Esc. for Beginners pg4---Esc. Intermediate pg8

[Scott-Land]

Chess is getting you guys in the right direction but all those countries he mentioned may be too many.

Usually you want 3 or 4 fronts that you deploy to (countries) for future attacks while trying to maneuver your other armies to those locations. Classic map-- there are 3 to 4 primary countries that are adjacent to 5 to 6 countries. Which means you have more access to opponents to attack from.

Siberia (Asia) Ontario (NA) Ukraine or East Africa (Europe/Africa). Those 3-4 primary countries are adjacent or connected to 17-23 other countries. So occupying those countries alone you have access to 17-23 of 42 countries (40% - 54% of the map).

Of course you may get all, one, or none of those countries but the more you play the more you will become better at occupying them. Of course you can ask different players which countries they prefer.......they may be all different but the point is recognizing strong access points to attack from.

[wacicha]

Chess was giving options of countries because sometimes the one you want is unattainable at your turn.

I once stated the countries I like best and then could not get on to any of them for a month. Every one playing me had read it and took them. Boy did I have to revamp my playing habits.

[DAZMCFC]

to stringy, thanks for inviting me to join your games. winning 2 out of 4 was a good points gain. oh and i do play erratic from time to time and it helps.

[stringybeany]

to stringy, thanks for inviting me to join your games. winning 2 out of 4 was a good points gain. oh and i do play erratic from time to time and it helps.

Yes! Well done!

Hope to have many more!

[stringybeany]

2-Set urself a base.... a country where every turn u deploy a 1 or a 2 on it .... not just any country .. but a country that connects continent and is important to finish the game later ...Countries with such importance ( on classic map ) : Kamshatka... china...afghanistan...Ukraine.... middle east... east africa... alaska....greenland or iceland.... central america(somewhat not important)... north africa... and siam(somewhat not important<----good point! I'll try and work this into next draft



8- this is very important : DO NOT BLOCK UR MASSIVE ARMIES OUT.... I HAVE SEEN THIS TOO MANY TIMES ... PPL HOLD AUSTRALIA... THEY HAVE 20+ ARMIES ON SIAM... AND THEY HAVE A 1 ON CHINA AND 1 ON INDIA... WHEN IT COMES TO BUSINESS THE 20 ON SIAM ARE WORTHLESS...<---good point! I'll work this into draft #3

The rest of your points are also very good and I think are already covered pretty well. Your others above I will work into the next version.

thanks for your input

[BaldAdonis]

A good way to advance in escalating is to play on circus maximus. The lack of continents means players won't attack wildly to get a small bonus, and blocks are easy to set up anywhere on the map. You can also learn the importance of counting your opponents cards, keeping territories that attack many others (ie why centre lanes are better than inside/outside), and when to make the crucial strikes.

[stringybeany]

A good way to advance in escalating is to play on circus maximus. The lack of continents means players won't attack wildly to get a small bonus, and blocks are easy to set up anywhere on the map. You can also learn the importance of counting your opponents cards, keeping territories that attack many others (ie why centre lanes are better than inside/outside), and when to make the crucial strikes.

I think new players should start on the classic map, but I'll leave it to consensus.

[stringybeany]

Jack and Mike:

"Remember what I told you, Mikey: You've got to try and keep the total board strength at a level that will be favorable to your position in the cash sequence."

"Uh-huh. Hey look, I think I can take Europe!"

"You shouldn't try that, you aren't nearly strong enough to defend those borders. You should deploy on Western US instead. You'll need some strength over there later."

"But won't blue kill me with that stack on Northwest Territory?"

"He has no reason to do that yet, it would just reduce you both too early in the game."

"ok, I'll do it your way."

-next round-

"I thought you said blue wouldn't kill me! He cashed holding only three cards and took all of North America! And everyone let him keep it with only 2 armies protecting each border!"

"Yes, I see that."

"Your strategy sucks. I'm going to go after Europe."

[rabbiton]

Jack and Mike:

"Remember what I told you, Mikey: You've got to try and keep the total board strength at a level that will be favorable to your position in the cash sequence."

"Uh-huh. Hey look, I think I can take Europe!"

