whether player C is likely to return). If you're player A or player B in this situation, it cannot really be judged a "mistake" to attack. You have to make your best judgment of the odds of the situation and then act.

@Metsfanmax, this is totally true, but this strategy work with or without deferred troops.
The deferred troops simply make the strategy slightly more interesting, but in a 3 players case with no one attacking for a while ( so stalemate situation ) we can definitely assume that no one is going to start missing turn in purpose with low amount of troops, or the other would break his bonus.
So what is described above is a possible strategy only if players have like a hundred of troops stacked already. In which case the deferred troops don't really matter, what matter if you miss 2 turns and hope your opponent fight, is that they go all in and spend hundreds of troops, the 20-25 deferred troops you'd get don't matter.
So actually, the current suggestion wouldn't prevent the quoted situation to happen.

Therefore, I go back to my first point, there is NO WAY deferred troops can get you an advantage over playing your turn. There is cases in which missing turn can make you win the game, but not through the deferred troops. ( actually there is one extrem case that I know where deferred troops would be important, hasn't be described by anyone here, I guess it's just so rare that the situation happens plus so rare that someone uses it, only few people know or can think of it - therefore, being so rare, shouldn't be a good reason enough to implement such a suggestion).

On a side note, I think the stragegy described by Metsfanmax falls under gross abuse of the game, and given that someone repeat this strategy often enough, and that you are able to prove your opponents was missing in purpose, I am sure he'll get some punishment from C&A.



Bottom line : Deferred troops are NOT an advantage. Missing turn can give you an advantage in some cases but this isn't because of deferred troops - therefore getting rid of deferred troops doesn't help.

[mrswdk]

How come CC - which earns tens of thousands of dollars per year from premium memberships plus advertising revenue - doesn't have enough money to implement more than about 1 suggestion per year? Where is all that money going?

[mrswdk]

Most members of this site have jobs, and most people with jobs sometimes have to work overtime and can't get home in time to take their turns. That's just a fact of life.

If people start games knowing it's possible that they might miss turns due to their work/home schedule then that's their risk. No reason why the people they're playing against should be punished for that one person's failure to take their turns properly. If you're really so busy that you barely have the time to check CC during a full 24-hour period then why are you starting games? If I get that busy at work I just stop joining games until things have calmed down.

[mrswdk]

Oh, LOL. Dukasaur censored his little rant. Point above still stands though.

[Donelladan]

No your point doesn't stand, not even a little bit.

No reason why the people they're playing against should be punished for that one person's failure to take their turns properly

That's non-sense. The people they are playing against aren't being punished by the deferred troops.

[Metsfanmax]

@Metsfanmax, this is totally true, but this strategy work with or without deferred troops.

Yes, I agree. There are few situations where the deferred troops make a big difference in the situation I discussed. That is one of the reasons I don't support the OP.

[Thorthoth]

Bottom line : Deferred troops are NOT an advantage. Missing turn can give you an advantage in some cases but this isn't because of deferred troops - therefore getting rid of deferred troops doesn't help.

Donelladan seems to leave many of his examples intentionally vague, perhaps to avoid criticism.

Still, it only goes to follow, if missing a turn can give an advantage, then missing a turn with troop deferral can only give more of an advantage.

[riskllama]

Bottom line : Deferred troops are NOT an advantage. Missing turn can give you an advantage in some cases but this isn't because of deferred troops - therefore getting rid of deferred troops doesn't help.

Donelladan seems to leave many of his examples intentionally vague, perhaps to avoid criticism.

lol, yeah - that's probably it...
Don has done more for this place sitting on the toilet with a bad case of the runs than you EVER will. it may also interest you to know that English is not his native tongue, so he comes across a little odd, at times. you really need to stfu and stick to your ratings conspiracies and freemium rights advocacy. such an idiot...

[Donelladan]

Thanks lama

@Thorthtoth. Seeing how you post everywhere recently, I am wondering if you are a troll. But just in case you aren't :

I am not leaving my examples intentionally vague, I am not giving examples. I am saying deferred troops are not an advantage compared to playing your turn, therefore it doesn't make any sense to get rid of them.
If you think there is an advantage to be gained by missing your turn and using the deferred troops over playing your turn, just give one example, and you'd prove me wrong.
Metsfanmax gave one example in which missing turn can help you win for example.

if missing a turn can give an advantage, then missing a turn with troop deferral can only give more of an advantage.

There is no connection between missing a card and missing a turn ( and getting deferred troops). People that intentionally miss a card do so by running out of time, but play their turn. Those are two different case.

[mrswdk]

Miss 2 turns.
Another player decides you must have deadbeated and shifts troops to focus on a different opponent.
You drop on that player's border and railroad them.
You drop stack of deferred troops.

[riskllama]

Miss 2 turns.
Another player decides you must have deadbeated and shifts troops to focus on a different opponent.
You drop on that player's border and railroad them.
You drop stack of deferred troops.

nah, any decent player would prepare for this contingency. I certainly would.

