Anyone else hate when people use the stockpiling strategy?

[pHoRKz N KNiVez]

This gets very annoying. Especially in Feudal War (or whatever it's called) and City Mogul. Logically, the only way to beat stockpilers is to stock pile for at least the same amount of time as he/she does, or at least until you have compensated for the troop difference (a.k.a. get a bonus and then stockpile, a.k.a. "catch up").

I supposed there's really no way around this... but it still makes me mad.

[Army of GOD]

I play a bunch of 8-player standard games on Classic and if you don't have a bonus the only way you'd have a chance to win is to stockpile.

[squishyg]

Stockpiling is a useful strategy and doesn't bother me at all. Plus its superfun to sweep in escalating

[drunkmonkey]

I don't understand the poll question. Of course it's a strategy - you even said so in the title. Whether or not you like it is a different story. I would assume the reason for hating it is that you lose to it a lot, in which case I'd suggest rethinking your own strategies.

[Timminz]

I too hate strategies that are better than my own.

[MarshalNey]

Extremely unfair all of you. Even if you do stockpile, there's no reason to mock someone who gets annoyed by the strategy.

Here's the problem with stockpiling:
1) Anybody can do it without expending an ounce of thought and far too often it has no intrinsic goal other than its own sake- and a mere hope that your opponent shows vulnerability by not stacking and overextending. Thus, it is a passive strategy.

2) If the hope displayed in a passive strategy (see point 1) doesn't pan out, one of two very unsatisfactory things will usually happen:

• a) Two stacks will end up colliding in a dice war, which means that randomness, not tactics or planning, determines the winner- giving a 50% chance of winning or losing to both sides, assuming roughly equal stacks of sufficient size.
  b) Neither opponent will take a risk, and the stacks will continue to build. The only plan that I can fathom in this case is that one player will eventually lose patience and leave himself or herself vulnerable- which again isn't really due to skill or strategy but reptilian patience. As far as I'm concerned, I may as well go join a staring contest

That said, there are plenty of ways to defeat stockpilers, although trial and error and a willingness to lose played a part in forming my tactics. I've pretty much devoted my CC games to punishing mindless stockpiling (which is different than reasoned stockpiling, which I respect) as it was very frustrating to me as well when I was a freemium.

The first, and most important thing to remind yourself however is that stockpiling is not an 'anti-fun' strategy in most games, just a challenge to be worked around. So don't be too much of a curmudgeon- just figure out how to beat them!

The second thing to know is that Nuclear games are the haven for naturally aggressive players. Many top-ranked players like to play defensive and counter-punch strategies, so they avoid Nuke games or call them chaotically unfair with no strategy (presumably because they lack the incliniation or intelligence to form a strategy). Try searching for large nuclear games (6-8) players if you want to avoid stockpilers altogether. Or play really small maps, like Doodle Earth...

Finally, know that stacks do have one inherent flaw: as long as they sit unused, they hold great potential evil for the stockpiler. The reason is the randomness of the dice themselves. Truly random dice have streaks (picture them like waves on an ocean if you will). So, long streaks can occur that favor the defender or attacker, sort of like small waves and big waves can wash onto a beach. The key here is that if you attack with very little to risk, say 4 vs. 12, you put the odds in your favor, attrition-wise, because you can lose at most 2 (unless you're waay too aggressive and attack down to 1 troop, which I don't recommend) while your opponent can lose up to 12! Is it likely that you'll take down 12, or even 6? Hell no! But those streaks exist in truly random dice, and every time someone stacks, they give you the chance to catch a big wave.

So chin up, and know that stockpiling doesn't have to ruin your fun!

[jefjef]

Stockpiling is for those who are afraid to leave the basement. Try to use the damn assault button. I guarantee you that I will.

Well unless I am playing Feudal wars or Mogul. Then I will hide in the basement and stock pile.

[squishyg]

Extremely unfair all of you. Even if you do stockpile, there's no reason to mock someone who gets annoyed by the strategy.

all of us?

[Timminz]

Extremely unfair all of you. Even if you do stockpile, there's no reason to mock someone who gets annoyed by the strategy.

all of us?

Extremely.

