escalating cash in

[markleadon]

Usually I play fixed card cash ins. whats the difference in strategy with escalating games

[iamkoolerthanu]

Well, one difference is you don't always want to attack every turn in the beggining of the game. You want the sets to go up before you have to trade in. Then, you want to try and get a combo, A.K.A., you have 5 cards, you trade in for 30 armies. You knock off a player with 5 cards and you trade twice, once for 35, another for 40. Then you knock outh the guy with 4 cards, and you see if you can get someone with one or more, so you can trade for 45, and then win the game.

[MingFromMongo]

Well, one difference is you don't always want to attack every turn in the beggining of the game. You want the sets to go up before you have to trade in. Then, you want to try and get a combo, A.K.A., you have 5 cards, you trade in for 30 armies. You knock off a player with 5 cards and you trade twice, once for 35, another for 40. Then you knock outh the guy with 4 cards, and you see if you can get someone with one or more, so you can trade for 45, and then win the game.

As with all the different types of games, there are many elements to an effective strategy. Position on the board, setting yourself up near the weakest player (and I don't mean rating), and timing your trade-in for enough armies to accomplish your short and long term goals in the game, to name a few.

I have been successful at deferring an attack later in the game as well as in the earlier portions. There are far too many variables to think that there is one set strategy that will work every time. It really is a great feeling when others have strongholds all over the board and due to good positioning and a timely trade-in you begin an avalanche of eliminations to establish either a victory or obvious dominance of the board.

If there is a single strategy that I would recommend, it is to do whatever it takes to survive until your next turn.

[wacicha]

There are A few strategies for escalating . Depending on if it is terminator or Standard. The first and foremost is to remember" to win you need armies"
So do not go for a card in the first round or 2.

Let others roll the dice and lose the men. You be in position to pick up the pieces. Think of it as the other players are holding your cards for you.

[nekettil88]

Be careful not to keep all of your armies in the same area. While that might give you a better single stronghold, other players will have a harder time getting to and eliminating you if you have a stronghold on opposite sides of the board. Then, when you can cash in towards the end, you have separate bases that you can attack from.

[detlef]

I understand the theory behind not attacking off the bat and I understand both reasons why people do it. However, I think both lines of reasoning are flawed for the following reasons:

#1)Waiting to take a card because you want to be last in line to cash-in so you get 10-12 rather than 4-6 for your first set.

Well, that's all fine and dandy, but what about the end game, where it's between you and another player and the first person to make a set, you might wish you had that card you didn't bother taking early on. Hell, being the first to be able to make a set the second time through, when they're worth around 20 may allow you to run the table.

#2)Not wanting to lose armies in an attack. Your odds of rolling bad dice doesn't decrease if you're attacking 9v3 rather than 6v3. So, if you deploy, attack, lose two, stop, then drop 3 more on that same spot next turn and repeat, you're no worse off than if you didn't attack the first time, started at 9v3 and lost the first two.

The simple fact is, odds favor the attacker. Now, if you don't go first and have the good fortune of attacking a country that somebody fortified out of (ie: a one army country), all the better. But, considering that escalating is all about cards, I think dogmatically avoiding them in the early rounds is folly.

I do agree that, in every game, one needs to weigh the advantages of getting a card. If your only attacks are against well stocked places and sets are not worth much yet, it may not be worth it. Especially if you're somewhat weak. Saving the guys makes you harder to take out and having one less card makes you less attractive. However, I'm often amazed at the degree to which some people avoid cards in this format.

[edpuerta]

I'd say the single best thing you can do for yourself in an escalating game is to read the game logs of Thai Robert. The guy is a friggin master of the escalating game. Like, on a savant level.

Practically speaking, I'd say the biggest mistake new players make in escalating games is wearing themselves out trying to seize and hold a bonus. Most escalating games are over by Round 6, latest. By that time, if you have South America (for example), the two army bonus means squat against the guy who is cashing in for 25. Trying to grab a bonus, unless you get a phenom drop, is almost suicidal.