Deferred troops are such bullshit

[ManBungalow]

Somebody misses two turns then deploys on a teammate who plays with this spontaneous stack before my team can properly retaliate.

I know we can play to anticipate the deferred troops yada yada but it shouldn't work this way.

Discuss.

[IcePack]

I know we can play to anticipate the deferred troops yada yada but it shouldn't work this way.

Why not?

[Gilligan]

This had better not be our team game.

Oh wait, it is

[BoganGod]

One advantage of playing esc cards is gaining a card advantage while cheap folk accrue deferred troops. Deferred troops blow. I just try and drop opponents deploy by hitting their territory count in their absence. I have noticed repeated instances of turn missing are more common in ns, in particular ns build games with no auto deploy.

[OliverFA]

In fact any tactic that involves deploying all the team reinforcements into one member look b.llsh.t to me. At the end the team does not play like a team, but more like a star supported by the rest. I mean... a team is supposed to coordinate and follow a plan, but in that case the plan is "don't do anything for two turns and then deploy on me". It is not very difficult to follow that "team" strategy.

[betiko]

In fact any tactic that involves deploying all the team reinforcements into one member look b.llsh.t to me. At the end the team does not play like a team, but more like a star supported by the rest. I mean... a team is supposed to coordinate and follow a plan, but in that case the plan is "don't do anything for two turns and then deploy on me". It is not very difficult to follow that "team" strategy.

I don t agree with this. The strategy will depend on settings, and on a conquest map of course this is the way to go. That s kind of the way a team works, you do what is best for the general interest depending on the situation. Sometimes you even set yourself up for a teamkill and turn around an escalating game that seemed to be lost. So many strategies are possible, I don t see the relevance of your comment.

Back on topic, what about when a guy misses all his turns then a teammate gets a huge territory bonus + eventually some bonuses + his cards? Isn t that a bigger bullshit?
I m on a game where 2/3 players are missing turns, i m wondering if they are doing it on purpose for this kind of stunt..

[OliverFA]

I don't say that this is not a valid (probably the best) strategy for a particular setting, what I say is that are the settings themselves the ones that are flawed because encourage that kind of strategies.

And no, using your teammates resources (troops) is not team playing, even if that's the best way to win.

[Shannon Apple]

LOL... the whole point of playing TEAM games, Oliver, is to play as a team, not as individuals. If the best tactic for the team is to stack on one player, then that's what you do. There is nothing unfair or cheap about that. It's called being on a good team. You do what is best at that particular time in order to win. You treat all of your teammates troops as your own and you look at where deployments/reinforcements should happen. I don't see where that's wrong in any setting.

I'll agree with manbungalow. I've had one incident last night where a guy missed a turn deliberately in a speed game thinking that his deferred stack would give him an edge. Luckily I had the dice at that moment to take it out and basically win the game.

[waltero]

No reason why a guy should have an advantage for missing a turn. Maybe having a guys deferred troops auto deploy is the Answer?

[OliverFA]

LOL... the whole point of playing TEAM games, Oliver, is to play as a team, not as individuals.

Right! And deploying everyting on a team member is playing like one individual with the resources of everyone else. A true team playing would be a series of coordinated movements. Yes, we can say that "I deploy on you-I deploy on you too-I deploy on you too- I move with the troops of we all four" is some kind of coordination, but a very poor one.

I am not saying that a team should follow a non-optimal tactic, or to lose in purpose. I say that this is boring. If your main enjoyment comes from wining games then that's ok, but if you enjoy real challenges, then those games are something to avoid.

Again, the team does well in using the optimal strategy. It's the settings that encourage this kind of strategy what is wrong.

If the best tactic for the team is to stack on one player, then that's what you do. There is nothing unfair or cheap about that.

I disagree. It's the best tactic, and that can't be argued, but IMHO it's cheap because there is little challenge or little planification in doing that. Just a "Who we stack on? Ah ok we stack on D".

[rhp 1]

LOL... the whole point of playing TEAM games, Oliver, is to play as a team, not as individuals.

Right! And deploying everyting on a team member is playing like one individual with the resources of everyone else. A true team playing would be a series of coordinated movements. Yes, we can say that "I deploy on you-I deploy on you too-I deploy on you too- I move with the troops of we all four" is some kind of coordination, but a very poor one.

I am not saying that a team should follow a non-optimal tactic, or to lose in purpose. I say that this is boring. If your main enjoyment comes from wining games then that's ok, but if you enjoy real challenges, then those games are something to avoid.

