Conquer Club

6-player World 2.1 flat-rate terminator game has been whittled down to a 3 player game. (336041) Now its a game of just trying to keep everyone even since none of us are strong enough to take on the other two. We are all wary of allainces so that's not a solution.

BTW - I'm Blue.

Just looking for Ideas.

you have quite a good position there. If I were you I would break yellows bonus in mexico then slowly advance on both of them using the extra armies you are receiving.

podge wrote:you have quite a good position there. If I were you I would break yellows bonus in mexico then slowly advance on both of them using the extra armies you are receiving.

That's what I've been trying - but then I can't seem to withstand the counterattacks and Green's subsequent attack to try and even everyone up. Several times I've even controlled N America to only have to retreat due to losses in Asia/Oceania.

the easiest way to break a 3 person stalemate is to suicide on one of the other guys. this way the third one will win.


PS: you asked how to break the stalemate not how to win.

I was recently in a similar game, 401333, it was terminator but ended up being a 3 player build game. I had north and south america, green had africa, and red had asia and oceana.

What i did was present my self as the weaker player by spreading my armies around on all my territories, 6 here, 8 there, never more than 9 except in border spots. I also didnt break any ones bonuses which forced the other two players to fight each other. when they were fighting each other and breaking bonuses by armie count slowly creeped up. when the time was right I made a move and broke all most of there bonuses in one turn, i then fortified all those 6's and 8's to the front lines and there was nothing they could do, especially with no bonuses. It was only a few more rounds after that and i won.

I was actually in a ver similar postion as you at first, all in asia and oceanian, but i released I was being squashed and made a huge move out of oceania to SA. the other players tried to fill the gap in oceania but weakened their borders by doing so.

so play defensively and don't look like a threat, until you are one. also another tip is to strategically not hold a huge bonus like all of asia, so they arent worried about you and feel the need to break it. force the other two against each other.

your screwed. It's your own fault for playing singles flat rate. If you were playing escalating you could win on your own. However, since your playing the lower, less skill intensive, pointless, weaker, designed for poorer players, setting of flat rate, which should only be played on 2v2 and 3v3 games; you have to make an alliance.

Oh, did I meantion that I think flat rate singles has no skill, oh yeah I did. Well for all of those who disagree, enjoy your alliances and diplomacy.

get the other two to attack each other and win

Generally I would wait until you are roughly the strongest....then let one other player get as strong as you. Then you both focus on the weaker opponent but with no agreement, its just in your best interest. Because if you can assure that you make it to the final 2 relatively even its better than the 3 person stalemate. And if you can grab a slight upperhand along the way thats even better

Slowly withdraw out of Asia and move all your troops into Oceiana and Australia. Use hawaii as a base and break into America and South America. If done quickly as a suprise attack you should be able to get all of south america and devastate yellow before he can build troops on the border. You could try going through antartica, but keep a weary eye on green. In the next turn literally move all your troops across the board, elimante yellow and control north and south america. Let green take the rest. He'll be spread thin and you can try to attack him through Africa where his forces are weakest.

That probably won't work but in my opinion that's your best bet. In the very least try to kill yellow since he's the weakest player so you can get pts for eliminating a player.

Reminds me of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

I would suggest attacking through Alaska or Europe, concentrating your forces as you do so.

Georgerx7di wrote:Oh, did I meantion that I think flat rate singles has no skill, oh yeah I did. Well for all of those who disagree, enjoy your alliances and diplomacy.

I'm just curious, why do you think this?

I disagree, and I do not use alliances and very, very rarely use diplomacy.

Im some ways I can see why you think it (added strategy of trade-ins and such, knowing when and how to use it best) but I don't see that as a reason to think that flate-rate play requires less skill.

Flat rate requires more in the way of strategy in my opinion. Taking and holding continents for bonuses, not always taking a card when it's not advantagous to attack.

If anything, escalating seems like a crutch for players who are strategicaly weak. All you need to do is hold your cards for awhile, trade in, eliminate another player, trade in, repeat.

That said, I prefer no cards myself. Granted it's a slower game, but it makes you think and work more.

I forgot to answer the author's question.

I would use something similiar to what mibi said earlier, present yourself as the weaker player (no huge fronts, shift your armies about, don't hold a whole continet unless you really need the bonus, etc.) and try to dupe the other 2 into battling it out some. Then come in and clean up afterwards.

Everyone agrees to attack with the armies he gets every turn. Opportunities will present themselves.

Georgerx7di wrote:Oh, did I meantion that I think flat rate singles has no skill, oh yeah I did. Well for all of those who disagree, enjoy your alliances and diplomacy.

I'm going to have to agree with kalishnikov on this one as far as flat rate versus escalating. With escalating cards it's too easy for a player who made no strategic opening moves to use their dying breath to turn in cards for 50 troops and all of a sudden out of shear luck become a force. If a player makes weak moves in a flat rate game, it is very unlikely for them to gain any power. That's not to say there is no skill in escalating games because obviously this game suits George's style of play as he has done very well using his skill in this type of game. I think the luck factor is a bit more obvious when you are playing less skilled players (George plays a lot of very good players in these games).

