Beating the troop builders

[KennyC]

Over the past couple months I have developed an aggressive strategy that is very effective in crushing new and weak players (standard, flat, unlim, 4-5 players). Essentially, the strategy involves being the first person to kill an opponent, and just rolling from there. My wins rarely go over 15 turns and seem to last an average 10 turns, so I'm talking about a very aggressive approach. However recently I have been up against some stronger opponents that do very well with a more passive approach where they build up troops on one or two territories.

My problem is that my methods for dealing with this type of player do not lead to wins. My first thought was to attack them before they are ready to make their move. This usually opens the game up for another opponent to take control of the game. The second method was to ignore them and hope someone else would deal with them. The problem here is that if I am putting my focus on the opponents, it makes it very difficult for them to attack the builder, and the builder just gets stronger and swoops in for the win.

The final approach I think is to mimick the builder when you see that you will be up against this type of player. This leads to my major weakness which is a tight game between three or more players with a lot of troops. Like I said at the start I tend to be very aggressive and this certainly leads to defeat in this situation.

Does anyone have any other ideas on how to handle these players?

[GrazingCattle]

over time the build up strategy proves to be more fatal then an all out attack strategy. When you build up, you wait for the perfect moment to strike and only grab useful areas, not randomly.

The classic flaw with being overly aggressive is you make yourself a target if you are too successful. But if you are so weak that others don't perceive you as a threat because you are so spread out that it is laughable, you can surprise them by building the next turn. Not continuing on an aggressive course. In no cards games I love to pick up most of Asia, and feign that I will try and hold it. then build with the extra 1 or 2 guys I get from owning so much area.

Soon I have enough to strike at most continents while they have continued to weaken each other breaking bonuses! It works really well.

[RobinJ]

The final approach I think is to mimick the builder when you see that you will be up against this type of player. This leads to my major weakness which is a tight game between three or more players with a lot of troops. Like I said at the start I tend to be very aggressive and this certainly leads to defeat in this situation.

Unfortunately I find that this is the only way to play that sort of game - you have to beat them at their own game. It takes a lot of patience but you will just have to either hope that an opportunity arises or just go aggressive and take risks.

However, I would advise you to try playing escalating cards. I think they would suit your strategy much better as build up games rarely happen and it is better for eliminating one opponent and then moving on to the next. However, this does require patience as well as you need to position yourself and not appear to strong.

[KennyC]

Escalating cards, I don't know why I never thought about using these games to my advantage. I've played one in the past and was turned off because the the guy who ended up winning got lucky and turned in cards with his dying breath.

[Stormur]

Continents are not important in my opinion, if u have one protected with 4 to 6 units at key points, the key factor is to have an attack force (proportional to u r units on the board), these should be moved according to what is happing on the map, opponents card count/number of units and possible clashes between players when the break hits go after the cards be cashing out your own cards, and never ever get u r self in a positions with to many cards and connected to a player with an large attack force

The only true strategy

Stormur

[vic]

The strategy that the original poster is referring to is the fort strategy. Basically what you want to do is keep building armies on each of your territories. This way, if someone decides to break you, you can regain your land back no problem.

Also, while you build up you seem like you have no real force. eg. I own SA and i have 15 guys on each country, whereas the guy who owns africa has 35 guys on North africa and 1's on the other territories. 35 can beat the 15 on brazil sure. but all in all i have more armies than he does (15x4 = 60, 25 more guys!) and if he wastes time taking brazil out then i will just get it back With only 15 guys on brazil i offer no particular threat to the person holding africa (even tehn if you play with noobs they will break you for no rhyme or reason, so you just need to play carefully) and can usually chill for a good part of the game and stack up.

Anyhow, this strategy works good in flat rate because with all the other guys involved in an armament buildup along their borders, one of them will crack and destroy a percieved threat and then you can come in and sweep it up

Note that this is a VERY poor strategy for escalating games. It only ensures that you get eliminated last. :p However, it may work if you get lucky and the games are unlimited forts.


