Your Best Stalemate Ending Strategies: Escalating Trench

[coolenough2]

You start a harmless game of World 2.1. Fall turns to Winter, and then the rains return. Before you really know what's going on- the oppressive heat of summer is back. When I realize that another holiday season (and another birthday) are approaching I have to wonder WHEN THIS GAME WILL FINALLY END?!

When Escalating Trench gets down to the last 3, and Spoils are approaching 1500/turn, there seems to be no way to change anything. I think I've tried everything- and my opponents have as well. I'm pretty much going through a checklist of all possible things you can do, just to see what happens. And nothing really changes. I've had more than double my opponents' troops and bonuses, so attempted to win- but no. And there has been a time when one of the 3 was down to 150 and only 15 territories, but no-one could seal his fate without sealing their own. None of my pointless strategies can change the fact that the only thing that will end this game is lack of internet access.

But I didn't really post this topic looking for advice in one game. I thought it would be interesting to hear everyone else's ideas on how to end such a stalemate.

[Jippd]

Ask for a 3 player escalating game on a smaller map as a tie breaker. Winner takes both.

[macbone]

Set a future round limit. At Round X, agree that whoever has the most troops wins and can eliminate the other players. Of course, for that to work, it has to be with players you trust.

I normally follow Jippd's suggestion, though - play another game and let the winner of that game win both.

[Gilligan]

I just put a round limit to begin with.

[Dukasaur]

I just try to get all my opponents busted as multies!

[DoomYoshi]

DDOS attack the site so that only you can login. Then, everyone else misses their turns.

[codierose]

deadbeat

[OliverFA]

My strategy to avoid escalating stalemates is avoiding playing the escalating setting

[Jippd]

My strategy to avoid escalating stalemates is avoiding playing the escalating setting

Flat Rate/No Spoils end up in stalemates more often then escalating.

If a map is too large for the player count that is how escalating games can turn into stalemates. As deploys get so big that the cashes don't matter in comparison to how many troops are deployed every round.

Avoid playing maps that are too big for the number of players may help.

The fact that this is trench doesn't help either.

[coolenough2]

Actually, its the other way around. Troops/turn are meaningless compared to the spoils- so bonuses and territories don't really matter. This adds to the stalemate. Try to keep a bonus, and you risk getting slapped with a 1500 troop attack.

[waltero]

Everybody has to hit the Auto assault button once per turn...and no more than x amount of (end turn)units fortifying into any one terit.

play another game and let the winner of that game win both (probably the best idea)

Does not sound like a fun game at all...just sitting every turn building up your units.
I have never played one of those games...never want to either.

[macbone]

I've played too many, waltero. =(

Fortunately, Round Limits has provided a way to end the stalemate, but people play even more conservatively now.

[Dukasaur]

I've played too many, waltero. =(

Fortunately, Round Limits has provided a way to end the stalemate, but people play even more conservatively now.

I agree.

We're kind of stuck in a Catch-22. On the one hand, as a Tournament Organiser I find round limits absolutely indispensable. It is just so much better than pre-round limit methods of breaking stalemates that it's hard to believe CC survived five years without them.

On the other hand, games are now even more stalemat-y than before. With the prospect of the round limit looming and a true stalemate impossible, people stop taking chances at all, and anything not won in the first few rounds turns into a long wait for the round limit to roll around. It's really sad.

Everybody has to hit the Auto assault button once per turn...and no more than x amount of (end turn)units fortifying into any one terit.

I'm a big fan of the Do or Die setting, which would force people to take greater chances. I think this would help tilt the balance from more conservative games back to more aggressive games.

[OliverFA]

I'm a big fan of the Do or Die setting, which would force people to take greater chances. I think this would help tilt the balance from more conservative games back to more aggressive games.

But wouldn't this go against what Sun Tzu said? Don't remember the exact quote, but something like "The key to win is to know when to fight and when not to do it."

I rarely find stalemate situations in trench non-escalating games. Specially in medium-big maps that allow for enough maneuvering. The mechanic of the map itself makes stalemate a rare happening. For example, Classic evolves pretty often into stalemates in almost every setting, but World 2.1 is a lot less likely to evolve into a stalemate situation.

