Stalemate

[Rustovitch]

What maps and settings (presumably 8 player and no cards) are most likely to produce 'dead locks' or stalemates?

i.e. where players find themselves evenly matched and spend turn after turn in an arms race!

Thanks!

[AndyDufresne]

Often Flat Rate setting games tend to evolve into a stalemate, unless someone acts early enough or everyone keeps one another balanced.

Some Escalating setting games also evolve into a stalemate---once the cards get up to a certain upper echelon of value.

As for what maps---I'll that for others to comment on!


--Andy

[MeDeFe]

It can happen on any map with any settings, once attacking is the less appealing option for everyone a stalemate is likely to occur. They usually have to be broken by mutual agreement among all remaining players.

[AndyDufresne]

It can happen on any map with any settings, once attacking is the less appealing option for everyone a stalemate is likely to occur. They usually have to be broken by mutual agreement among all remaining players.

Indeed---a mutual agreement, or an unfortunate player taking them selves out of them game (either by suiciding their troops or by missing turns).

But even then, with one more player gone, the balance of power can swing back to steady and level and leave a stalemate once again.


--Andy

[safariguy5]

I would like to point out that No Card Games and adjacent reinforcements tend towards stalemates from a psychological standpoint. No cards eliminates the incentive for attacking. People who turtle up take no penalties for doing so and can lead to stalemates. Adjacent reinforcements cause troop concentration into one big ball to happen very slowly and it also gives your opponents time to react. This can lead to massive border buildups and stalemate the game.

[Timminz]

I find that the more symmetrical maps (Chinese Checkers, Egypt: Valley of Kings) are the most likely to end in stalemates in no card/flat rate games, while the ones with more "dead-ends" (Pearl Harbour, the Rail maps) are more conducive to escalating stalemates.

I'm currently playing 2 "stale" games. One, flat rate on Valley of Kings, and one no spoils on Chinese Checkers. Both are down to 3 players, both started as larger games. That's how most of the ones I've seen go stale end up. Once a non-escalating game gets down to 3 players, it becomes a very delicate balance of power, and it becomes extremely difficult to make a move on someone, without giving the game to the other player.

[thegreekdog]

I had two rather long stale games. The first was on New World, flat rate (still going). The second was on Conquerman, escalating, which only ended because it was a tournament.

[sherkaner]

I don't know much about stalemates (don't like them, Game 3650484 is the only one above round 100 I've played).
But in general I'd say you need a group of players of equal strength, who each border on at least 2 of the opponents. And at least 3 of them should have an about-equal income (troops per turn).
In general this is easiest on highly connected maps with smaller bonusses, and no spoils is better too (but after adding some troops, flat rate doesn't matter any more either).

When there are only 2 teams (1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4), a stalemate is impossible. Team stalemates in general won't happen.
I don't know if there are fog stalemates, but that should be very rare too. You can't really check what kind of attack someone else made, which gives an advantage to attackers.

[AndyDufresne]

I find that the more symmetrical maps (Chinese Checkers, Egypt: Valley of Kings) are the most likely to end in stalemates in no card/flat rate games, while the ones with more "dead-ends" (Pearl Harbour, the Rail maps) are more conducive to escalating stalemates.

I'm currently playing 2 "stale" games. One, flat rate on Valley of Kings, and one no spoils on Chinese Checkers. Both are down to 3 players, both started as larger games. That's how most of the ones I've seen go stale end up. Once a non-escalating game gets down to 3 players, it becomes a very delicate balance of power, and it becomes extremely difficult to make a move on someone, without giving the game to the other player.

Agreed that symmetrical maps definitely tend to lead more towards stalemates. I'm trying to recall the maps I've played on that I haven't experienced many stalemates on...hm Germany, Canada, Brazil, CCU, Madagascar, Space...and as mentioned, just from my experience I haven't to deal with stalemates on those particular maps.


--Andy