Stormur has posted another version of the same strategy that is essentially aimed an having a percieved non-aggressive aggressive stance by having a huge attack force behind the border that will dissuade people from breaking your continent; eg. if i own SA i will have 5 guys on brazil and venezuela and 50 guys on peru - if someone is dumb enough to break me, I can unleash the 50 guys on them - In an even game they would have to split their 60 guys all across their borders (minimum 3 for africa and NA) and wont be able to deal with 50 guys, so they won't try and break you.

I dont think that this is very successful in esc. games either (perhaps for the first few rounds). I guess you can try it out and post results.

best of luck!

[vic]

I totally forgot to answer the original question.

Beating a troop builder is pretty easy - the solution simply lies in army counts. The fort strategy relies on the fact that the guy playing it at the end of 50 rounds has doulbe the guys of any other player on the board. so bascially what you want to do is keep the game even right from the start by ensuring that you atleast have the same number of guys as he does.

Many ways to do this

play fort yourself. (in a 4 player game if 2 guys play fort the other 2 will also most likely follow leading to a stalemate). This is the safest solution.

what i like to do is create a monster. Identify one guy who loves to expand, and just let him get really really strong and force everyone in the game to attack your monster, including the guy playing fort (i.e. you just made the guy play fort get his ass into the action). This is a risky solution, sometimes the monster gets too big and good rolls and next thing you know it is too late haha.

Another dangerous solution is to target the guy playing fort. If you get unlucky someone else will kill you off, or you may piss him off and he will suicide on you. but if you can do this early enough and get lucky then you can perhaps balance out the game by forcing him to abandon his strategy.

usually fort players are pretty passive and will even throw the game away if things are not going their way. they don't like fighting and conflict :p

best of luck!

[Greycloak]

usually fort players are pretty passive and will even throw the game away if things are not going their way. they don't like fighting and conflict

vic makes some good points and I would like to elaborate further.

Donkey (my doubles partner and I) refer to fort players as "stack pussies" because all they do is stack and are afraid to do anything with them. To my mind, there are two kinds of stack pussies out there, the smart ones and the knuckleheads and the trick in dealing with them is to try to figure out what kind you are dealing with.

A kuncklehead stack pussy will often hem his stacks in behind a wall of 1's. This is the easiest stack pussy to deal with because they can be ignored to the extent that because they will not be attacking in any significant way, you know in advance what they are capable of. All you need to do is balance your income from land-grabbing so that when you take out your last opponent, the income will be enough to give you close to the same number of units as they have in their stacks.

If you are forced to deal with them early, don't use kid gloves. Your attacking units have a 1:1.15 advantage so feel free to knock them down some, rather than trying to kill their precious stacks in one round. See if you can entice some other players to attack the stacks instead.

The other kind of stacker is the smart kind. In escalating games, the most important thing (and some would say the only important thing) is to have a number of larger stacks available to cash in, kill someone for their cards and cash in again. This is how all high-level escalating games are played - Territory is meaningless, continents are meaningless. All that matters is the kill and the cash and preventing your enemies from doing the same.

In no-cards and flat games, territory and continents matter so one solid strategy is to try to sit back while the others burn themselves out and then you swoop in at the right time. This type of player can still be met with an expansionist strategy but only if you manage your income well. Make sure you are never going to be in a position that the stacker can swoop and impede you. This means that your expansion must be gradual, careful and relentless.

Hope that helps!

[Stormur]

Do not try to beat them ... be one ...

[Stormur]

and for u new players .. this advice does not extend to the classic board... go for new maps more even grounds.... to get good go for double games with a good partner .. study the moves of Experienced players and copy them, move to troop building, when u get it right u should be able to win 2 of every 3 the points start building up ... and always have goal of getting a higher rank ...

[DTT]

I don't mind the troop builders as long as they aren't "stack pussies" (love the term)

I see a place for it, but when they continue to build up in 1 or 2 continents to the point that they have more than enough armies to cause serious damage to anyone, and they still attack a 1 army territory and fortify, it pisses me right off.

These players hope they get big enough in 1 area and just sit and wait for everyone else to fight it out. A lot of the more emotional players don't pay attention to what is going on because they are still pissed that player A attacked them 18 freakin rounds ago. You can't play this game with emotions.

I like playing flat rate - chained games the most because of the strategy aspect.