Again, the team does well in using the optimal strategy. It's the settings that encourage this kind of strategy what is wrong.

If the best tactic for the team is to stack on one player, then that's what you do. There is nothing unfair or cheap about that.

I disagree. It's the best tactic, and that can't be argued, but IMHO it's cheap because there is little challenge or little planification in doing that. Just a "Who we stack on? Ah ok we stack on D".

sorry bro... complete jibberish... some maps are stack a hammer maps, others are not... so to say that a particular strat on a map is "cheap tactics" is silly... if a map calls for stacking someone, you should do it... period.. monsters comes to mind along with many others... but their are a vast array of maps that this strat does not work well on and you play those maps accordingly....

[rhp 1]

Somebody misses two turns then deploys on a teammate who plays with this spontaneous stack before my team can properly retaliate.

I know we can play to anticipate the deferred troops yada yada but it shouldn't work this way.

Discuss.

now as to what MB is talking about... I've always disliked deferred troops... you miss a turn? too frickin bad... but short of not getting any armies?, I'm not sure what can be done MB.. maybe change it to only being allowed to deploy deferred armies on yourself with no way to fort them? I'm not sure....

this topic plays into the whole "should you get a card whether or not you physically end your turn" thread.... seems to me, that the deferred troops thing runs contrary to the you don't get a card unless you end your turn argument.... I realize it's not a direct parallel, but it definitely seems odd...

[OliverFA]

if a map calls for stacking someone, you should do it... period..

It's difficult to disagree about that. I just say that a map calling for that is boring. As with colours, it's all about opinions.

but their are a vast array of maps that this strat does not work well on and you play those maps accordingly....

Fortunatelly there are

[rhp 1]

if a map calls for stacking someone, you should do it... period..

It's difficult to disagree about that. I just say that a map calling for that is boring. As with colours, it's all about opinions.

but their are a vast array of maps that this strat does not work well on and you play those maps accordingly....

Fortunatelly there are

lol.. well said...


though, regardless of stacking or not, you are incorrect to assume that monsters is boring due to this intially obvious tactic (stacking)...

mosters does call for this in team games, though as the game progresses more variance in game play could occur depending on the skill of the team playing it... this is especially true when monsters games are very close and lead swings are frequent (though this is not the norm)

point being.. a map such as monsters is all the greater because of a tactic you don't care for (or the maps that force this tactic to stay closer in line with your sentiment) plus the fact that this particular strat can easily be changed/adjusted based on how the game proceeds....

wow.. never realized I liked monsters so much, but hell.. it's a great map now that I think about it

[Shannon Apple]

LOL... the whole point of playing TEAM games, Oliver, is to play as a team, not as individuals.

Right! And deploying everyting on a team member is playing like one individual with the resources of everyone else. A true team playing would be a series of coordinated movements. Yes, we can say that "I deploy on you-I deploy on you too-I deploy on you too- I move with the troops of we all four" is some kind of coordination, but a very poor one.

I am not saying that a team should follow a non-optimal tactic, or to lose in purpose. I say that this is boring. If your main enjoyment comes from wining games then that's ok, but if you enjoy real challenges, then those games are something to avoid.

Again, the team does well in using the optimal strategy. It's the settings that encourage this kind of strategy what is wrong.

If the best tactic for the team is to stack on one player, then that's what you do. There is nothing unfair or cheap about that.

I disagree. It's the best tactic, and that can't be argued, but IMHO it's cheap because there is little challenge or little planification in doing that. Just a "Who we stack on? Ah ok we stack on D".

Sorry, you don't make any sense whatsoever. That is completely illogical. You must rely on your teammates. Any team excercise requires co-ordination. But in order for a team to work, someone needs to take leadership. If for instance (I'm a graphic designer) I am on a team of designers and we have a deadline to meet. It is up to us to nominate a leader to take charge, people are appointed to do the market research, someone else is appointed to look into the trends and come up with sketches, someone else could be given a different job, depending on requirements. Maybe two work together on that. Now we are all designers, we all want to have our work come out on top, BUT, you have to do what is best for the team and go with whatever jobs need to be done. Just because someone else did the physical design does not mean that I contributed any less by doing the market research and coming up with ideas for what could work. The person doing the artwork has the fun job, but being successful isn't about making sure everyone gets to do every piece of the job equally. That would create a horrible mash-up of styles. It's about getting the thing done as quickly and efficiently as possible to the highest standard. A design brief is a problem and requires a strategy in order to come up with a solution.

