Which is the "more pure" game? Flat Rate or Esc

[detlef]

As I'm joining more and more ranked games, I notice the style of choice to be escalating. I'm assuming the rationale is that, since all types of sets are as good as the next, it takes one element of luck out of the game. Fair enough, though it doesn't do so entirely and it may replace one version of luck with one (or two) much more important ones.

If I may, obviously it is quite frustrating and can sometimes be tough to overcome the fact that you're always making red sets when your opponents are making mixed. However, is that element of luck more important than the element of luck in being able to make any set out of three cards when the values are up high enough to end the game as opposed to needing 4 or 5?

I mean, in one case, we're talking about 6 armies, in the other, we're talking about game over.

Which brings up another point. In fixed rate games, the cards are limited enough in their importance that they down trump the basic elements of the game. After all, they essentially render bonus areas obsolete. When you play among stronger players, it ends up being a case of everyone tiptoeing around each other, looking for an easy card and sizing each other up for elimination. Then, somebody strikes and the game is over for one of two reasons. Either they achieve the first take out and are off to the races, or they fall short and the luck bastard who's turn is next gets to sweep up the nearly eliminated player, cash in, take out the guy who just depleted himself trying to take out said player, cash in, and run the table.

Easily most of the esc games I'm in end up that way. Meanwhile, the flat rate games tend to draw out longer, have back and forth momentum swings, etc.

Now, before some of you go Pavlov's dog on me and recite the "stop playing escalating if you don't like it" or "you're just pissed because you're not good at that setting" auto-responses, understand that I actually fair reasonably well in those games and enjoy the excitement of running the table enough that the setting doesn't bother me at all.

Rather, I'm just curious about your thoughts and why this seems to be the setting of choice among the CC upper tier.

[detlef]

I understand that I left out no-cards. However, the only no cards games that I've found to be engaging are 1v1 (or head to head team games). Without the incentive to attack for the sake of a card, the others just drag on until somebody gets bored and basically goes suicidal. That, IMO has more to do with luck than anything with cards.

[yeti_c]

Woah - not at all - No cards is much more strategic than that...

Personally I dislike Escalating - but there is plenty of strategy involved - when to take cards - when to not - etc...

Flat rate also has it's own strategy too...

All 3 styles are equally as strategic as each other...

C.

[BaldAdonis]

Flat rate relies heavily on manipulating your opponents to fight each other, whereas escalating is almost entirely (unless you play freestyle) dictated by your own moves: who you block, where you set up, when you decide to attack. Since higher ranked payers know that flat rate is about manipulating, there is very little manipulation done, because everyone knows what different moves (taking a continent, eliminating a player, etc) entail, and don't make moves that will get themselves killed. They are less likely to make the bad moves that result in a game ending, and so the games go on for a long, long time.
Escalating is better at discerning the good, from the really good, because there are a lot more tricks to learn.

That's all a bit abstract, so for example, I'm in a World 2.1 flat rate game where one player hit a bad streak of dice, deployed in continents that got snapped up by others, and was left with 5 territories and 1 card. Instead of attacking to get back and get more cards, he just deployed each turn, and decreased the incentive for anyone to kill him. I doubt many players in open games would use this strategy, but he stayed alive a lot longer for it. In the end I killed him, because I know that a player left alone like that will be trouble in 50 rounds, but again, that strategy wouldn't come up in other games. That game will probably last ages, as 4 of us are pretty entrenched.
Too often, this happens:
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=863022
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=848473
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=845130
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=949368
Two of those are no cards, but you get the picture. Escalating games don't usually do that.

Try terminator games for more incentive to kill, or fog of war. When you can hide, more attacks happen.

*edit*
To answer your question, the most pure game is escalating (sequential, adjacent), because that's what the game was originally.

[detlef]

Woah - not at all - No cards is much more strategic than that...

Personally I dislike Escalating - but there is plenty of strategy involved - when to take cards - when to not - etc...

Flat rate also has it's own strategy too...

All 3 styles are equally as strategic as each other...

C.

I've been in some very entertaining 2v2 no cards games, so I'm not dogging the set-up entirely. Perhaps multi player no cards games can be engaging, well, unless everyone gets cozy, then it's just a matter of who has the most patience. If borders are allowed to get solid, then attacking at all simply costs you guys vs the table and only helps the not participating parties. Certainly it rewards positional advantage and ratio of bonuses earned to required borders to defend. Of course, that only comes into play once people start attacking each other and then you can refer to above.

Obviously in head to head, this is not an issue.

Certainly I'm missing something, but I've discussed the nuances with others and none has satisfactorily convinced me that my analysis above is all that off.

[alex_white101]

i simply find it more exciting to play escalating, but i find no cards far more strategical. escalating also i only like to play freestyle as people tend to screw up and if its sequential u are more likely to get completely screwed if its not ur go next.

[detlef]

Try terminator games for more incentive to kill, or fog of war. When you can hide, more attacks happen.

*edit*
To answer your question, the most pure game is escalating (sequential, adjacent), because that's what the game was originally.

