Conquer Club

joining games after cooks, new recuits, and privates
in order to take advantage of the possible stupid moves they may make?

of course the way im going i'll be a cook in a month so i shouldnt talk

Mistakes from them won't always win the game for you, it could hand the game to someone else!

i mean directly after them

the cook makes a stupid move
then its your turn, immediately allowing you take advantage

for example the cook attacks player A in a classic escalating game in effort to either gain or break up a bonus while ignoring the fact that player A has 5 cards and the cash set is at 25 now

Player A is crippled after the Cook's turn. Its now your turn and you're able to easily take Player A's cards and then win the game

actually, my line of thinking would probably only work in escalating games. its more about wiping up to get a crippled player's cards

Of course... Back when i used to play seq esc v.often, I used to join after who i thought was the most likely to hang someone. I've noticed some people doing it to me in the past as well. Dropping the game after I've joined and rejoining again... It's kind of like a slap in the face. Thats why i don't do it anymore.

ironically, with my plummeting ranking people would probably join after me.

I tried it before, but once I wasn't quick enough getting back in, and it never seemed to work for me... Now I just start the games, and hope whoever joins last will make a stupid move, giving me the game

gannable wrote:i mean directly after them

the cook makes a stupid move
then its your turn, immediately allowing you take advantage

for example the cook attacks player A in a classic escalating game in effort to either gain or break up a bonus while ignoring the fact that player A has 5 cards and the cash set is at 25 now

Player A is crippled after the Cook's turn. Its now your turn and you're able to easily take Player A's cards and then win the game

And what if you're Player A?

I see people do it occasionally still though.

I'd actually just rather avoid that sort of game entirely.

The fun is spoiled for me when the outcome is altered by a stupid move. There's enough luck as it is, I don't want to add the element of random stupidity to the mix if I can help it.

Yes, I'd certainly rather have a game fall into my lap because of that rather than have it fall into someone else's, but it's still lame.

detlef wrote:I'd actually just rather avoid that sort of game entirely.

The fun is spoiled for me when the outcome is altered by a stupid move. There's enough luck as it is, I don't want to add the element of random stupidity to the mix if I can help it.

Yes, I'd certainly rather have a game fall into my lap because of that rather than have it fall into someone else's, but it's still lame.

I agree. But at the same time, a game with a few people who know what they're doing (6-8 esc, specifically) in a game with a few who don't requires a whole different type of strategy. You need to be able to figure out who (of the one who don't know what's going on) going for which continent, get out of their way as best you can, and be ready to kill whichever player(s) are going to get screwed when they go for that continent, while preventing the other more experienced players from doing the same. Still not an easy win, by any means.

before i joined cc i used to play this game all the time. just because i was a cook didnt mean i didnt have the skill.

Not really reliant strategy in my opinion-- you'd base your moves on a possible screw up of another player-- which you couldnt predict at all. Even if he does cripple someone, it doesn't mean you'd be the one being able to take advantage of it, even if you are the very next in line. Most likely, you'd end up blocking others to prevent the game from ending.

jbos wrote:before i joined cc i used to play this game all the time. just because i was a cook didnt mean i didnt have the skill.

For starters, most of us here played Risk prior to joining or wouldn't be here now. Secondly, I recall having a pretty good handle on the game prior to joining but nothing like playing a ton of games at once on various maps against others who are playing it a ton to refine your skills. Lastly, while ?s, privates, and, to a degree cadets may simply be otherwise good players who haven't played enough games to earn points or at very least even out a few unlucky games that they lost, cooks have often "earned" that distinction by being inclined to making poor moves.

detlef wrote:Lastly, while ?s, privates, and, to a degree cadets may simply be otherwise good players who haven't played enough games to earn points or at very least even out a few unlucky games that they lost, cooks have often "earned" that distinction by being inclined to making poor moves.

I'm inclined to agree with this idea. Prior to coming here I've only played a few games against computer players and tried grand strategy at denizen games(the clunky interface there drove me here in a matter of days). While I'm certainly not close to on par with the good players yet I've never been ranked lower than a private either. Right now I spend most of my time playing a wide variety of non-classic maps and in spite of picking my games for fun instead of for best chance of winning still managing to hover in the Sergeant range.

Is it actually fun to play the game like that?
Also, isn't it possible that a lot of players have played Risk before?

you can try it. But chances are you won't benefit.

Atm on average I get like 5 points from a cook and lose about 55 points from them. So if I win 11 and lose 1 I break even. Not worth it.

Since I suck as well (It is 2 years since I last played risk, and I am new to CC), so I probably does more stupid stuff than the "cooks" anyway. (Like now, putting all my troops in argentina (first choise ftw) so I cant attack..)

Any games that can excite or stimulate me are my favorites,so guy,go ahead!

In public 8 for sure this is good but can also backfire in the first few rounds if you are in their way. In tourney games once I found myself waiting till certain players joined cause I knew a bit about them but I don't use this much cause I start most my own public games or join a few private games with similar ranks. So I try to figure out the players as fast as I can cause it is all different with who knows who joining. Timminz put it right I believe. Public 8, the way to be.

this may just be me, but it seems kinda noobish to just play noobs to get points and move up in rank....
when i join a game, i want to play the highest ranked and the best.... and the best definately isnt a person who only plays noobs.....
people like that are pansies and a disgrace to all risk and CC players....
not that you are one, im just saying its a bad idea and horrible stratagy....
lol
thats all folks........

Cooks Generally skip turns and make the game drag on for ages.I don't see a tactical advantage to this other than it might be close to bedtime and they'll send you off to sleep.
Of course I don't mean all cooks.Jamie Olivier makes a Fantastic Greek Salad.

FabledIntegral wrote:you can try it. But chances are you won't benefit.

Atm on average I get like 5 points from a cook and lose about 55 points from them. So if I win 11 and lose 1 I break even. Not worth it.

I see the point you are making, but your maths is flawed unless you are playing 2 player. In an 8 player game with 7 cooks - you need to win maybe 3 games out of every 5, still terrible odds but not 11 in 12!

I always join games with higher ranking players so I'll lose less if I lose and win more if I win. In all modesty, I think that I'm better than my rank shows, so I have a good chance of winning even if they are a higher rank.

Oppressor wrote:I always join games with higher ranking players so I'll lose less if I lose and win more if I win. In all modesty, I think that I'm better than my rank shows, so I have a good chance of winning even if they are a higher rank.

That's a great tactic. Not only is the point-risk better, but you'll also be able to learn from the better players.