strategic deadbeating in escalating card games

[Colossus]

I looked through the suggestions list as much as I could and I didn't see this mentioned, so I apologize if this is yet another repeat of an old suggestion or complaint.

I've been in a couple of escalating games in which a player has gotten him/herself a set and then deadbeated two turns in a row, allowing everyone else to turn in their sets, thereby increasing the value of his/her set. Then on turn three, not only does the deadbeater get three times the deployment bonus (which I realize is being taken care of already), but they ALSO get a very valuable set of cards. Recently, an excellent assassin game I was playing in was really ruined by this strategy in my opinion. A player who was on the ropes but being protected by others because we didn't want to lose because of a deadbeat showed up and smoked us all by pounding across the map with 20-something armies. Game # 242114.

I just thought it might be good to install a lock on set values at the set value on a deadbeated turn. So, let's say that I get a set and on my next turn I could turn that set in for 12 armies, but I deadbeat. I think that I shouldn't be able to hang onto that set for two more rounds and cash in when I decide to rejoin the game for, say, 30 armies. Obviously in most cases, I will have been attacked during the two rounds that I was missing, but in assassin games, the participating players MUST protect deadbeaters or they will lose the game. So, at the very least, I would suggest this kind of locking of set values for assassin games.

[Ishiro]

I don't see a problem with this... you should be keeping track of your opponent's cards and when you see them have 3, you should start playing like they have a turn in and plan accordingly. If they "sit out" a couple of rounds, they are taking the chance that they have no defence while waiting for the higher card turn in amount... its a risk, sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't. If you have a turn in and see someone else sitting out a round for a turn in, perhaps you should consider laying off as well to hold out for the higher turn in as well.

Its a valid and risky strategy to play...

[Colossus]

as I mentioned in the original post, your argument is valid in all but assassin games. in assassin games, the players who are not gunning for the deadbeat must protect that deadbeat or they will quickly lose. it throws a huge monkey wrench into assassin games, I think.

[LewisJB3]

The way you talk you're one of them. The main probrlem with this whole thing is that it's sort of a cheating strategy, and you're making everybody else wait for your "strategy" skipping turns should be classified as cheating. I think there should be an option to have a one missed turn you're out game. I'm not saying all games should be, I'm just saying it'd be a cool option.

[Ishiro]

I understand what you are saying, Colossus, I just disagree. So he was deadbeating and you were protecting him, you HAVE to plan for the moment when he might come back. But it was your choice to protect him... you could have let him lose and then given him negative feedback. Or maybe if you guys hadn't protected him he might have actually played his turns.

You let a fox in to the hen house, and now you are upset that he ate the chickens.

[LewisJB3]

But it isn't that hard, you could take your turn and not trade in and don't take a country. Besides in a real game of risk you'd have to take your turn, I think that this shouldn't be ay different. If it's a "strategy" then we have added it and I'll have to start playing private only to try to keep fro having "strategy" deadbeats.

Besides do you use it in games? If you do then we might want to go to the drawing board and see if it effected your rank....

[Ishiro]

No, I don't miss turns on purpose, I honestly don't think its an advantage, you are actually costing yourself armies and it only helps you if you play against people who don't plan ahead.

[Colossus]

okay, whatever. It seems to me like there are three kinds of folks on this site: those who deadbeat (and may or may not use it to their advantage), those who friggin' hate deadbeaters and which there was a way to beat them senseless over the internet, and those who simply accept it as a part of the game. Until now, I was one of group 2, but as long as I keep encountering people like you, Ishiro, who basically say, 'tough shit, man', I suppose I should switch to the last group. I hear you that it's upto the players in the game to prepare and plan for this kind of thing. You are absolutely right, but I think it is a crappy part of the game as it is played here. I find it frustrating and I think it greatly detracts from the enjoyability of the game. In this particular case, with escalating cards, I think that there should be a difference between waiting on a set as Lewis suggests, by fortifying only, and deadbeating. MOST of the time in the relatively few games that I've played, someone who misses two turns in a row misses a third and is booted from the game. So, from a strategic standpoint, if I play the odds based on my experience, it makes sense to assume that the deadbeater is gone. Otherwise, I'll end up setting up for significant defense against a player that disappears when those troops could be far better used elsewhere. I would be willing to bet (if there were any way to check) that players who defend against deadbeaters likely lose more often than those that don't.

[Dr. Jim]

On one of your turns, dont attack someone.
That way you achieve the same effect, delaying a card, but everyone doesnt hate you.
Also, if you dont take your turn, you can be taken out of the game a lot easier.

[musomackem]

okay, whatever. It seems to me like there are three kinds of folks on this site: those who deadbeat (and may or may not use it to their advantage), those who friggin' hate deadbeaters and which there was a way to beat them senseless over the internet, and those who simply accept it as a part of the game. Until now, I was one of group 2, but as long as I keep encountering people like you, Ishiro, who basically say, 'tough shit, man', I suppose I should switch to the last group. I hear you that it's upto the players in the game to prepare and plan for this kind of thing. You are absolutely right, but I think it is a crappy part of the game as it is played here. I find it frustrating and I think it greatly detracts from the enjoyability of the game. In this particular case, with escalating cards, I think that there should be a difference between waiting on a set as Lewis suggests, by fortifying only, and deadbeating. MOST of the time in the relatively few games that I've played, someone who misses two turns in a row misses a third and is booted from the game. So, from a strategic standpoint, if I play the odds based on my experience, it makes sense to assume that the deadbeater is gone. Otherwise, I'll end up setting up for significant defense against a player that disappears when those troops could be far better used elsewhere. I would be willing to bet (if there were any way to check) that players who defend against deadbeaters likely lose more often than those that don't.

I agree with you, it's a sucky tactic.

Then again, I'm a noob.