*New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

[Zigtar]

I am and adult player that is new to conquer club and have been trying out the site for a few weeks. I have seen a trend that I would like to get a greater understanding of. I have only won one game as of yet and consider myself an excellent strategist. I expect this to happen as I learn the maps and different play styles.

When playing with the following game conditions, escalating bonus cards, freestyle or sequential this seems to occur. (More in free style then sequential) (I had preferred freestyle for the faster pace.)

Most games that I have experienced seem to end in a single turn with the elimination of over 50% of the players in that round. It also seems that there is little to no reward for controlling countries for bonuses. Players seem to stack up cards when they can delay turn in until most players have at least 3 cards and a few players are slightly weakened. The winner is very often one of the weakest players on the bored with on territory that is highly fortified and they just take one territory each turn to get a card.

They turn in one set and the following ensues:

Bonus armies from one set

Eliminate player collect their cards turn in next set. Before you know it the weakest player on the board has turned in 5 sets of cards and eliminates every player on the board.

Unless I am mistaken it appears to be a simple game of waiting the other players out and with the most simple of basic strategies that a mere child could comprehend win the game.
(EXAMPLE GAME: 2665641) There have been many but this is one example.

I came to CC to find some competition from strategy lovers not from fifth grade level stall tactics. It is very possible that as a new player I am missing an element of strategy or am simply being out played.

Is this a trend only found in certain styles of game play? Or is there game maps or styles that require real strategy to win?


Sincerely,

Zigtar

[Anarkistsdream]

That wouldn't happen in Flat Rate or No Cards...

While Escalating is the way you play traditionally with Risk, I find that I really dislike it here at CC.

Hope you have fun!

[Kaplowitz]

In escalating, cards are more important than bonuses because they can give you much more armies, and are easier to get!
Just play No Cards if you dont want sets to influence the game

[Zigtar]

WOW thank you for the fast response. Yes flat rate would prevent this and No cards would as well. Most games seem to be esc cards. But I guess it is my choice what games I chose to play. If I want to play a strategty game choose flat or no cards would be the way to go.

Am I correct in seeing the stall and chain turn in as the primary method of winning in those esc card games?

[bbqpenguin]

the thing is here, you're using the wrong type of strategy. your stuck thinking that countries and continent bonuses, carefully calculated long terms plans, etc. are vital in escalating game. however, the general strategy that people who win this type of game is exactly opposite; armies and cards matter, not continental bonuses, and what you do on a given turn depends completely on what the other players have done in their past turns, things can change dramatically from one round to another. if you don't like this style of play, i recommend no cards games or flat rate

and yes, generally you want to wait as long as possible to cash in order to get the most bang for your buck, then go for the weakest players that will give you the cards you need and work your way up

[detlef]

WOW thank you for the fast response. Yes flat rate would prevent this and No cards would as well. Most games seem to be esc cards. But I guess it is my choice what games I chose to play. If I want to play a strategty game choose flat or no cards would be the way to go.

Am I correct in seeing the stall and chain turn in as the primary method of winning in those esc card games?

Well, you are correct in noticing that taking bonus areas doesn't make sense in escalating but I think, in your frustration, you've oversimplified the tactic. To a novice it does seem like doing nothing more than biding your time but in good games there's some serious positional strategy that goes into it. Also, you need to have a pretty good grasp of odds.

I must say that I find it amusing that you would trivialize a strategy as juvenile when it's been used against you so well.

So, yes, if you want a game that conforms to what you hold to be important in this game, then you should either go for flat rate or no cards games or play larger maps that make bonuses worth holding even in escalating games.

[Zigtar]

I am not ashamed of the fact that I have been completely obliterated by a strategy that has been superior to my tactics on those games. It has happened about 3-4x and it took me that many games to understand what happened because the game log rarely shows more data then the last 1 or 2 players being knocked out. I can’t see the path the player took to win because that information is not visible to me.