"You shouldn't try that, you aren't nearly strong enough to defend those borders. You should deploy on Western US instead. You'll need some strength over there later."

"But won't blue kill me with that stack on Northwest Territory?"

"He has no reason to do that yet, it would just reduce you both too early in the game."

"ok, I'll do it your way."

-next round-

"I thought you said blue wouldn't kill me! He cashed holding only three cards and took all of North America! And everyone let him keep it with only 2 armies protecting each border!"

"Yes, I see that."

"Your strategy sucks. I'm going to go after Europe."

indeed. predicting what my opponents will do forms a significant part of my strategy. in some ways i actually find playing low ranks more challenging because they are less predictable... and you have to be adaptable to a larger array of strategies.

in other words you need to think not just about what makes sense according to a set of rules or guidelines, but what in fact you think people will do based on everything you know about them and the game.

it would be far easier to write this for non-beginners.

[stringybeany]

...

it would be far easier to write this for non-beginners.

Perhaps. But that's not where the need exists.

[stringybeany]

draft 3 on the way

[rabbiton]

...

it would be far easier to write this for non-beginners.

Perhaps. But that's not where the need exists.

of course not, and i was merely indicating the difficulty of the task. thinking about it though it really might make more sense to compile a set of guidelines for how the better players play, and then include heavy caveats indicating the need to adapt to "non-conforming" play.

otherwise, you just risk codifying bad strategy... such as "on your first move deploy 3 somewhere and attack". that would be the exception in a high rank game, not the rule, because a general principle is to spread your forces out.

[stringybeany]

...

otherwise, you just risk codifying bad strategy... such as "on your first move deploy 3 somewhere and attack". that would be the exception in a high rank game, not the rule, because a general principle is to spread your forces out.

Dropping three and attacking immediately will yield a card the majority of the time without leaving the player weak (as long as they follow the attacking guidelines).

Starting off with advanced strategies will leave a new player disappointed, I believe.


Priorities in this context are:

Always get a card.
Don't be the weakest player on the board.
Stay out of the small continents, unless you are dropped there in a big way.

I don't believe we should be so concerned about "codifying bad strategies" because in this context they aren't bad strategies. Players need to adjust their strategies as they move up the ranks. What works at the beginning is the effective strategy for that level.

[chessplaya]

Btw to all beginners that are going to read this thread i have an important notice :

The strategies used there are only to be played when its a 6 players game... 4 players and 5 players are a whole lot diffrent... try playing those strategies and u will be eaten alive... plz take notice that ur entering a 6 players game


Cheers to all!

[stringybeany]

It's simple:

In the beginner's game; maps change too fast for effective multi-turn planning. Somebody will always make a premature roll-off . . . and most likely more than one.

So stay out of the way, take your cheap card, and don't let anyone run away with the board while you wait for the cash rounds.

Especially that last one. The beginner strategy of going for a weak continent grab will work if the board lets it hold.

Don't reinforce bad behavior by letting it work.

[jaydog]

keep up the good work guys, solid tactics and fair discussion on alternatives,

I can't believe i just sat and read all 5 pages.

If someone could post the best and easiest way to smash scottland in a RT game let me know.

But seriouly, do you long timers and RT allstars use a different or altered strategy for RT escalating games?

[stringybeany]

keep up the good work guys, solid tactics and fair discussion on alternatives,

I can't believe i just sat and read all 5 pages.

If someone could post the best and easiest way to smash scottland in a RT game let me know.

But seriouly, do you long timers and RT allstars use a different or altered strategy for RT escalating games?

I employ no single overall strategy. Every board is unique. Some games I've had to change my approach several times, or even every round (usually means a loss/occasionally means a memorable victory).

[puppydog85]

Hi, I am a beginner and I have a quick question. When fortifying in rounds 3-5, should I start moving my armies into piles? I my current game I have a chain 6 countries long and it is not unlimited fort. Should I start looking around and fortify at one end, both ends, or just leave it?

[stringybeany]

Hi, I am a beginner and I have a quick question. When fortifying in rounds 3-5, should I start moving my armies into piles? I my current game I have a chain 6 countries long and it is not unlimited fort. Should I start looking around and fortify at one end, both ends, or just leave it?