The same could be said for gameplay and team strategy. It's not about who did the attacking. The fun is in contributing to the win. You should be actively contributing in game chat on what to do next anyway and making informed decisions together. You can't be selfish and want to attack all the time. My skills as a team player are growing since I joined a clan a few months ago. There's a lot that you learn from playing with established teams, but I cannot see how it is any less fun to play to win lol. That's sorta silly talk. Sorry.

[OliverFA]

It is clear that I am unable to express myself properly. I am not discussing the pros and cons of teamwork. I am talking about a setting where the best teamwork possible is to sit and watch while someone else does everything. Yes, if you want to use your resouces for something else that's selfish and goes against the team, so you'd better not do it and we all agree about it. It's the situation what is boring.

In your example is like if each of you have a budget but decide to pool all the budget for one of the members. Yes, it's "teamwork" because you have used the budget in the best way possible, but it's not fun. So what's best for the team in that case it's not the more entertaining.

Anyway I think that I said it enough times so won't repeat it again because that also begins to become boring

[rhp 1]

It is clear that I am unable to express myself properly. I am not discussing the pros and cons of teamwork. I am talking about a setting where the best teamwork possible is to sit and watch while someone else does everything. Yes, if you want to use your resouces for something else that's selfish and goes against the team, so you'd better not do it and we all agree about it. It's the situation what is boring.

In your example is like if each of you have a budget but decide to pool all the budget for one of the members. Yes, it's "teamwork" because you have used the budget in the best way possible, but it's not fun. So what's best for the team in that case it's not the more entertaining.

Anyway I think that I said it enough times so won't repeat it again because that also begins to become boring

I know what you're saying... certain maps on team games require stacking, and you think it sucks that stacking one player and letting them do all the work, while def a good team strat, is boring and that you would prefer to avoid those types of maps/settings... makes perfect sense... 3 players hanging out drinking lattes while one player does all the work, while effective, is certainly not exciting, nor does it feel "team oriented".... I, upon further review, totally agree with you...

wow... I'm much better at properly articulating your position than you are, huh? lol.. jk

[Shannon Apple]

Okay, now I understand what you've been trying to say, because it sounded like you were saying that it was poor sportsmanship to stack a player to attack .

A lot of clans won't play conquest maps for that reason. Some of them are based entirely on luck... "who can get to the target first" and requires little strategy and yeah, they're boring. I don't think I've ever played one as part of a team though.

[Lindax]

I have always been against deferred troops (except when I get them, of course! )

Lx

[OliverFA]

wow... I'm much better at properly articulating your position than you are, huh? lol.. jk

Perhaps I should name you my spokesperson! LOL!

[rhp 1]

wow... I'm much better at properly articulating your position than you are, huh? lol.. jk

Perhaps I should name you my spokesperson! LOL!

haha... if you wish....

[waltero]

I am missing the point (often do)
Are we talking about missing a turn and receiving Deferred troops or Are we talking about how unfair it is to load another team member up with huge stacks of armies.
If it is the ladder. I see no problem? Works the same for every body (Team) involved in the game.
Being able to give all your units to another player is a hard thing.
Makes the difference between a good team and a bad one. Not much difference doing the same thing when you turn in a set.
Differed troops spoils it is all the same if you are talking about unit placement on other team members.

If you are talking about how unfair it is that a player miss a turn and receives Deferred armies. I would agree!
Would be cool to see the enemy receive a number of the guys (guy who missed his turn) armies.

Maybe a roll of the die, when a guy misses a turn. Die determines where, who and how his deferred armies enter the board.
Something, anything to prevent those mooly bastards from using it (missing a turn) as a strategy (.

[-Maximus-]

No gold or higher teammate medals in this thread so most of the complaints must be vs real teams. If I am playing a public team game this would rarely happen, team play I mean...

[rhp 1]

No gold or higher teammate medals in this thread so most of the complaints must be vs real teams. If I am playing a public team game this would rarely happen, team play I mean...

hmmm.... funny with the importance people put on medals 'round these parts...

you don't have to have a platinum in teams to understand what the deal is here... deferred troops is MB's issue here... and I can clearly see what he's talking about.. not sure why you can't with all of your fancy medals...

[Crazyirishman]

I think the problem ManB is talking about is the combo of missing multiple turns, then plopping an extra 6 on the player that follows so that the other team doesn't have time to adjust/ hit down the stack. if it were just general deploying to load the person I don't think there would be a problem.