The quest for a card....how far do you go?

[Phil1580]

Ok....not the 1st time this has happened to me, but just now had a real bad case.

Extreme Global Warming, unlimited forts, flat rate cards. My starting position is eh...not great, but oh well. I get 3 armies, deploy all on Norway so I'm 6 vs. 3. Auto-attack (I almost always auto-attack)....and get smashed. Totally, down to 2, no damage to him.

Well crap....does anyone else notice that attacking 3 on 3 almost never works? Ever? But I'm trying to at least get a card for my turn, so I try. And I try. And I try.....and now I'm going down to 1's all over the map, basically just to see how long these totally sh*t dice keep going. My last possible try, I get my damn card.

Now how important is it to get that cards per turn? I feel it's very important, but how far do you go? I suppose flat rate vs. escalating might influence the answer. (I pretty much never play escalating.)

Any advice for when things go that bad, when to cut your losses?

[The Weird One]

I'm that idiot who, come Hell or high water, is gonna get my card!

[lord voldemort]

depends on cards, and who your plaing, but never leave singles all over the place...if your first attack 6v3 or watevs goes bad stop there, on any cards..

otherwise u deplte all your forces and your oponent will run through al your 1's game wil be over in 3 rounds

play nice two

[Coleman]

In escalating I find it best to go after cards until you have a set and hope that happens before you hit 5 cards. If you hit 4 and no set build for a while before getting that 5th card.

In flat rate I never waste more than I think I'll gain pursuing a card. If I have 2 greens you probably won't see me expend more than 4 or 5 troops for a card unless I really expect that extra 6 to give me a huge advantage or to save me the next turn.

EDIT: oops I forgot the other part of escalating. Don't turn in unless it is to save yourself or to eliminate someone. I'm serious. Build otherwise and wait for the other players to waste their stupid cards so you can have the turn in that matters.

[Incandenza]

DO NOT USE AUTO-ATTACK.

It's worth having in caps. Don't use auto-attack unless it's a bunch of armies against a bunch of armies. Even in escalating, if you're going for a card with a 6v3 situation, and you roll an immediate 0-2, STOP. Needless to say, auto-attack doesn't allow you to stop.

[comic boy]

Yep using auto attack is silly on 6-3, if you lose first 2 then quit. 3-3 is plain stupid because the odds are against you because the defender wins tied dice.

[Herakilla]

Yep using auto attack is silly on 6-3, if you lose first 2 then quit. 3-3 is plain stupid because the odds are against you because the defender wins tied dice.

lol 3v3 it acts like attack button

[Yurkie]

I think it is very important to get a card per turn! I love the no auto attack tip.

[insomniacdude]

In flat rate games, a card is worth about 2.5 armies (I think....that sounds about right).

Unless I'm clearly the leader, or I'm so far down that the difference between life or death is that one card, I try not to waste more than three troops to get a card if I can avoid it.

[spline]

There was a discussion in another thread on whether it is a good idea to miss the first card and instead place the 6 armies against the 3 armies and not waist them. My impression from the comments here is that this is indeed a good idea in particular in escalating games. Did I read this correctly?

A lot depends on luck as well, but I am really curious to know if this is a good idea as a strategy.

I personally try to get the card all the time, and of course sometimes I fail. I cant tell if this has a drastic effect on the game as I usually survive. Does anyone play like this and what is your experience? Do you end up more armies 3 turns down the road, in practice?

[Phil1580]

I think my impatient ass is going to use the auto attack button less. Thanks for all the advice.

[wacicha]

I sometimes do not atack 1st 2 or 3 turns. do not judge this on my rank though lol i lost quit a few points playing the new aor map and although I love that map it steals points quickly. and you have to attack on that map 1st turn if not you are gone on 2nd turn

[keiths31]

Cards frustrate me...so I avoid playing with cards...and that solves the problem whether to attack or not.
But if I am playing Escalating I don't try for a card. Flat rate I will usually try, but never with auto attack...

[TuesdayIsComing]

i lost quit a few points playing the new aor map and although I love that map it steals points quickly.

I can't agree with this statement enough. Fun map, far too hard to gain more points than I lose though.


As far as cards go... I try to get one when it's convenient, but never spend so much to get one that I'm likely to just pass the card on to the next guy.

[sting5]

I would agree that you should not attack untill your down to just one army. My problem is that when it is 6vs3, I lose my armys.

[The1exile]

i lost quit a few points playing the new aor map and although I love that map it steals points quickly.

I can't agree with this statement enough. Fun map, far too hard to gain more points than I lose though.