I am trying to recognize what strategy is being used against me to understand it and make appropriate changes. My summary was not that that is an excellent strategy for those games. That style seems to benefit the player that can merely out wait the other players. While this is a perfectly fair strategy it does not take much talent to watch a clock to compete for who is the last to play. That was my simple observation.

I am close to upgrading my membership @ CC but I want to see that this is something that will challenge me as I meet admirable opponents. After all the best way to improve is to play people who are better then I. Those players using the stall tactic have simply been better then me for that game style. I just think its an entry level tactic that’s all I am saying.

[wcaclimbing]

one of the biggest differences between CC and real life risk is how armies are deployed. Here, its automatically 3 everywhere. In the Risk board game (at least the way I played it) you can deploy armies wherever you want, which ends up leaving a bunch of one-army territories on the map, but also big armies so you can do what you want.
Here on CC with the 3 deployed everywhere, it is more difficult to take continents. And with the map image being so small, its easy to see who owns what, and it gets rather intimidating to see someone holding an entire continent, more so than in the board game. That leads to many players just giving up on the bonuses and spreading their armies across the map. With everyone spread out, it eliminates the threat of someone getting eliminated, which gives their cards to someone, which leads to a chain of kills and ends the game.

So, yes, the waiting strategy is one of the more popular ones.
I don't understand it too much, because I haven't played many games with lots of high ranked players in the settings you are talking about. What I know, I wrote above this.

I'm in the same boat as you, both of us liked the same strategy, both of us get destroyed by the "waiting game"

[Thezzaruz]

because the game log rarely shows more data then the last 1 or 2 players being knocked out. I can’t see the path the player took to win because that information is not visible to me.

On the right hand side just below the game log window you can click on the "load entire log" and that will show you all the info you want. (without it it just shows the last 50 lines)

While Escalating is the way you play traditionally with Risk, I find that I really dislike it here at CC.

Not entirely true, esc has been the rule in all US editions but in many earlier European editions flat rate has been the standard setting (with esc as an option mentioned for those wanting shorter games).

[detlef]

I am not ashamed of the fact that I have been completely obliterated by a strategy that has been superior to my tactics on those games. It has happened about 3-4x and it took me that many games to understand what happened because the game log rarely shows more data then the last 1 or 2 players being knocked out. I can’t see the path the player took to win because that information is not visible to me.

I am trying to recognize what strategy is being used against me to understand it and make appropriate changes. My summary was not that that is an excellent strategy for those games. That style seems to benefit the player that can merely out wait the other players. While this is a perfectly fair strategy it does not take much talent to watch a clock to compete for who is the last to play. That was my simple observation.

I am close to upgrading my membership @ CC but I want to see that this is something that will challenge me as I meet admirable opponents. After all the best way to improve is to play people who are better then I. Those players using the stall tactic have simply been better then me for that game style. I just think its an entry level tactic that’s all I am saying.

First, my apologies for not noticing the fact that you were mostly playing freestyle. I actually don't play that style and suggest that anyone who seems to be a purist (like yourself) avoid it as well. It's wrought with cheap tactics that it rewards highly.

However, in terms of "waiting around" to cash in sequential games, there really is more to it than you're seeing. This whole preliminary dance is done to size up who's your best mark for elimination, spreading yourself out enough to not be one yourself but not so much that you don't have the juice to strike when the moment is right, and even protecting your opponents from others so that nobody but you can launch an elimination run. That's a whole lot more than waiting to get lucky. Of course, that's where the odds come in.

[Zigtar]

Thank you all for your input. (Especially letting me know that I can load the entire game log)

All points made have been valid and I now think I understand a slightly deeper level of various strategies. In summary to play a game that does not highly reward “cheap tactics” I should best avoid freestyle games. If I enjoy continents being valued play flat rate or no cards.

I think I will play a few more freestyle games now that I understand it better just long enough to win a few before trying to see what I can learn from some of the other styles.

