What makes the great GREAT!?!

[juventino]

I can tell about one game recently.

I was dead in the beginning. I had no chance.

But then one player was about to deadbeat. He had a firm grip in the south. I was the only one who saw this and i could deploy my men into the south and get a 3 bonus with only 1 border becasue the deadbeat had scared people away and had a large wall in one direction. Need I say i won the game

[Robinette]

it's all about spending hours hacking into the random number generators, but my secret is also hacking into the cards...

And Robinette: Teach me! I only get red cards in flat rate and mixed sets in esc. So please teach me!

Well if you REALLY want to know, I'll explain it, but it's a bit complicated to explain without a whiteboard.

First off, it doesn't work with flat rate, and it doesn't work with team games. Here 's why... it is all about the Cyclomatic Code Complexity within this site. The simple part to explain is that on this site the code complexity is defined by control flow, and obviously there are different ways of measuring complexity (e.g. data complexity, module complexity, algorithmic complexity, call-to, call-by, etc.), and although these other methods are effective in the right context, it seems to be generally accepted that control flow is one of the most useful measurements of complexity, and high complexity scores have been shown to be a strong indicator of low reliability and frequent errors. That's simple enough, but it's what we do with it that's so cool... This measure provides a single ordinal number that can be compared to the complexity of other games. Because of static software metrics intended to be independent of language and language format, Cyclomatic Code Complexity becomes a measure of the number of linearly-independent paths through a program module and is calculated by counting the number of decision points found in the code. Stay with me people... I use a Lutz Roeders Reflector which basically allows the user to point his Reflector tool at any Common Langauge Runtime (CLR) assembly, and it will then de-compile this creating an entirely reflected treeview with all the objects from the source assembly shown, with code. Yes with code. Great stuff. Basically you can use this tool to see how any valid CLR (assuming it has not been obfuscated) assembly works. Anyway the up shot of it, is that we get a boolean to say that the current file is valid or not, that is all we care about at the moment. So if the file requested is not a valid CLR type an error message is shown, and nothing else is done. However, if the input file is a valid CLR file, it is then checked to see if the file is a "System" assembly, and if it is... eureka! I get an extra card. Ok so thats pretty much all there is to it.

A while back I started to modifiy this to work with flat rate, but I don't think it would really be worth all the effort. So if you really want this for flat rate, let me explain how far I got and you could work on finishing it. You would have to revisit the treeview with ONLY valid namespaces and ONLY valid classes created. We would also have to find the NameSpaces object which contains the list of strings (for namspaces) and for each string of ucClass objects (for the classes). The list of ucClass objects are created by this and are then ready and waiting to be placed on a suitable code. But as yet we dont know what classes the user needs, it could be all of them, or it could be 1 of them or even none of them. It depends on what the user selects from the treeview on the mainform (frmMain.cs). And that's where I got stuck. So I looked and I looked for an answer. The only thing simliar at all, was GDI+ and in order to do something like this, a destination target needs to be created at the full string size, and then the viewable (onscreen) fragments are printed to individual page framements and saved into the destination image at the correct x/y co-ordinates. In order to do this the application has to programatically perform scrolling to get the next page fragment code to merge with the destination code. I managed to get this to work, but it was a complete nightmare, and there were definetly bugs everywhere, which resulted in losing more cards that I gained! So if there is anyone reading this that is totally rad and knarly at GDI+, and knows how to save the entire contents of a scrollable control to an exisiting code, please feel free to let me know. As for the above code, it is code that I am kind of 1/2 proud of, but would rather wasn't there. Do you know what I mean? After all, sometimes you just get completley stuck with trying to patch all these code fragments together, to form the final destination code.


So for these reasons, it only works properly with 6 player std escalating games.


So now you know why I only play 6 player std escalating games.

And why I always seem to have 1 more card than you.

[GrazingCattle]

Thanks for the advice Robinette, I will be sure to try it out!