I got a bunch off that map... lost a fair bit too though, mostly because I lack patience and play FoW.

[BaldAdonis]

My impression from the comments here is that this is indeed a good idea in particular in escalating games. Did I read this correctly?
A lot depends on luck as well, but I am really curious to know if this is a good idea as a strategy.
... Do you end up more armies 3 turns down the road, in practice?

It is a very good strategy in escalating to deploy your armies on various places in the first turn and not take a card. This does three things: discourages players from attacking you in those places, thus giving you better access to more of the board; gives you a choice from three places to attack from in the next round, almost assuring a card, expecially when your opponents attack each other and leave 1s; puts you a card behind everyone else, so when they are forced to cash in for 4, 6, or 8 armies when they get to 5 cards, you can wait an extra round and get 10, 12 or 15.

[spline]

Thanks BaldAdonis. The only issue I see is that you might get attacked by more than one player while you are waiting for you card, becoming really weak in the process. If you dont have a set before you get your fifth card, then you could be doomed. Although, I guess this is a Risk you might be willing to take.

[Theguyoverthere]

Cards are much more important in flat rate, as you need a lot to have the good chance of getting the super set of one of each color. In escalating, don't worry about cards too much (at least at teh beginning). For example, in an escalating game if you lose 6 to 3 on the first or second roll, just stop. Fortify yourself. Don't weaken yourself too much. An especially case of this is if you have 3 territories in Australia and you put 3 on one and try to get rid of that other 3 enemy (or neutral) armies, and you lose the first roll, STOP. You DO NOT want to leave 1's all over austraila trying to get a card (or the continent), as the enemy that survived might wipe you out next turn. Don't worry, you'll get that territory next turn. An enemies "1" doesn't look very intimidating, but it can definitely be when reinforced...

[peanutsdad]

i always go for a card, but i never auto attack, it's just a bad thing to use in my opinion. i like to control it more and if it's not going well stop the dice rolling..... good luck

[-ShadySoul-]

im sure this has been mentioned but i am a bit lazy to read the whole thread so:

it depends in cards. If it is escalating, i usually DON'T go for the card in my first turn. I just deploy and fortify. If it is flat, i might go for it if conditions are positive, meaning i got an army or two to back me up. And i never play no cards unless its 1vs1

[EmperorOfDaNorth]

There was a discussion in another thread on whether it is a good idea to miss the first card and instead place the 6 armies against the 3 armies and not waist them. My impression from the comments here is that this is indeed a good idea in particular in escalating games. Did I read this correctly?

Well.. I'm not sure I agree. When you put 6 total somewhere and then don't attack it's like stating an intention.. this might psychologically put some people off from attacking you.

But on the basic math side, you're more likely to kill guys when attacking than defending. The thing is you can only attack one at the time, possibly weakening yourself so the other can move in. With putting the 3 in for 6 total you're kind of threatening both, so hopefully they'll focus elsewhere, or even attack each other.

BTW, the original post was just ridiculous.. going 3 vs 3 is nuts unless your life (or victory) depends on it. Especially in the beginning of the game, you just don't do that. Heck I wouldn't even do 4 vs 3.

As for what cards are worth, indeed about 2.5 in flat rate. In Escalating, INITIALLY they're worth even less. So if you get your cards on the first 3-4 turns then that usually means you end up waiting for someone else to cash first anywas. Therefore there's not much point in desperately trying to get that card on the first turn. I typically only do it if I have a 1 for a target, OR I'm trying to get the $*#($& away from loony-cookies wanting to storm some continent. So if I find myself dropped in Siam and I see a storm brewing to the North, then I get the f*ck out of there even if it means going against 3 in India. You always want to make it easy for your enemies to kill each other, don't stand in their way.

[spline]

Well.. I'm not sure I agree. When you put 6 total somewhere and then don't attack it's like stating an intention.. this might psychologically put some people off from attacking you.

I am not sure what you mean here. Isn't this a good thing? So you are also saying that putting 6 and not attacking is better.

But on the basic math side, you're more likely to kill guys when attacking than defending.

Absolutely. Except that in this case, the problem is that you may win and need to redistribute the remaining armies between the two countries, potentially leaving a one. That becomes your weakness. [/quote]

The thing is you can only attack one at the time, possibly weakening yourself so the other can move in. With putting the 3 in for 6 total you're kind of threatening both, so hopefully they'll focus elsewhere, or even attack each other.

Well said. Basic principle always holds: let others fight it out, while you grow.

[Root Ranger]

I try to wait until they get down to 1 or 2 armies from fighting other players.