[Timminz]

Thank you all for your input. (Especially letting me know that I can load the entire game log)

All points made have been valid and I now think I understand a slightly deeper level of various strategies. In summary to play a game that does not highly reward “cheap tactics” I should best avoid freestyle games. If I enjoy continents being valued play flat rate or no cards.

I think I will play a few more freestyle games now that I understand it better just long enough to win a few before trying to see what I can learn from some of the other styles.

Those are wonderful conclusions. I think you'll do well here.

[FabledIntegral]

From another topic - some will be irrelevant... this was explaining why freestyle escalating games took the *most* strategy on the site, which is a direct contrast of what you're saying in terms of "stall tactics." This is also how classic risk was played, so if you considered yourself an excellent strategist at that game, you were highly mistaken; you were most likely playing with other people as well who don't know the game as well. Let me guess - you always went for Aussie or South America first? Gotta love the bottom ranked players for doing that...

1. No card games are more dependent on dice + drop than escalating game, which is significantly more dependent on strategy. Sure you can get screwed by having two countries in Oceania, and 3 in Africa, but you can still reposition yourself (will go over it in the next point).

2. If you think that the first 5 turns involve no strategy, that's probably why you're low ranked. It involves moving your armies around, and positioning yourself for prime position. Find out who's weak, who's wasting their armies, and how you can get near them. At the same time, you need to ensure you get a card, and don't attack too many people en route to your destination, lest you lose too many armies yourself and become a target. Also if you see a low rank who IS weak but is apt to attack randomly on whoever is next to them, figure out if it is beneficial enough to stay next to them. Debate on what is more important, moving to a location to get a +2 bonus because you have a card for the territory, or moving into a position that is more advantageous.

3. You need to know when to cash or when not to cash in a casual game. If you have 4 cards, should you cash, or wait for 5? If you wait for five, you can potentially do a midcash the next turn by killing any 3's on the board. However, by not cashing you make yourself a prime target to others who want to kill you and take your cards.

4. Flat Rate is the least strategy type in the entire game. In a 1v1 (on smaller maps), whoever gets the first mixed set will almost always win, assuming the other person does not also get one. It makes it *so* dependent on luck and so devoid of strategy I have stopped playing flat rate games in one player.

5. Unlimited is a preference over anything else. Having chained would hardly alter gameplay, and if you think that high ranked players are "dependent" on that, you are highly mistaken.

6. Going on after point #1, no card games, if played by higher ranks, will generally end in stalemates, because they are smart and don't make retarded moves. However at low ranks, players are so stupid and don't see the bigger picture they just attack who's next to them. I typically get caught in this crossfire. And considering if I play 8 player games with low ranks (who often suicide higher ranks because they fear strategy, not kidding, I've had it happen, people in chat say "sorry I just get nervous around high ranks so I try to target them first"), if I win 3/8 of my 8 player freestyle games I'll probably just break even points wise (I lose about 60 points vs a cook, gain 5), and that's still beating the odds (as you should obviously win 1/8 of your freestyle games statistically).

7. Terminator games are out of the question as then players have a legitimate reason to suicide me as they get more points sacrificing themselves to take me down in the process.

8. Fog of War games is simply a mode that adds luck to the game, and log analyzing, not something I'm fond of. You have to continually look at the log and compare it to the map to be able to predict where they will be, about how many armies they will have had to kill to get to that location, and their strength. Not worth my time.

[Ditocoaf]

Simple:

If you want a cards-dominated game, play escalating.
If you want a map-dominated game (including stuff like continents), play flat rate.
If you want a drop-dominated game, play no cards.

If you want the strategy to involve Real Life time, play Freestyle.
If you want the strategy to stay locked up in the computer, play Sequential.