It depends on the need. In general, you will want to have your forces gathered up for the elimination rounds, just make sure the singles you leave behind you can do without. If your six countries are chained, if you pull from the middle somebody will likely cut the chain on you.

Then again it might not matter.

I wish I could be more specific, but there are too many variables to give you a concrete "do this" answer.

[bob72]

Round One:

A: Pick one country in a large continent that is close to other countries you own and deploy there. Roll dice once against opponent of your choice, but try and attack towards your other countries. Only deploy in South America or Australia if you already own three or four countries on the continent.

After first roll if you are 6 vs 1 or 5 vs. 2, roll again. If you are 4 vs 3 then STOP and end turn.

After the second roll you will own the country, be 3 vs 2, or 4 vs 1. Only roll a third time of you are 4 vs 1. otherwise STOP and end turn.

If you lose the third roll, and are 3 vs 1, STOP and end turn.

This = me in most games.

My usual roll is 6v4 lose 2 4v4 lose 2 stop Round 2 armies are gone. (should have kept attacking.)

I must argue against this if you stop at 4v3 you will be EXTREMELY lucky to have any armies left next turn. If at turn 2 you still haven't won and are EXTREMELY lucky to have any armies left don't expect to have them at round 3. By round 3 this is getting silly your armies will be gone and someone will have a continent and be 10-15 armies ahead of you.

[stringybeany]

I must argue against this if you stop at 4v3 you will be EXTREMELY lucky to have any armies left next turn. If at turn 2 you still haven't won and are EXTREMELY lucky to have any armies left don't expect to have them at round 3. By round 3 this is getting silly your armies will be gone and someone will have a continent and be 10-15 armies ahead of you.

I don't follow you. Sorry. Maybe you could explain further?

[Scott-Land]

keep up the good work guys, solid tactics and fair discussion on alternatives,

I can't believe i just sat and read all 5 pages.

If someone could post the best and easiest way to smash scottland in a RT game let me know.

But seriouly, do you long timers and RT allstars use a different or altered strategy for RT escalating games?

You've beaten me enough on your own J-Dog.

A few difference I see in an RT versus a regular game is not strategy related. In an RT- you get to see each turn progress and get into a flow of things a better feel and know exactly your opponents next move, whereas you find yourself writing more notes in regular games to keep up with the action, sometimes not taking a turn for days.

For me it's less emotional- you see yourself getting attacked in an RT, you might let emotion get in the way and make a poor play (kami). It's better in regular games because you only see the end result, not the actual attack, and have some time to cool off if you think an attack is unwarranted. Sometimes not even knowing a country of 5+ has been smoked. I stress the importance of writing notes in game chat. More times than not- the reason you were attacked is very clear. To understand why, you have a better chance at a counter.

The turns are generally more aggressive but at the same time- thin kill shots are taken more in regular games than in RTs, perhaps because there are not 4-5 other players watching you screw the game up.

[Rictus]

keep up the good work guys, solid tactics and fair discussion on alternatives,

I can't believe i just sat and read all 5 pages.

If someone could post the best and easiest way to smash scottland in a RT game let me know.

But seriouly, do you long timers and RT allstars use a different or altered strategy for RT escalating games?

You've beaten me enough on your own J-Dog.

A few difference I see in an RT versus a regular game is not strategy related. In an RT- you get to see each turn progress and get into a flow of things a better feel and know exactly your opponents next move, whereas you find yourself writing more notes in regular games to keep up with the action, sometimes not taking a turn for days.

For me it's less emotional- you see yourself getting attacked in an RT, you might let emotion get in the way and make a poor play (kami). It's better in regular games because you only see the end result, not the actual attack, and have some time to cool off if you think an attack is unwarranted. Sometimes not even knowing a country of 5+ has been smoked. I stress the importance of writing notes in game chat. More times than not- the reason you were attacked is very clear. To understand why, you have a better chance at a counter.

The turns are generally more aggressive but at the same time- thin kill shots are taken more in regular games than in RTs, perhaps because there are not 4-5 other players watching you screw the game up.