I enjoy terminator but mostly because it gives you another way to take advantage of somebody else's poor play. In essence, by dangling a carrot besides cards for taking someone out, it causes players to go for unwise elimination attempts which can take away one opponent and possibly leave another weak.

Of course, terminator, escalating is somewhat redundant and I suppose only matters in terms of spreading the wealth as far as points goes.

As to your final comment. This would not be the first time that a game was invented only to find that, as players got good at it, some fundamental elements of the game were rendered obsolete. In this case, Bonus areas. I had risk as a kid and played it all the time. Despite the escalating cards, it was still always about the bonus areas. It wasn't until I played here as an adult that I realized how useless they are.

[Rocketry]

Woah - not at all - No cards is much more strategic than that...

Personally I dislike Escalating - but there is plenty of strategy involved - when to take cards - when to not - etc...

Flat rate also has it's own strategy too...

All 3 styles are equally as strategic as each other...

C.

A*

[comic boy]

All 3 game types require different strategy but the great advantage of escalating is the absence almost entirely of alliances, ganging up and all the rest of that crap.

[Larry Mal]

In no card games you have the option, if the early opening moves aren't successful, to stockpiling yourself up in one location so that you are a very unappealing target. The thought here is that when your opponents exhaust each other, you can sweep the rest of the game. This approach rarely works. But it's an option.

I've only lately started playing escalating again- I wouldn't even play it when I was a kid on the board game. It has huge elements of luck in a game that already has tons of dependency on luck to be succesful, i.e. initial placement, the dice, and the draw of cards. And that's not figuring in the uncalculable, what your opponents are going to do.

I tend to like fixed sets, it has the balance of luck and skill for me.

The only games I can think of with no luck are Chess and Go. Anything with a random draw like cards or dice will be luck dependent to a degree.

But Christ, I feel like a fool posting this- whatever you do, don't take my strategies to heart, I've been on the worst losing streak I've had yet lately, plummeting six or seven ranks over the last two months. The 8 player games are fun, but really decrease your winning percentage potentially- at best, you have a 1 in 8 chance of winning. The other areas of luck in the initial placement would even out over the course of games, and the dice would be an average as well- I don't know what. But you see my point.

I'm boring myself at this point: Good luck all!

[Kemmler]

Escalting throws more luck in and is great fun, the mian thing is it's classic risk.

[comic boy]

In no card games you have the option, if the early opening moves aren't successful, to stockpiling yourself up in one location so that you are a very unappealing target. The thought here is that when your opponents exhaust each other, you can sweep the rest of the game. This approach rarely works. But it's an option.

I've only lately started playing escalating again- I wouldn't even play it when I was a kid on the board game. It has huge elements of luck in a game that already has tons of dependency on luck to be succesful, i.e. initial placement, the dice, and the draw of cards. And that's not figuring in the uncalculable, what your opponents are going to do.

I tend to like fixed sets, it has the balance of luck and skill for me.

The only games I can think of with no luck are Chess and Go. Anything with a random draw like cards or dice will be luck dependent to a degree.

But Christ, I feel like a fool posting this- whatever you do, don't take my strategies to heart, I've been on the worst losing streak I've had yet lately, plummeting six or seven ranks over the last two months. The 8 player games are fun, but really decrease your winning percentage potentially- at best, you have a 1 in 8 chance of winning. The other areas of luck in the initial placement would even out over the course of games, and the dice would be an average as well- I don't know what. But you see my point.

I'm boring myself at this point: Good luck all!

I would say that the initial placement in escalating is far less important than it is in no cards or fixed, continents dont matter !

[RobinJ]

I just love escalating. I can't cope with the never ending flat rate or no cards games because I'm usually the one hiding in the corner. Escalating is usually over in ten, maybe 15 rounds, (on a relatively small map). I like the thrill of the kill and the chain eliminations. sure there is luvk involved. Quite often you're screwed if you don't get a set at 4 cards. Similarly, if the values are high enough, someone gets a set with 3 cards and wins the game - you feel some injustice. It is also hard to take the roller coaster up and down the scoreboard that seems to result but its all part of the fun!

[Scott-Land]

a continent bonus increases my chances of winning-- i win far more esc games when i hold one. obviously you don't need a continent bonus to win but quite many players confuse the two.

[detlef]

a continent bonus increases my chances of winning-- i win far more esc games when i hold one. obviously you don't need a continent bonus to win but quite many players confuse the two.

Well, I certainly agree that people can be dogmatic about their lack of interest in bonuses and that can be their undoing. Continents certainly aren't worth beating yourself up over, but it can be silly to completely ignore them.

Of course, the one major flaw with holding them is that it can allow people to take you out easily (since you might fail to fortify your random holdings elsewhere and all your big guns are in one place) additionally, you're limited in your ability to take advantage of a take out that fell short and go clean up and run because you're armies are neither all on one spot (meaning you can reach nearly any spot on the board from there) nor do you have a strong presence in various spots on the board (to do the same or even initiate your own take out run).

[Herakilla]

i have had maybe at most 10 games all together of no cards that dragged on. my advice to keep them going? never stop being aggressive, its what i do

[Genghis Khan CA]

a continent bonus increases my chances of winning-- i win far more esc games when i hold one. obviously you don't need a continent bonus to win but quite many players confuse the two.