[Thorthoth]

Did Donelladan not get it, or did he deliberately misunderstand what I said?

If there is an advantage to missing a turn, as Don says, then there would only be a bigger advantage to missing that turn AND getting deferred troops. HIs claim that there can be a benefit to skipping a turn is, in itself an argument against troop deferral.

...and Don you post a lot too... Maybe you should try on a troll hat?

[mrswdk]

Miss 2 turns.
Another player decides you must have deadbeated and shifts troops to focus on a different opponent.
You drop on that player's border and railroad them.
You drop stack of deferred troops.

nah, any decent player would prepare for this contingency. I certainly would.

It's annoying doe. Especially when at least one other player won't take precautions and gets to shaft you while you have a stand-off with a ghost.

[riskllama]

I agree, but it's all part of the game.
*shrugs*

[Symmetry]

I agree, but it's all part of the game.
*shrugs*

Indeed.

The arguments now seem to be going round in circles though, or breaking off in to personal attacks.

If you get caught out by this kind of thing, you should learn from it.

[Donelladan]

Did Donelladan not get it, or did he deliberately misunderstand what I said?

If there is an advantage to missing a turn, as Don says, then there would only be a bigger advantage to missing that turn AND getting deferred troops. HIs claim that there can be a benefit to skipping a turn is, in itself an argument against troop deferral.

...and Don you post a lot too... Maybe you should try on a troll hat?

Sorry, I don't know why but I really read "missing a card" and not missing a turn. It wasn't deliberate.

Going back to the example.
Yes missing a turn and getting deferred troops is better than missing a turn without getting the deferred troops. That's obvious. But that's not the point.

The point is, are deferred troops giving an advantage ? And they aren't.
Nobody miss a turn in order to get deferred troops. Therefore getting rid of deferred troops won't make people miss less turn.

[mrswdk]

I think we can all agree that getting deferred troops is better than not getting deferred troops, so given that maximum punishment is needed to avoid incidents like the now infamous Game 17449381 deferred troops should be scrapped.

[Dukasaur]

Failing to get a card is the worst punishment imaginable. In most cases it will lead to losing the game.

Losing your deferred troops on top of that would make it pretty certain that missing one turn would finish you. At least with deferred troops you have a chance, however slim, to get back into it.

Now, if you guys really think it's right that someone who works unexpected overtime and doesn't get home to to take his turn on time should automatically lose, then say so. But don't wrap it up as "no deferred troops." Just skip a step and advoctate immediate elimination after one missed turn. That is the honest description of what you're advocating.

[Dukasaur]

I garantee you that 95% of paying members would approve this situation.
99%?

What evidence do you have for this assertion? Have you done market research?

I'd say at least 95% of the paying members prefer the status quo. But then, I've done as much research as you have.

One of the things that makes this site attractive versus other wargames is that you don't have to stay online 24/7 defending your cities or whatever. You can just take your turn once a day and that's good enough. However, real life being what it is, sometimes that's not enough. Sometimes you have to work overtime, and the wife needs help with this and that, and then you need to sleep sometime, and then you have to get up early because you have a long commute, etc., etc., etc. All these things do sometimes happen, and unless you're independently wealthy they're out of your control, and you will sometimes miss a turn.

Missing a turn means you miss taking a card. That right there is the biggest disadvantage. Then you miss a chance to break your opponent's bonus. That's a second disadvantage. Then your opponent gets a free throw to break your bonus. That's a third disadvantage. Basically missing a turn is a really big handicap. Losing your deferred troops on top of that would just make it a bigger handicap than it already is. I really don't see a valid reason why you would want to punish people even more for a missed turn than they already are.

I keep hearing all these assertions of people using this as an "advantage" but in 13,000 games on this site I've never seen it. Usually a person who misses a turn is dead in the water. Once in a while he comes back, but that's despite the handicap imposed by the missed turn, not because of it.

[mrswdk]

Failing to get a card is the worst punishment imaginable. In most cases it will lead to losing the game.

Losing your deferred troops on top of that would make it pretty certain that missing one turn would finish you. At least with deferred troops you have a chance, however slim, to get back into it.

Now, if you guys really think it's right that someone who works unexpected overtime and doesn't get home to to take his turn on time should automatically lose, then say so. But don't wrap it up as "no deferred troops." Just skip a step and advoctate immediate elimination after one missed turn. That is the honest description of what you're advocating.

I don't think anyone legit has no time whatsoever within a 24-hour period to take a turn on CC. No time to manage dozens of games, but then people who are busy wouldn't start dozens in the first place.

No deferred troops for one missed turn wouldn't throw a game that much.

[Donelladan]

I don't think anyone legit has no time whatsoever within a 24-hour period to take a turn on CC. No time to manage dozens of games, but then people who are busy wouldn't start dozens in the first place.

No deferred troops for one missed turn wouldn't throw a game that much.

Definitely not true, many people miss turn from times to times for various reason, but doesn't matter, explain why we should get rid of deferred troops ? I didn't read any sensible argument that explain why we should get rid of deferred troops.