As far as beating them, you have to get to them early and hope you don't have some other asshat on the board making it difficult for you. If they do start building up, you need to pay attention and do the same, but don't lose your aggressive tactics. Smart aggressive play usually leads to greater results. Attack a 1 army territory for your card and then start whittling down their big borders forts. Communicate with the other players to help them see what kind of player is on the board. Players like that bore the hell out of me if that is their only tactic. Sometimes we are all forced into that type of game, but keep on being mean and attack. You don't win without attacking.

ps- none of this applies to the game we are currently playing.

[KennyC]

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=459802

This is the game that DTT was refering to, and it is a very good example of where I am having trouble, mostly because the third party (Helmet) is the player that really prompted this question.

The difference to this point is that I have not lost my patience (yet) and been overly agressive, which would open the game to either DTT or Helmet. The downside is that every player involved including myself has been in a weak position, yet any attempt to eliminate them (my natural instinct) would result in a loss.

Anyway, I don't want to go too much into this game at the moment because I would like to play it through, but if you could come back DTT to discuss it when it is finished I would appreciate it.

[DTT]

Anyway, I don't want to go too much into this game at the moment because I would like to play it through, but if you could come back DTT to discuss it when it is finished I would appreciate it.

Will do. So far I can say I think this has been a good game. Trust me when I say have seen extremely aggravating examples of it. I've played Helmet a few times before and I always enjoy our games.

...

and I just wrote a bunch of crap and thought... better wait like Kenny said.

[Lancaster]

In some Risk Rule options, you are limited to only 12 armies per province. If this were an option, would it prevent the stack builders? I am new to the site and have just had my first encounter with the stack builders and found the game very unfulfilling. I copied them for seven turns then just got bored.

[KennyC]

I just wanted to follow up on the game DTT and I were playing in. DTT took the win, by doing a couple of things very well (DTT please correct me if I am wrong or if I missed anything).

The real turning point in the game happened when Helmet made a large attack against me reducing my troops to about 1/3 of his and DTT's. At this point the game could have gone either way, however Helmet pulled his troops back whereas DTT put his troops in an attacking position. When I was unable to recover DTT was ready to take me out and keep rolling on for the win.

I think one could argue that I was too spread out when Helmet went in for the attack. I think I did better balancing an attacking and defensive stance, but there is probably some room for improvement there as well.

[gethine]

I just wanted to follow up on the game DTT and I were playing in. DTT took the win, by doing a couple of things very well (DTT please correct me if I am wrong or if I missed anything).

The real turning point in the game happened when Helmet made a large attack against me reducing my troops to about 1/3 of his and DTT's. At this point the game could have gone either way, however Helmet pulled his troops back whereas DTT put his troops in an attacking position. When I was unable to recover DTT was ready to take me out and keep rolling on for the win.

I think one could argue that I was too spread out when Helmet went in for the attack. I think I did better balancing an attacking and defensive stance, but there is probably some room for improvement there as well.

i find that you can't have the perfect strategy when you are playing against other players as they never seem to do what you want them to. e.g. attack each other consistently and ignore your own troop growth.
i think your best defence against the stackers is to hope someone else gets pissed with them first, and then you clear up the mess.

[KennyC]

Escalating cards, I don't know why I never thought about using these games to my advantage. I've played one in the past and was turned off because the the guy who ended up winning got lucky and turned in cards with his dying breath.

I've been mixing in some escalating card games and I've decided that I officially hate them. I'm about to lose one of these games that I would otherwise win in a flat rate game (I own over 3/4 of the map right now, and opponent has no bonus) and it is due to the luck of the cards I've drawn. I nearly lost another one that would have been a gimme with flat cards, but luck was on my side there.

[robbart]

Well, I have found times when everyone was ignoring the stacker, and I could see it for what it was... Player A was simply taking 1 territory at a time, and stacking up his troops. Everyone else on the board left him alone. Once he amassed 50+ troops, I had to place a 38 stack one territory out of reach of his stack, but able to take away his bonus. He then had a decision to make. Should he take on MY stack by moving HIS stack closer? Run? Or stand Pat?

Other times, I bait a player into attacking with his stack, so he'll actually attack someone else.