[MeDeFe]

FI, I think you're being unfairly negative towards flat rate and no cards games. Breaking the stalemates you mentioned is an art in its own right. Enforcing a switch of continents with an other player to your advantage while not hanging both of you takes at least as much skills as positioning oneself for a kill. Judging the map, the fortifications, the positioning of your armies and the positioning of your enemies armies to decide whether you can afford to wage a decisive war against the remaining two opponents is at least as hard as deciding the perfect moment for a cash in that will let you sweep the board. No, don't try telling me that there is little strategy involved in games with flat rate or no cards.

And 1vs1 games always depend on luck, you picked a very bad example for flat rate there.

Fortifications do have a great impact on the strategy you use, at least in flat rate and no cards. With unlimited you can regroup however you want, bring in reinforcements from anywhere, with adjacent you have to be very careful about how you position yourself. If you appear too aggressive you might become a target for everyone else, hang back and you will not be able to keep your armies as active as you need them. Saying that they're all fundamentally the same is a gross oversimplification.

[FabledIntegral]

FI, I think you're being unfairly negative towards flat rate and no cards games. Breaking the stalemates you mentioned is an art in its own right. Enforcing a switch of continents with an other player to your advantage while not hanging both of you takes at least as much skills as positioning oneself for a kill. Judging the map, the fortifications, the positioning of your armies and the positioning of your enemies armies to decide whether you can afford to wage a decisive war against the remaining two opponents is at least as hard as deciding the perfect moment for a cash in that will let you sweep the board. No, don't try telling me that there is little strategy involved in games with flat rate or no cards.

And 1vs1 games always depend on luck, you picked a very bad example for flat rate there.

Fortifications do have a great impact on the strategy you use, at least in flat rate and no cards. With unlimited you can regroup however you want, bring in reinforcements from anywhere, with adjacent you have to be very careful about how you position yourself. If you appear too aggressive you might become a target for everyone else, hang back and you will not be able to keep your armies as active as you need them. Saying that they're all fundamentally the same is a gross oversimplification.

Flat Rate games in itself do highly depend on luck - I've played more than my fair share of them. I know the strategies as well of no cards and flat rate, I've played at least 33% of my overall games as flat rate/no card, probably more like 50%.

However a large majority of those games enter near immediate stalemates - large build games. if you're patient, go ahead and play them (I'm referring to classic map fyi). However if you have people who know what they are doing in a game they won't do the classic "attack whatever is touching me until they are gone," which directly results in large border building that goes on for round... and round... and round...

I haven't played a no card game since this one, simply because of the frustration involved...

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=1999326

Some player in there, I have NA, he has Europe, it's become a buildgame with stalemates concerning who has the continents... he randomly decides DESPITE the fact he has the largest bonus (he was getting europe + most territories), he was going to auto my greenland and take out 80+ armies, because he wanted to get things moving or something. So I went and took all my armies off central and autoed him back with my 70 or something for revenge, virtually throwing 39 rounds (thus like 2 months of play), out the window. Luckily, even though I only had 30 or so armies left, the other two guys with 120 armies each threw all their armies at each other and I was able to hold my own and come back.

Nonetheless the frustration from a game like that is ridiculous... why would I want to play 51 round games of that crap? It's all waiting until whoever blows a fuse and gets tired of playing the game, and that's how a large majority of games go where people don't make suicidal moves. It happens in escalating too, just a lot less often, and more strategy, imo, revolves around positioning, while the other games it's just "did I get a lucky enough drop to grab a continent and secure my position."

[Scott-Land]

I am not ashamed of the fact that I have been completely obliterated by a strategy that has been superior to my tactics on those games. It has happened about 3-4x and it took me that many games to understand what happened because the game log rarely shows more data then the last 1 or 2 players being knocked out. I can’t see the path the player took to win because that information is not visible to me.

I am trying to recognize what strategy is being used against me to understand it and make appropriate changes. My summary was not that that is an excellent strategy for those games. That style seems to benefit the player that can merely out wait the other players. While this is a perfectly fair strategy it does not take much talent to watch a clock to compete for who is the last to play. That was my simple observation.