[Nikolai]

HAHAHAHAHA.... Robinette, that's really priceless. I posit that you are, instead of a hacker, a player who prefers the cash first strategy to try to take people out at the beginning of the second round of cashes.

[Incandenza]

lots of head-clutching technobabble

Post of the year right there. I'm getting weird looks at work 'cause I'm giggling at my desk.

[Robinette]

lots of head-clutching technobabble

Post of the year right there. I'm getting weird looks at work 'cause I'm giggling at my desk.

[AAFitz]

And why I always seem to have 1 more card than you.

but how to you pick its color?

[sarcaschtick]

think the worst mistake you can make is thinking you lost because of the dice. Yes, there are a few rare moments where you had the perfect opportunity to beat out yellow and lost all your armies on a 7 vs 1 roll, and his 5 cards in an escalating game would have given you 250 troops.

But that's very rare. You don't (often) lose because of the dice. You don't (often) lose because of an inferior drop. You lose because you were outplayed, you missed something, your opponents were thinking a few steps ahead of you. Luck does have a part in the game, no doubt, but luck without skill doesn't get you anywhere. Think about a game after you've lost (and won), it won't take more than a few minutes I promise. Remember what mistake(s) you made and why you made them. After a particularly hard game that you won, how did you pull it out, what did you do to win, etc. Recognize luck in the game, but don't attribute wins/losses solely to it.

I realize that this often doesn't work in team games where someone deadbeats and leaves a partner in a ridiculously nice position. But the way you play the game will have a much stronger effect on the wins and losses you accumulate. There's a reason that after 100 games someone is a Colonel, and someone else is not.

[DiM]

think the worst mistake you can make is thinking you lost because of the dice. Yes, there are a few rare moments where you had the perfect opportunity to beat out yellow and lost all your armies on a 7 vs 1 roll, and his 5 cards in an escalating game would have given you 250 troops.

But that's very rare. You don't (often) lose because of the dice. You don't (often) lose because of an inferior drop. You lose because you were outplayed, you missed something, your opponents were thinking a few steps ahead of you. Luck does have a part in the game, no doubt, but luck without skill doesn't get you anywhere. Think about a game after you've lost (and won), it won't take more than a few minutes I promise. Remember what mistake(s) you made and why you made them. After a particularly hard game that you won, how did you pull it out, what did you do to win, etc. Recognize luck in the game, but don't attribute wins/losses solely to it.

I realize that this often doesn't work in team games where someone deadbeats and leaves a partner in a ridiculously nice position. But the way you play the game will have a much stronger effect on the wins and losses you accumulate. There's a reason that after 100 games someone is a Colonel, and someone else is not.

indeed most of the wins and loses are based on the strategy you apply and not on the dice but sometimes it happens that whatever brilliant tactics you apply luck really isn't on your side.
for instance in a game i've lost the luck was playing bad jokes on me. the first sign was that after 6 turns one guy had allready changed cards 2 times for mixed sets and also got another 8 armies for holding some of the territories on the cards. so after 6 turns he had a bonus of 28 armies while i changed in the 5th turn for only 4 armies. this early in the game such a big difference really counts. and in another game i guy that was almost winning had me cornered and attacked ~40vs 10 and lost everything and left me with one troop. i exchanged cards next turn and kicked his ass. if the dice were normal, those 40 troops would have been more than enough to kill me.

this kind of games really remains in your memory.

[sarcaschtick]

Dim, I was probably a bit strong in discounting luck in the game no doubt - we all have those games that are just etched in our memory.

[GrazingCattle]

I am a firm believer that luck, while a part of the game, can't trump skill. Luck is fickle. Because statistically for every big win there is an equally big lose on the horizon. Many times that lose is in the same game.

I don't like people who complain about the dice being unfair. If I thought something was unfair I would change my style to accommodate that variable.