Stackers are easy pickens, if you can antagonize them into doing something they weren't ready to do.

When they hole up in a territory, and surround their stack with one's, I will hit in a certain spot so the only thing he can do, is come at my in the way I want him to. Tactically, it's a great move. Make him attack before he is ready, and he'll f**k it up.

Just my .02 worth.

[robbart]

Oh, back to the original question though...

I usually will use whatever strategy is necessary. It might be one particular strategy due to the map, or it might be a blend of a variety of strategies due in large part to placement on the map.

I find that if you can get other players to attack the stacker, you suffer less losses, and you remove the idiot impeding your way to victory.

[KennyC]

Escalating cards, I don't know why I never thought about using these games to my advantage. I've played one in the past and was turned off because the the guy who ended up winning got lucky and turned in cards with his dying breath.

I've been mixing in some escalating card games and I've decided that I officially hate them. I'm about to lose one of these games that I would otherwise win in a flat rate game (I own over 3/4 of the map right now, and opponent has no bonus) and it is due to the luck of the cards I've drawn. I nearly lost another one that would have been a gimme with flat cards, but luck was on my side there.

I mis-overestimated my opponent, who let my 1 troop areas sit unattacked without breaking any of my bonuses while 30 of his troops sat waiting spread between two areas. This gave me a 20+ bonus on my second to last turn allowing me to take out one of the two stacks and get the card I needed for the winning set.

[RobinJ]

Escalating cards, I don't know why I never thought about using these games to my advantage. I've played one in the past and was turned off because the the guy who ended up winning got lucky and turned in cards with his dying breath.

I've been mixing in some escalating card games and I've decided that I officially hate them. I'm about to lose one of these games that I would otherwise win in a flat rate game (I own over 3/4 of the map right now, and opponent has no bonus) and it is due to the luck of the cards I've drawn. I nearly lost another one that would have been a gimme with flat cards, but luck was on my side there.

I mis-overestimated my opponent, who let my 1 troop areas sit unattacked without breaking any of my bonuses while 30 of his troops sat waiting spread between two areas. This gave me a 20+ bonus on my second to last turn allowing me to take out one of the two stacks and get the card I needed for the winning set.

The strategies are just so different. Flat rate - you have to be more aggressive. In escalating, it is all about timing of the cards. So, what might have appeared a lucky victory was probably a well planned one.

[Emperor_Metalman]

A way to deal with a troop builder is to attempt to make sure you get more reinforcements than he does. This works if the builder doesn't attack. But some builders will weaken players who are getting too powerful. The problem with this is that the builder will lose armies in the process. Just make sure that the other players become a target for the builder because of their power. After a while the rest of the players and especially the builder should be weakened.

[KennyC]

The strategies are just so different. Flat rate - you have to be more aggressive. In escalating, it is all about timing of the cards. So, what might have appeared a lucky victory was probably a well planned one.

Although I can see where you are coming from here, this is not the case. In particular one of the games I was refering to was a game where the next person to get a set would win regardless of position (my position was significantly stronger in a flat or no card game). I missed it on my 4th card and my opponent got it with three for the win.

I am really not sure why I am complaining, because I went back to check my record and I play these pretty well. Since I started adding in escalating games again (non head to head) I have won 4 out of 8 (that is counting one I should win in 1 turn).

[stringybeany]

I follow no set strategy. Every board and position is unique and I employ whatever strategy that appears the most effective for that board in that round, including "pussy stacking" (I like that term also!) and suicide (very rare, but there is a time and place for everything!)

[Night Strike]

I try many different strategies, but I generally wait rather than play cards under either format. If I can eliminate someone, especially in terminator, I'll trade in under flat rate for either 8 or 10.

In one game, I was getting very annoyed with the other two players b/c they were just building up (http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=490547) and basically keeping me from keeping my continents. I eventually was able to trade in cards (escalating on World 2.1) and take out blue to trade in a double set. I was aggressive enough to keep myself alive and eventually win.

I prefer to leave one of my opponents' singly-occupied territory between myself and their massive army so I won't be hurt by it until they either fort out or under my terms. I'll usually try to find a way around to make them fortify away until it's back down to an attackable size.