I am close to upgrading my membership @ CC but I want to see that this is something that will challenge me as I meet admirable opponents. After all the best way to improve is to play people who are better then I. Those players using the stall tactic have simply been better then me for that game style. I just think its an entry level tactic that’s all I am saying.

First, my apologies for not noticing the fact that you were mostly playing freestyle. I actually don't play that style and suggest that anyone who seems to be a purist (like yourself) avoid it as well. It's wrought with cheap tactics that it rewards highly.

However, in terms of "waiting around" to cash in sequential games, there really is more to it than you're seeing. This whole preliminary dance is done to size up who's your best mark for elimination, spreading yourself out enough to not be one yourself but not so much that you don't have the juice to strike when the moment is right, and even protecting your opponents from others so that nobody but you can launch an elimination run. That's a whole lot more than waiting to get lucky. Of course, that's where the odds come in.

Why would you try to influence a new player with your cheap, shallow and mindless tactics ?

You know what-- I'll just throw you on ignore so that I don't have to read your idiotic posts.

[Zigtar]

Hmm the more different views I hear the more I am intrigued. I have gone ahead and upgraded my membership and am currently trying out various types of maps to see what other tactics I can observe. It appears that I have a lot to learn about how the different environments change the tactics so much. I made several games of the same map and just changed the fortifications conditions to see how they affect my play.

The path I have chosen to become a better player is the following:

1. Play a small quantity of maps with all conditions the same except fortifications.

I hope this will teach me to grasp the varying strategy concepts in regards to fortification.

2. Play one map with the same fortification terms and change the cards conditions.

I think I will have to do this with each of the fortifying types as well.

3. Try a few combinations of the previous with varying amounts of players.


4. Not sure yet I will have to reassess my results and experience at that time.


Suggestions are welcome.

PS When I said I considered my self an excellent strategist I was not referring to Risk style games specifically. I was referring to many types of strategy games.

My experience is in many types of gaming as well as many different games.

[IronE.GLE]

I would suggest staying away from Freestyle games and opt for Speed games now that you are a paid member. Freestyle is nothing more than a way to get cheap wins, but they will all tell you it requires better strategy yadda yadda ya. Stalemates only happen when people are too cowardly to take a chance, simply don't understand the game or both.

[FabledIntegral]

I would suggest staying away from Freestyle games and opt for Speed games now that you are a paid member. Freestyle is nothing more than a way to get cheap wins, but they will all tell you it requires better strategy yadda yadda ya. Stalemates only happen when people are too cowardly to take a chance, simply don't understand the game or both.

Hardly - way to prove your ignorance. Stalemates happen when it's not beneficial for anyone to advance any further. For example, if your only move on the board could be to not attack, or have a 5% chance at winning which thus gives the other player 95% chance at winning, what are you going to do? To even state that you should attempt the 5% chance means that you're playing into your opponent's hands. Which shows very mediocre gameplay by some people who advocate risk taking, most notably the poster I just quoted.

Concerning freestyle, as said, it gives everyone an equal opportunity to make their moves. It's also insanely quicker than sequential games, (both casual or speed). Sequential is merely a game type that you need to have multiple games open at the same time to keep yourself entertained. Freestyle you can actually sit down and focus on one game. Sequential is significantly more luck based.

[IronE.GLE]

I would suggest staying away from Freestyle games and opt for Speed games now that you are a paid member. Freestyle is nothing more than a way to get cheap wins, but they will all tell you it requires better strategy yadda yadda ya. Stalemates only happen when people are too cowardly to take a chance, simply don't understand the game or both.

Hardly - way to prove your ignorance. Stalemates happen when it's not beneficial for anyone to advance any further. For example, if your only move on the board could be to not attack, or have a 5% chance at winning which thus gives the other player 95% chance at winning, what are you going to do? To even state that you should attempt the 5% chance means that you're playing into your opponent's hands. Which shows very mediocre gameplay by some people who advocate risk taking, most notably the poster I just quoted.