Just for interest scott, are you talking freestyle or high ranked games here? I know in the high ranked games you sometimes get conts but often they are blocked off by other players (especially comic )

Obviously a cont is an big advantage if you can get it at a relatively cheap cost... but if someone has shoved a 10 in indonesia it's usually not worth it. I generally don't go for continents in 6p escalating unless it is fairly easy, but that is just my style.

Obviously all have different styles... I usually focus on takeouts better when I don't take continents, I know others love to take continents and it works for them too, so yes as long as you aren't too dogmatic there is room for different styles (eg don't avoid a continent when you only have to take a 1 to secure it... or dont go for australia when your closest armies are in china )

Back on topic... I'd say the reason more high rankers like escalating are:

1) It is much faster... stick high rankers in a flat rate/ no cards games and you will find them still going months or years later

2) As comic boy says, there is absolutely no point to alliances in these games or favouring other players... the hold back and strike whilst the iron is hot method ensures this. This is particularly handy if you are playing players that you know and are on friendly terms with

3) It's closer to the original rules of risk

4) The strategy involved is very subtle and intricate... whereas in flat rate /no cardsyou are planning strategy over rounds, in escalating the game moves so quickly that you might need to change plans 3 times in the same round

5) It is terribly exciting when you can run through a board!

[Iron Butterfly]

A very good topic for discussion.

Though at first glance I was wondering how people would be defining "most pure". Everyone for the most part has been eloquent in their opinions and why they have a preference for a given card style.

My game preference changes with my mood. My most enjoyable games so far have been no card games with fog of war. Out of the three it requires the most discourse as the game can get bogged down in entrenched stalemates.

Gaining BONUS areas is the most esential early goal one should have in a no card.

My least favorite style is ESC, which is ironic because my only three wins has been with ESC cards. I was at the right place at the right time, had good dice. I won the North American Map by round 8 with 8 people. i could have easily have lost and up until I took out my first opponent I was slowwly being squeezed out.

Its been alot of fun so far playing the differing styles. CC is NOT like the board game for a variety of reasons. The game mechanics are the same but the flow and social aspects are different. In the miltary we always played escalating chained. We also played games with nucs where a triple would knock a territory out...hehe but thats for a different post.

For me the biggest thing I have learned about escalating is that strong holds in bonus territories really can be a hinderence as I have noticed the sharks coming in for the kill as I get weaker AND not having acess to other areas.

Finaly I am one who likes a drawn out game. Winning is great but for me the enjoyment of the game is the complexity that some can take. Also I cant tell you how many times I have logged on thinking myself secure in my position only to find the world wiped clean and I have 3 armies left.

I consider myself a good player but I am learning very quickly that there IS alot to learn besides the fact that we are all at the mercy to the same dice.

[happyjoel]

I think it's just a matter of how long you want the game to last. Escalating ensures that it won't last that long, whereas the flat rate or no card games it takes longer to develop a strong enough base to win.



http://www.youtube.com/wheresyours
vote HAPPYJOEL

[billval3]

The thing I have found distasteful about non-escalating games is that it's easy to make a mistake and not be able to make a comeback. I like the idea of a nice long game, but not when it's long and I'm slowly losing the whole time!

[Robinette]

Great thread...

Most 'pure' as in closest to the original Risk of course is Std, Seq, Escalating, Adj on the Classic map...

But this still differs significantly from the original, as here we start with random countries with 3 armies each... And this is why continent bonuses play such an insignificant role in CC compared to the board game...

But regardless, in both RISK and in CC, it really helps when you understand how escalating works...


And some people, no matter how hard they try, just don't get escalating... like these guys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_ScpGrz ... re=related

So of course it's all about your personal preferences... but for me, i love the speed and intensity of escalating...

[KoE_Sirius]

Robinette ..Thats one scarey sig.

[comic boy]

a continent bonus increases my chances of winning-- i win far more esc games when i hold one. obviously you don't need a continent bonus to win but quite many players confuse the two.

Yes but taking a continent depends on;

1) Quality of opponent - good players can isolate you very easily
2) Ease of Capture - Own 3 on South America and go first then sure its a no brainer.
3) Timing - After the first 4 or 5 rounds it is pointless as the 2 bonus becomes immaterial once cashes go in.
4) Balance of the game - If by taking the continent you severely weaken an opponent then you are almost certainly shooting yourself in the foot.

Now Scott you know all this but many lesser players do not so I can be dogmatic in saying firstly that amongst higher ranks you see far less capturing of continents, in escalating a continent is far less important than in other forms of the game.

Ps As an exercise try knocking Scott out of a continent and note the verbal lashing you will recieve for your poor play

[yeti_c]

In the UK - (And europe I believe) the game has always been produced as "flat rate"... and not escalating...

C.

[comic boy]

In the UK - (And europe I believe) the game has always been produced as "flat rate"... and not escalating...

C.

No the choice is given to play either way with the added option of mission cards, no cards play is not mentioned in the rules.