Interesting points - it's early days yet for me, but I'm definitely performing better in RT games than in regular ones at the moment - I find it far easier to follow the flow of the game and formulate and execute strategy. You're advice on making notes is well taken - obvious, yet I hadn't thought of it before. Thanks for that. Good guide also - certainly got me thinking. Hopefully it'll help me improve rank a bit...

[stringybeany]

...

The turns are generally more aggressive but at the same time- thin kill shots are taken more in regular games than in RTs, perhaps because there are not 4-5 other players watching you screw the game up.

Let's talk more about kill-shots.

In your opinion:

When does a "thin kill-shot" look more like "suicide"?

How thin a shot are you generally willing to try?

As for me, I rarely shoot if under nominal. I might hedge a bit if the elimination clearly leads to a sweep, or if the timing is "now or never", but even then it's unlikely I'll go if more than about 5% under minimum strength going in.

Nominal +5% and I'm going to go.

*disclaimer: your results may vary. stringybeany's actual game play will vary. user assumes all Risk.

[Scott-Land]

...

The turns are generally more aggressive but at the same time- thin kill shots are taken more in regular games than in RTs, perhaps because there are not 4-5 other players watching you screw the game up.

Let's talk more about kill-shots.

In your opinion:

When does a "thin kill-shot" look more like "suicide"?

How thin a shot are you generally willing to try?

As for me, I rarely shoot if under nominal. I might hedge a bit if the elimination clearly leads to a sweep, or if the timing is "now or never", but even then it's unlikely I'll go if more than about 5% under minimum strength going in.

Nominal +5% and I'm going to go.

*disclaimer: your results may vary. stringybeany's actual game play will vary. user assumes all Risk.

It's normally pretty easy to determine if it's a kami or a kill shot. Recently in a game. I had 5 cards and 42 armies on 4 fronts when the cash was at 15. A player cashed and attacked me and I had 14 armies remaining afterwards. A clear kami disguised as a kill shot. A lower ranked- I would've questioned his motive but this was a captain taking revenge from a previous game. Let's say that he was successful in eliminating me- he burned 42+ armies to get 15 in return with 6 cards. With 1 cash and 4 cards he would have the lowest army count. Two players with 5 cards would cash and easily kill him and win the game. Even with a double since the cash was so low- he wouldn't had enough armies to continue. Cashes and deploys so he wouldn't get eliminated and would have 1 card and no realistic chance of winning the game anyhow.

A great player will only eliminate a someone if he can clear the board- or gain a big advantage by losing a small percentage of their armies on a kill shot to gain an extra card. You lose 25 armies and receive 20 from a cash but your next turn with the extra card you are able to cash and receive 35 armies giving you another opportunity to clear the board but you must always know how many cards the players have behind you and can they reach you if they can cash. The problem with this is that you if you leave yourself too short- you in turn will be eliminated. Kami or suicide doesn't happen very often. it's usually someone taking a bad shot or a noob attacking because you're too close- an unintentional hanging (that happens quite often).

Kill shots are risk to reward. Depending on the reward the risk may be worth it. As in poker, it's called implied odds. You make a call with a marginal hand hoping to catch to get paid off. You don't make the call if someone doesn't have a lot of chips- but if he has a mountain of them you are willing to gamble with the potential of breaking him. This applies to risk as well. If you know that you can win the game by winning a marginal battle ( ex 18 vs 15 ) then it's worth it. You've given yourself the big pay off, a victory. You have to ask yourself what will you gain if you are successful? The answer will determine if it's correct to do it. We tend not to listen to reason and that's where mistakes are made. I can go into attack percentages but think that would be a waste of time. I'm trying to answer your questions as general as I can.

Obviously hedging can be an advantage if you win the battle but it also can prevent you from being successful on other fronts, whereas you would've won anyway with fewer armies but since you hedged, you might lose a battle where you could've won with more armies. It's a way of covering yourself when you know that your percentage of success is low. Otherwise why would you hedge a specific front, perhaps because you don't have enough armies. This is a beginners thread to escalating games- it's not wise to advise them to go for eliminations where they don't have enough armies.