My whole point is, except in scandalous situations, many times an apparent stalemate is just an apparent one, and has players maneuvering to break this apparent balance point. And if you avoid certain maps and settings, stalemate is a lot less likely.

[crispybits]

On the other hand, games are now even more stalemat-y than before. With the prospect of the round limit looming and a true stalemate impossible, people stop taking chances at all, and anything not won in the first few rounds turns into a long wait for the round limit to roll around. It's really sad.

I'm in an escalating trench game on round 16 right now (yeah it's young compared to the games in the OP) but I know for sure that my team will win if I just sit tight and we keep the territory we have for another 34 rounds. We already have enough of a troop advantage that for the other team to break it is starting to look nearly impossible. That game will now be boring for everyone for the next month or two unless I risk our certain victory to play more aggressively.

Maybe a tweak to the points system so that you only receive half of the points for winning via troop count at the round limit?

The problem is you have to give the people that hold advantages like that reasons to risk a game they've effectively already won early doors. Right now I have no incentive at all to risk that game.

[coolenough2]

Patience finally prevailed. The Game was finally won in Round 264, after 10 months. The other two players fought a few too many battles and when it was 12,000 to maybe 300 and 400, I had to give it a shot. Still, it wasn't easy. Every 3 rounds they each got 1700 new troops! Thanks for all the insight. Round limits are probably good, but as it was stated before- it changes the game as the limit approaches, and I feel leaves too much to random chance in the end if you are one of the leaders waiting to see who suicides in who's direction.

[OliverFA]

10 months! Wow! That's a lot of time! It reminds me of an escalating trench game we played when the setting was not implemented and we played by gentlemen's commitment of enforcing ourselves to the rule. IT was an escalating game in Conquer Man. Don't remember how long it took, but it convinced me not to play more escalating games with trench.

And congratulations on your win!

[coolenough2]

Unless, of course, you accidentally start a game of Escalating Trench. Hey- at least it's not such a big map this time That was the other problem with that game. I think it takes like 9 moves to get halfway around the board. Thanks!

[ZornSlayer]

If you horde all your troops to one spot and let them beat you down with your back against the wall just as you drop a major spoil cash and punch through them. Now they have no where to earn an extra spoil, and if they can't take out your 2 braced stacks because of the troop counts on that stack, you can slowly push your way forward, sucking up spoils as you go, while they can't get any.

[iAmCaffeine]

If you horde all your troops to one spot and let them beat you down with your back against the wall just as you drop a major spoil cash and punch through them. Now they have no where to earn an extra spoil, and if they can't take out your 2 braced stacks because of the troop counts on that stack, you can slowly push your way forward, sucking up spoils as you go, while they can't get any.

Not when it's trench.

[Donelladan]

He is right but I don't see that working with 2 player against you. Except if the 2 others players have no border in common but very unlikely in most of the maps if you only have one spot.

[timogl]

if you played escalating with trench, didn't you want a stalemate? just play forever. who cares?

[Gweeedo]

I would suicide before it got that far.
Suicide against the first coward I see!!!

[Gweeedo]

I would suicide before it got that far (what a waist of time).
Suicide against the first coward I see!!!

[Donald Fung]

All the myths about this not happening in large multiplayer games with small maps is not true; in fact, it seems like that's when it happens most. Any game with the trench setting runs a high risk of a stalemate occurring and I've even experienced stalemates in non-trench World 2.1 games with both escalating and flat rate. Stalemates could happen in any game but it is much more prevalent in trench because even if you have the troops to take someone out, you do not have the ability to do so in many cases.

There should be something like a sudden death mode implemented once the spoils get ridiculous in escalating trench games where you have to auto-assault a stack. I don't think the round limit is a good solution because as stated previously, it just encourages stacking up once you have a reasonable lead in the game.

I've tried eliminating a player in a 3 player stalemate game when one of my opponents maxed out at 5 cards and the other one had 3 to make the best out of a bad situation (I really have no interest to play a stalemate game where each trade is a ridiculous 4000-5000 troops even if the stakes are high). Seems like I will lose because I attacked first though