[Commander62890]

Two stacks will end up colliding in a dice war, which means that randomness, not tactics or planning, determines the winner- giving a 50% chance of winning or losing to both sides, assuming roughly equal stacks of sufficient size.

If the stacks are big enough, the one who attacks will win almost every time.

The key here is that if you attack with very little to risk, say 4 vs. 12, you put the odds in your favor, attrition-wise, because you can lose at most 2 (unless you're waay too aggressive and attack down to 1 troop, which I don't recommend) while your opponent can lose up to 12! Is it likely that you'll take down 12, or even 6? Hell no! But those streaks exist in truly random dice, and every time someone stacks, they give you the chance to catch a big wave.

This is just plain wrong. The only reason to attack 4v12 is if you're in an all-out war with someone, and you wish to use attacker's advantage to your benefit.

You did not mention attacker's advantage at all...

Attacking "with very little to risk" does not help you avoid streaks if the dice are truly random.

Let's say you have a 14v14. It doesn't matter whether you auto-attack that 14-stack, or attack it little by little over the course of 7 rounds... You have the same probability of killing that 14-stack in both instances. The idea that you put forth is preposterous.

The reason attacking is better is because attacking dice are better. Always. It has nothing at all to do with streaks or attacking with little stacks vs big stacks.





As for the OP - yes, I would call it a strategy.

I don't play singles flat rate, nuclear, or no spoils, so I never deal with stockpiling/diplomacy/build games, and have nothing more to say on the matter.

[Arama86n]

/me heads home to MarshalNey, pulls out the ol' risk board and makes two 150 stacks, one for MarshalNey, one for Arama86n. Arama86n then hands MarshalNey TWO blue dice, and takes THREE red dice for himself.

Do you think I only have a 50% chance of beating you 150v150?

[trapyoung]

In real Risk you can pick to defend with 1 or 2 dice based on the rolls the attacker had... my money's on the defender.

[Arama86n]

I see, well that shreds my example I suppose. But it would still apply to CC.

[jefjef]

You did not mention attacker's advantage at all..

The reason attacking is better is because attacking dice are better. Always.

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!! Please feel free to use my "attacker random".

I believe you've had the privilege to benefit from them and because of them.

[barterer2002]

In real Risk you can pick to defend with 1 or 2 dice based on the rolls the attacker had... my money's on the defender.

Wait, what? Where is that in the rules? I have never heard of anyone playing Risk that way, its always been simultaneous-or the defenders roll first

[drunkmonkey]

In real Risk you can pick to defend with 1 or 2 dice based on the rolls the attacker had... my money's on the defender.

Wait, what? Where is that in the rules? I have never heard of anyone playing Risk that way, its always been simultaneous-or the defenders roll first

I've also always played where you have to declare how many dice you're attacking/defending with before either rolls.

[trapyoung]

In real Risk you can pick to defend with 1 or 2 dice based on the rolls the attacker had... my money's on the defender.

Wait, what? Where is that in the rules? I have never heard of anyone playing Risk that way, its always been simultaneous-or the defenders roll first

I've had 3 copies of the Original, one from the 70's, one from 90's, and one from recent and they all had that. Also have played Risk 2210 and Star Wars Risk and while I'm not positive it was in those rules, that's how we played and it was understood/accepted by everyone

[barterer2002]

Interesting I've never heard of nor played with that particular rule. I'll have to dig out my old game board and see what it says. I looked at what wiki has but as usual its no help there. Seems like it would make too much of an advantage to the defenders though doesn't it? How does it play out, is it more stacking and defense oriented?

[drunkmonkey]

Found the original 1959 rules: http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Risk1959.PDF

At the same time the attacking player rolls his dice, the defending player, that is the player whose territory is being attacked, also rolls.

I haven't looked through the rest to see if it ever changed, but they're all linked from here: http://boardgames.about.com/od/riskrules/Risk_Rules.htm

[Commander62890]

You did not mention attacker's advantage at all..

The reason attacking is better is because attacking dice are better. Always.

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!! Please feel free to use my "attacker random".

I believe you've had the privilege to benefit from them and because of them.

Obviously, I did not word that well, and I anticipated someone calling me out on it.


