Ogeron wrote:IMHO stacking on a card is a cheap but legitimate tactic. Meaning I won't join a game with you again but I also wouldn't click the cheap tactic box on rating.
The problem with stacking on a card is that if you attack the stacker, you are greatly weakened and likely to be the first out of the game because others rightly will take you out in your weakened position. If you don't attack the stacker, then you risk they become the most powerful on the board and if you happened to be near them, you are the first to get eaten. To me there is no joy in playing a game with a lose lose option available to one or more of the players.
I'd like to say this is a great case for diplomacy but in most games I find that any chat is considered bad and actually trying to get some solid trustworthy communication across between turns is very difficult. If I'm playing with players I know, this is of course not an issue but there isn't much joy for me in playing the same 4 to 6 people all the time. I like the challenge of the diversity risk inherent with that choice and all. =)
It is not a cheap tactic at all. Building a large stack in a nuke game is a double edged sword. One the one hand you have a lot of strike power. But you cannot expand while you build the stack, often ending up with deploying the minimum troops each turn. If someone attacks your stack, you cannot retaliate unless you have enough power to eliminate a lot of opponents' troops and distribute your own troops enough while not weakening yourself. So, stacks in a nuke game are highly prone to guerrilla style attacks. Moreover, the players who are just stacking, do not nuke. This means it is easier for non-stackers to gain and hold bonuses. I say you have to play according to the situation.
Who says chat is considered bad? Game chat is what makes this game so interesting.