Skill on the other hand takes into consideration the idea that the dice are weighted. I play more conservatively due to the fact that I think the dice on CC are a smidgen more favorable to the defender. Not by much, but enough to make me change my game plan.

Skill vs. Luck

And the Winner is: Skill

[AAFitz]

there is no question that on in individual game basis luck is a huge factor...sometimes the only one even...but over the course of many many games....skill is all that matters..because luck evens out in the end

i just finished off a player in 1 round...and his partner down to 2armies in round 2....our skill had nothing to do with it..except that i knew enough to keep attacking when i wasnt losing.....but if we played 20 games against the same team....the better team would have won

[Asclepio]

I want to know if there is some tips about: standard, no card, 3 players.
It's always seems that the 2 weaker players will fight against the stronger ... never end.

[Robinette]

I want to know if there is some tips about: standard, no card, 3 players.

Avoid them

[DiM]

I want to know if there is some tips about: standard, no card, 3 players.
It's always seems that the 2 weaker players will fight against the stronger ... never end.

the best games ever. it's really nice and you get a really good feeling when you play alone against 2 other guys that most usually ally against you, and yet you win

[Robinette]

And why I always seem to have 1 more card than you.

but how to you pick its color?

Nope.. can't control the color of the card...
Also, if you try this "strategy", you'll find that you don't control WHEN it happens either...
there are multiple parameters must exisit for it to work,
so many games it just doesn't happen at all.

[flashleg8]

I really liked these categories: (posted by DiM)

Me also, he's really put his finger on it.

I think the questions are now [b]how do you personally prefer to deal with the above (now below ) mentioned players?

aggressor: he starts attacking everyone from the start expands quickly and in most cases dies quickly. he never pays attention to fortification and goes for the big bonus.

This guy will suicide most of the time, making a counter attack easy. The only time I can see this tactic working is if the other players in the game are too busy fighting each other and are satisfied by taking only one territory from him to stop the bonus. This can then allow the "aggressor" to retake the continent and possible defend it the next turn.

careful builder: he conquers one by one and fortifies all his territories with 2-3 troops (porcupine defence). he has high chances of surviving to the finish and it's a tough nut to crack but he lacks courage and this is why he sometimes misses the chance to close a game.

I actually find this a strong tactic. The amount of troops the player has looks deceptively smaller than what they actually have. It makes other players think they are less of a threat when they have for example 5 territories with 3 troops in them as opposed to one with 11 and the rest with 1. People don't like a big troop build up, it scares them into building up defenses or preemptive attacks. With unlimited fortification though - this porcupine defense style is only one turn away from a sweeping attack. The other strength of this tactic is that if someone attacks into your territory (be it a continent or a group of connected territories) they cannot push far in, the attack will be "soaked up" before it gets far. With a more conventional "all men to the front" style, any breakthrough is usually disastrous. I always like to construct a couple of lines of defense at least to ward off this - you lose fighting troops at the front, but you will always have at least some reinforcements if the war goes badly.

the observer: gets a continent and gradually fortifies it. he only attacks for cards (if there are cards) he's very patient and keeps an eye out for any weak victims to finish them off. he does not venture far from his continent and that's his weak point because others my become too strong and wipe him.

This player is very strong. But he must religiously watch the tides of the other players. It is very difficult to be strong enough to hold a continent but appear weak enough so the others will fight themselves. To play this tactic well you must watch for any shift in the balance of power between the other players and equalise it. This requires you to have unconnected territories around the globe away from your fortress. The problems with this are that you may use more troops balancing the other players than your small continent gives you, turning you into....

the bonus breaker: it's easy he runs around the map breaking bonuses. without troop support from an owned continent he is a quick kill. this tactic goes nicely if you have a well fortified continent because you keep getting the bonus while the others don't.

