Kaskavel wrote: Jippd wrote:
Kaskavel wrote:Yes...yes...if target gets quite strong, things change. Although I am not sure if they change in a good way or a bad way. Third player stops attacking you and attacks your target, even better. And of course if he is gaining head, tactics will change. Always, if one gains head things change, no matter who has bonuses and who does not.
What I ask, can be described easily. We start a 3 player game, A takes Australia, B takes S America. C attacks A and breaks him, A attacks back and reclaims, C breaks him again, A reclaims again and then B wins. I always see this behavor in all games I try
It depends who has who for a target. Say C has A, A has B and B has C in your scenario.
If A knows how to play they would not attack C back to get the bonus. They would make breaking C B's responsibility as it is B's target.
So with the scenario you are laying out. "A and C attacking each other and weakening themselves so much that B can sweep in and kill C. yes I would say B should sit back. For this scenario though you are counting on poor play by A which is not a guarantee.
Hold on. If you suggest that A should not take the bonus back, then it was a mistake to take it at the first place. Your logic leads to the conclusion that we should not take a bonus if our killer can break us, because if he breaks us, it is wrong to attack back. I do not think that this should be the case, seems wrong
I am stating and do think that if A took a bonus that C could break it was a mistake. Taking a bonus in assassin requires delicate play and diligent thought. If you take a bonus that your assassin borders you can and should expect them to attack you and it is their responsibility to do so. Instead it is best to take a bonus that your assassin can't get to. Even better when your target is the buffer between your assassin and your bonus.
Your assassin has the responsibility and duty to attack you. If A takes a bonus and C has A as a target C will HAVE to attack A. If A and C fight back and forth over the bonus because A wants to take it back it results in A and C decreasing in troop totals while B grows. B will do as you say in your scenario and sit back and build and easily can kill C later who is being attacked by both A and B as a result of A's foolish play. This attacking of A to get their bonus back results in A weakening C who will be easily killed by B since B and A are attacking C. C is attacking A and nobody is attacking B because A is too focused on their bonus. The game will always go to player B because A played the game wrong.
This is a result of A playing foolishly and wasting their troops on someone elses target which is a great way to give away a win.
The only way to win as player B is to have a stupid player A and you hope to not be player C.
In your scenario you want to play the role of player C. You will let A have the bonus but hope that A and B are fighting. Your theory is that A will be thin themselves out by holding their bonus and using their troops to attack B.
If A is smart they will do this intelligently with their extra income. They will be able to attack B while making sure they don't thin themselves out enough so that you (C) can come in and sweep them for a kill. This is all happening while you are sitting back and hoping A thins themselves out on B enough that you can sweep in for a kill.
I don't think experienced assassin players will make these mistakes which is why I don't think it makes a good strategy. Your principles are sound and ideas are good but there is too much of a factor of luck involved. It requires players not knowing how to play and making mistakes which give you the game.
To me a comparison would be to say that a good plan for escalating play is to sit back and only build a stack. The way to win is to let a player cash to early and almost get a kill but miss. Then you have to be the next player to go and you can steal the kill. This may happen, but I never like basing my strategy solely off hoping someone else is going to make the right mistake at the right time to give me a win.
I think that if you played with an experienced assassin player and they were their target and you let them keep their bonus and nobody else had a bonus the player with a bonus can will and should win.