Concerning freestyle, as said, it gives everyone an equal opportunity to make their moves. It's also insanely quicker than sequential games, (both casual or speed). Sequential is merely a game type that you need to have multiple games open at the same time to keep yourself entertained. Freestyle you can actually sit down and focus on one game. Sequential is significantly more luck based.

Attacking someone when you have a 5% chance of winning is not taking a risk, it is complete stupidity. There is always always always a benefit to advancing further..... its called WINNING! And you call me ignorant?

Regarding your statement about sequential games being primarily based on luck, I have to call bullshit on that. Luck plays such an insignificant role in this game IMO. If you rely on luck to win games, you should be playing Chutes and Ladders, not Risk.

[FabledIntegral]

I would suggest staying away from Freestyle games and opt for Speed games now that you are a paid member. Freestyle is nothing more than a way to get cheap wins, but they will all tell you it requires better strategy yadda yadda ya. Stalemates only happen when people are too cowardly to take a chance, simply don't understand the game or both.

Hardly - way to prove your ignorance. Stalemates happen when it's not beneficial for anyone to advance any further. For example, if your only move on the board could be to not attack, or have a 5% chance at winning which thus gives the other player 95% chance at winning, what are you going to do? To even state that you should attempt the 5% chance means that you're playing into your opponent's hands. Which shows very mediocre gameplay by some people who advocate risk taking, most notably the poster I just quoted.

Concerning freestyle, as said, it gives everyone an equal opportunity to make their moves. It's also insanely quicker than sequential games, (both casual or speed). Sequential is merely a game type that you need to have multiple games open at the same time to keep yourself entertained. Freestyle you can actually sit down and focus on one game. Sequential is significantly more luck based.

Attacking someone when you have a 5% chance of winning is not taking a risk, it is complete stupidity. There is always always always a benefit to advancing further..... its called WINNING! And you call me ignorant?

Regarding your statement about sequential games being primarily based on luck, I have to call bullshit on that. Luck plays such an insignificant role in this game IMO. If you rely on luck to win games, you should be playing Chutes and Ladders, not Risk.

Stalemates only happen when people are too cowardly to take a chance, simply don't understand the game or both.
If it's complete stupidity, then why do high ranks get in stalemates more often than shit players? Anything that is going against your odds is strategically retarded. For example, going to kill someone with 3 cards in a game where cashes are 150 and his armies are 700 will NOT benefit you, no matter what map positioning it gives you, if all the other players have around 700 armies as well. Stalemates can occur by round 10 or so in said escalating games - why? Because if everyone has done a good enough job blocking from their opponents, then a stalemate has the potential to occur. If anything, your logic is the absolute opposite of what is truthful, stalemates happen when people simply DO understand the game, and when people are intelligent enough not to take the "complete stupidity" risk at moving it forward.

I also never said sequential is primarily based on luck, I said it's MORE luck orientated than freestyle. Neither are luck based, once again, you lose on both fronts, congrats. Think of something else stupid to bring up for me, ok?

[IronE.GLE]

Well if Player X has ten trillion armies, and Player Y has only 9 trillion armies, the odds of a stalemate are 1/1.

See what I did there, or do you need me to spell out the error in your logic?

[FabledIntegral]

Well if Player X has ten trillion armies, and Player Y has only 9 trillion armies, the odds of a stalemate are 1/1.

See what I did there, or do you need me to spell out the error in your logic?

No, the first part of the paragraph is explaining the situation of a stalemate. The second part of the same paragraph is explaining how easily it is to get into a stalemate, aka the first part of the paragraph. I'm sorry you fail to pick up on the basics, I should have been more clear.

And no, your situation isn't a stalemate because stalemates can't happen in a 1v1.

[IronE.GLE]

My point is that you pick extreme situations to back up your arguments. There are always exceptions to the rule, you just aren't one.