The worst position to be in, in my opinion. A player gets in this position mainly because he has an early lead and wants to stifle the other players growth. Of course a worthy sentiment but the problem becomes that he/she ends up fighting everyone at one. All players will focus on regaining their continents by attacking the bonus breaker. They will stop the attacks on the others - partly because they know someone has taken on this role, so if one of the other players makes a continent they will not feel obliged to attack them themselves, they'll leave it to you. A "bonus breaker" will quickly become a weak player - there is no way they can gain enough reinforcements to outplay all the other players at once unless they hold a large continent - in which case they should be eliminating players not crippling them. One way to get out of the "bonus breaking" cycle I feel is to let one of the players (far away from your continent preferably) keep his bonus one turn - not the largest continent as this could potentially kill you but a medium one. That player will then be forced to take over your role and you can defend and become the one building troops.

the evasionist: he always avoids conflicts. he gets a continent stays for a while and quickly moves if a threat comes near. also an easy target. all this moving around bleeds his armies dry and he's eventually killed.

Can be effective if there are two super powers fighting it out and you are the weak player. You must run to avoid them, there is little point defending a territory if the other player has vast troop resources. Better to anticipate what they want and let them have it cheaply conserving your troops. This is a dire situation to be in but it is sometimes your only hope when you are very weak. The only way out is to present so small a target (but not small enough to be eliminated) that the others will focus on each other and you can gradually build back into the game.

the unpredictable guy: you never know what he's up to. he might attack or he might run, he might come after you or go for another. the toughest one to kill if he knows what he's doing.

It is said that a master chess player can sometimes be beaten by a rank beginner. The chess player will look many moves ahead for hidden strategies in the beginners moves and defend accordingly. The beginner actually has no overall plan and is merely trying to take one piece at a time. This can be similar in Risk I find (well that’s my excuse ).
This tactic of random attacks can actually be one of the most powerful tactics in the game. If you suddenly change your attack plan to take a territory far away from where the others expect you, they can be thrown into confusion - forcing them to shift troops to defend worthless areas leaving you less defended routes to your real goals. You must plan these "feints" well so that they look realistic (there’s no point in attacking in the middle of nowhere, it must be somewhere of potential value) and as always balance the cost/benefits. A warning though - just like playing poker; it is as dangerous to overestimate the other players skill as it is to underestimate it, you cannot bluff an amateur in poker - they do not understand the intricacies of the game enough to be wary of certain cards. In Risk bluffs, or feigns, may well go completely unnoticed by poor players and be wasted.

there's also the deadbeat and the village idiot (this one attacks 3 vs100, is not concerned about getting a continent or breaking a bonus, he basically does only stupid things.)

Don't worry about these players at all - they will hang themselves. Once you have identified a chronically poor player you should no longer attack him, focus instead on the remaining players. They will probably do the work on killing the poor player for you. When a poor player suicides (new players mainly) I often see everyone scramble to take his territory - this is completely the wrong thing to do! You should immediately halt all attacks against him and turn on your rivals. The poor player will not change his style in the time of one game - he is effectively already dead. You will weaken the other good players while they waste their troops on a "dead duck".

Just my thoughts, I play no one style really - I try to alternate between all of the above as the game demands.

[/essay]

[tahitiwahini]

^ Interesting comments, thank you.

[GrazingCattle]

Thats why he is my doubles partner! I loved the commentary, but I only disagreed with one concept. Your thoughts on the evasionist were interesting. I personally don't see anytime to try and run from a bonus to grab a different one (Digression: With one exception, I was controlling SA and no one was bothering with me. I had a large troop base, and noticed that while everyone else was in Australia fighting over it, I owned half of Euro. So I used on of my drops to finish taking Euro and drug my troops in to Euro and used Sully's defense in N. Euro, and placed some boys in Iceland. I held that con. and won
a few rounds later).

The only time I see "evading" as a possible tactic, is if no one is interested in you, you already have forces in the con you are headed to, and the other con has no one interested in it/ a larger bonus.

Otherwise you are squandering troops trying to run from a much larger force.