Game over for me before it begins?

[multilis]

6044487, classic map, 3 player game, I go last and have worst starting positions, haven't taken my first turn.

Do I try to crack North America so not facing extra 5-6 armies smacking my only current strong point (europe, yuck)?

Do I try for europe, at least partially?

Do i get out of south america under hope other 2 might fight over it?

[anonymus]

hells no..
its escalating cards.. (given its 3 players you should start building towards something but i wouldnt worry my eyes out..)
adapt and overcome take a card youll be fine

[jefjef]

Does anyone else see"multi" in this players name? 2 for 2. Nice start for a noob.

[alex951]

is mulit idk i dont think he is

[multilis]

Does anyone else see"multi" in this players name? 2 for 2. Nice start for a noob.

They joked about it when I joined live chat, multilis fyi just happens to be name of my spare email account for many years that I give out when risk of spam. (If I was a cheat I wouldn't advertise it)

First 2 games to finish were 1 on 1 and went fast, I got good/lucky start in one.

I managed to win other despite making mistake (misreading Canada map) when my opponent made bigger one in attempting a 5 bonus including neutrals, while I secured a 2 bonus blocked by neutrals and went after him.

***

Back to game at hand, I decided to play it non aggressive, stacked up my armies in center of europe, with spots I don't want to lose having at least 2. I am the weakest so hopefully the others fight each other more than me.

Player 2 with north america likely gets a 6 army lead from head start on second round. Player 1 will narrow that lead to around 3 by taking Oceania/Australia, and most of rest of map is up for grabs, guarded by lots of 1s.

[Army of GOD]

Does anyone else see"multi" in this players name? 2 for 2. Nice start for a noob.

They joked about it when I joined live chat

That DEFINITELY wasn't me

[multilis]

Game continues to look ugly, i only really hold europe, player 2 holds all the americas and could attack me from any side, if I left him alone with more army income than both of us combined, he could lightly crack europe and be stronger than both of us combined... cards are only so useful if enemy may kill you (in 2 turns) before you get your first set.

I did first strike on South america to slow player 2 down a bit... so he loses to player 1 rather than wins game if he takes me out, which plays into player 1's hand, but seemed lesser evil.

[anonymus]

Game 6044487, classic map, 3 player game?

also.. fixed

[multilis]

...And I'm likely dead, cards wont help. Bit of bad luck and now player 2 may kill me next turn for my cards, and if he tries and fails, red probably wins after killing me.

Feels like a hopeless game from the start, to balance I've had others that were winning from the start.

Perhaps I should have threatened player 1 to hand game to player 2 to get him out sooner.

[Georgerx7di]

Don't play 3 player games, they suck.

[Aradhus]

Don't be such a noob, georgerx. 3 player games are interesting because its all about keeping the dynamic even between the three players. If you weaken one player too much the other guy will sweep in, collect cards and its game over. If you let someone get too strong, they will do the same. 3 player games is all about understanding the enviroment you're in, knowing the power structure of the map, and patiently waiting for one of your enemies to slip up so you can strike.

[multilis]

Still alive at the moment.

Player 2 has Americas. Player 1 continues to hides his stack in oceana/Asia in such a way he can't attack 2, trying to force me to sacrifice each turn. So new strategy... cut a hole in player 1 so that his big stack can reach player 2. (Mutually assured destruction if player 1 won't help)

In meantime I continue to hit Player 2s forces in Europe (Greenland?) a bit each turn to suggest rather have them in America, but really bad luck so not doing much.

Cards... I cashed mine for 4, yuck, but alternative was someone killing me for my cards after they cashed theirs.

[knubbel]

you should wait for red to attack green. its his job. just hit a one and take a card until red starts attacking green. This might cost you the game if red does not attack but if you attack you will loose anyway.

[anonymus]

Don't play 3 player games, they suck.

+1

[natty dread]

Don't play 3 player games, they suck.

+1

-2

3 player games are fun.

[multilis]

you should wait for red to attack green...

Red attacked Green a little but leaves forces on my borders so that if Green fails to kill me, red finishes me off.

Green probably wins as result, my only alternative is all out attack on green which reduces my own chances but gives red a shot... why would I do that? Game may already be over. Red may now be too late to stop green even if he seriously tried and I did everything I could to help him.

I continue to have poor luck in this game dice rolls, balances out with good luck in others.

[knubbel]

Green probably wins as result, my only alternative is all out attack on green which reduces my own chances but gives red a shot... why would I do that? Game may already be over.

I continue to have poor luck in this game dice rolls, balances out with good luck in others.

Why do you think the are going to kill you? Would they kill 25 armees for a cash of 10? Would they win afterwards? Maybe they will try later but at the moment it would be a stupid move. And don't blame your luck. This has nothing to do with luck, you just attacked way to much in this game. Just calm down attack a 1 each round and look in 2-3 rounds if there is a reason to attack anyone. The problem that the others have bonuses will not matter that much when the cash ins get higher. You might loose anyway but it is at least better than attacking.

[multilis]

"Why do you think the are going to kill you?"

If the strongest player can kill the weakest and still be stronger than #2, he likely wins. (Stronger is not just about armies but about cards, first strike on remaining enemy, and bonus you can gather till remaining enemy can redeploy his forces to crack you)

If he doesn't kill the weakest, that is 3 extra armies/turn against him each turn should #2 and #3 team up.

[multilis]

Got my first (minor) good luck round this game (have had surplus luck in other games), still at knife edge whether #1 can become stronger than everyone else combined.

I continue to hit #1 a bit each turn to reduce his ability to wipe me out (attacker has slight advantage).

Taking cards: this round seemed safer to take one, #2 is dead if he goes after me, and likely dead if he doesn't go after #1 (he has good shot to completely crack #1), if he succeeds then #1 may be weakened enough that he won't be able to kill me and then outgun #2.

[nippersean]

Multilus - why not join the society of cooks? You can discuss each turn with an experienced player there.

[the.killing.44]

You guys are really overestimating cards in a 3p game. 2-3 player games they really don't mean anything; it's only 4+ where the game strategy becomes stack, kill, and sweep.

Sorry that this happened to you, multilis. 3 player games are generally terrible; unlimited just makes it worse. Throw in the fact that you went last, and your title is probably correct.

[natty dread]

3p games with no spoils are fun though.

[SirSebstar]

thats a buildiners game. whomever attacks first is dead

[sensfan]

Game 6044487, classic map, 3 player game, I go last and have worst starting positions, haven't taken my first turn.

Do I try to crack North America so not facing extra 5-6 armies smacking my only current strong point (europe, yuck)?

Do I try for europe, at least partially?

Do i get out of south america under hope other 2 might fight over it?

[multilis]

thats a buildiners game. whomever attacks first is dead

No one attacks and guy with run away lead wins when his income is greater than both other players combined as he can first strike kill the weakest.

Similar almost for sure now happens in this game, as #2 held back for too long.

All my games from 2 player to 5 player have been heavily luck dependent, including luck of initial placement, luck of crucial battles, and luck of bad plays by others going for or against you. Eg, one of my 5 player games, I failed on a kill to get cards due to bad rolls (still left me as strong #3), then later #2 decides to try to kill me when even if he succeeded #1 would cash own cards (has 5) and kill him... as result #1 probably wins. [Not complaining, winning other games for same reasons]

I don't see a difference with the 3 player games being any worse than the other types.