If the dice are random, the probability of winning each and every roll (with the same amount of dice used in each roll) is exactly the same. It's a very, very simple fact, and it's taken for granted by most of us, because it's so easy to understand.

If you read MarshalNey's post, he does not believe this. He believes that if you attack with a 4v12, small stack vs big stack, you have the possibility of getting better dice than normal, because of "random streaks."

[trapyoung]

Interesting I've never heard of nor played with that particular rule. I'll have to dig out my old game board and see what it says. I looked at what wiki has but as usual its no help there. Seems like it would make too much of an advantage to the defenders though doesn't it? How does it play out, is it more stacking and defense oriented?

More defense oriented usually, but one of my brothers likes to think every time he touches dice they'll spit out some combination of 6,6 so the attacker can roll 6,5,5 and he'll roll two die. I prefer it to just two automatically, reminds me of other games where you can account for territory characteristics when making attacks so there are nuances to it besides just seeing what 5 dice say. In this instance you can weigh the odds of what you'll get. Also, with the attacks we play however many you attack with you must advance at least that many. So no attacking with 3 dice and advancing 0.

[trapyoung]

I found a statistical analysis on it, http://www.few.vu.nl/~koole/articles/naw94/art.pdf, where the person talks about the Dutch Rules (choice between one or two defender dice after seeing attacker rolls) and British rules (rolling concurrently), so I guess both are acceptable versions of the rules. I'm not Dutch, but apparently I've been playing the Dutch rules for quite some time.

[Shatners Bassoon]

Stockpiling is for those who are afraid to leave the basement. Try to use the damn assault button. I guarantee you that I will.

Well unless I am playing Feudal wars or Mogul. Then I will hide in the basement and stock pile.

[MarshalNey]

You did not mention attacker's advantage at all..

The reason attacking is better is because attacking dice are better. Always.

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!! Please feel free to use my "attacker random".

I believe you've had the privilege to benefit from them and because of them.

Obviously, I did not word that well, and I anticipated someone calling me out on it.


If the dice are random, the probability of winning each and every roll (with the same amount of dice used in each roll) is exactly the same. It's a very, very simple fact, and it's taken for granted by most of us, because it's so easy to understand.

If you read MarshalNey's post, he does not believe this. He believes that if you attack with a 4v12, small stack vs big stack, you have the possibility of getting better dice than normal, because of "random streaks."

No actually, that's not what I'm saying at all, and yes the dice are random and yes the odds are the same every time. Sorry that I can't make what I was saying any clearer but I probably wasted too much time writing that post as it is, I just wanted to encourage players who get frustrated by rather mindless stockpiling.

OK, let me emphasize what I was trying (and obviously failing) to get across:
attacking 4 vs. 12, the potential loss on both sides is uneven.
Truly random dice have streaks (no surprise).
Thus, the potential to do a great deal of harm to a large stack exists.
In no way do I say it is likely, or expected. But if you're behind, there's no harm to yourself except the loss of 2 troops, and the upside, however unlikely or far-fetched is enormous... so why not? It can be a game-turning tactic, and people who are wont to complain about the 'lucky' dice of their opponents probably miss these kinds of opportunities because they're too afraid to even try a 4 vs. 12- even though they really aren't risking much.

The distinction between a stack of 12 and a string of six 2's should also be clear. With the stack, a player can wipe it out (again POTENTIALLY) with a minimum of 4, if they have the right luck. With a string of 2's, it's impossible at one point, because you lose a troop every time even if you don't lose any rolls.

That's all.

MarshalNey

PS Oh, sorry squishyg I didn't mean to include you, just the two mockers who didn't even consider that the OP might have a little cause for frustration

[jackal31]

In real Risk you can pick to defend with 1 or 2 dice based on the rolls the attacker had... my money's on the defender.

I have to agree with someone else here too....since when does the attacker roll second? All dice should be rolled at the same time. You do have the choice to roll any amount of dice, but you dont get to pick when (ie your example).

I play where the attacker rolls all dice, so there is no discrepency on timing or where they land (as they should be in a box and not on the floor because of some pissed off opponent throwing that crap all over the house).