As for no cards (and relating this back to the thread topic), these games are too slow for me and it makes the game feel like a stalemate. My last no card game went 81 rounds over 3 months. Patience is the key to these games that seem to be a stalemate, trying to do too much too quickly is a sure way to lose.

kalishnikov wrote:

Georgerx7di wrote:Oh, did I meantion that I think flat rate singles has no skill, oh yeah I did. Well for all of those who disagree, enjoy your alliances and diplomacy.

I'm just curious, why do you think this?

I disagree, and I do not use alliances and very, very rarely use diplomacy.

Im some ways I can see why you think it (added strategy of trade-ins and such, knowing when and how to use it best) but I don't see that as a reason to think that flate-rate play requires less skill.

Flat rate requires more in the way of strategy in my opinion. Taking and holding continents for bonuses, not always taking a card when it's not advantagous to attack.

If anything, escalating seems like a crutch for players who are strategicaly weak. All you need to do is hold your cards for awhile, trade in, eliminate another player, trade in, repeat.

That said, I prefer no cards myself. Granted it's a slower game, but it makes you think and work more.

All game types require equal but different skill. For No Cards you have to be very aggressive at the start or, the opposite, get a continent and just deploy. For Flat Rate, you've got to find some way of putting yourself in a winning position without the others ganging up on you. For escalating, you need to position yourself carefully, closest to the weakest player and build up for an elimination - hopefully it can become a chain reaction and the game will be finished

KennyC wrote:As for no cards (and relating this back to the thread topic), these games are too slow for me and it makes the game feel like a stalemate. My last no card game went 81 rounds over 3 months. Patience is the key to these games that seem to be a stalemate, trying to do too much too quickly is a sure way to lose.

I played a no cards doubles game with 6 players on world 2.1 and our team won in 11 rounds.

By contrast, there is a standard game I am in right now (here) and that has been going on for 85 rounds in spite of having cards, though it's gone back and forth.

I see advantages and disadvantages to both. I usually play no cards or flat rate in doubles, and escalating in singles. Escalating is simply more fun and less controlling yourself while the others burn themselves out.

And then there was TWO.

I waited for Green to make a strong move on S America. So I responded with taking all of N America. Thought I had N America locked down. 26 each on Greenland and Panama. Yellow in a dying gasp turned in and had 27 to 26 at Iceland and beat me. Then Green plopped his 25 on Amazonas and beat me into Panama. So I lost 52 armies in one turn.

Green finished off Yellow a few turns later.

Thanks for the advice. We are now down to 2 and pestering each other trying to gain an advantage.

World 2.1 is a BIG Map without the other players around!!!! (It's a whole new game essentially.)

Thanks again for all the advice.

Georgerx7di wrote:your screwed. It's your own fault for playing singles flat rate. If you were playing escalating you could win on your own. However, since your playing the lower, less skill intensive, pointless, weaker, designed for poorer players, setting of flat rate, which should only be played on 2v2 and 3v3 games; you have to make an alliance.

I disagree. Escalating games DON'T require any skill. You just have to outlast the other players, or get lucky with a elimination cascade... take out a player, turn in his cards, eliminate another, etc...

To me, yeah, those are fun games to play, but they aren't strategic.

Escalating cards allows you to play sloppy, as long as you get lucky.

I prefer No cards games myself. It's mano-a-mano there. Only good strategy and patience wins those games, particularly on really big maps.

Flat rate games are good to insure that their is some progress made, but on big maps, it's not really a "bonus"... since the most you get are 10 armies anyways.

Georgerx7di wrote:If you were playing escalating you could win on your own.

I suppose since he's not playing escalating, he's not winning on his own? Who, then is helping him?

It's all about strategy.

If you want speed-chess style, play Freestyle RT, Georgerx7di.

robbart wrote:

Georgerx7di wrote:your screwed. It's your own fault for playing singles flat rate. If you were playing escalating you could win on your own. However, since your playing the lower, less skill intensive, pointless, weaker, designed for poorer players, setting of flat rate, which should only be played on 2v2 and 3v3 games; you have to make an alliance.

I disagree. Escalating games DON'T require any skill. You just have to outlast the other players, or get lucky with a elimination cascade... take out a player, turn in his cards, eliminate another, etc...

To me, yeah, those are fun games to play, but they aren't strategic.

Escalating cards allows you to play sloppy, as long as you get lucky.

I prefer No cards games myself. It's mano-a-mano there. Only good strategy and patience wins those games, particularly on really big maps.

Flat rate games are good to insure that their is some progress made, but on big maps, it's not really a "bonus"... since the most you get are 10 armies anyways.

Georgerx7di wrote:If you were playing escalating you could win on your own.

I suppose since he's not playing escalating, he's not winning on his own? Who, then is helping him?

It's all about strategy.

If you want speed-chess style, play Freestyle RT, Georgerx7di.

You have just sounded like a complete n00b there. How can you say escalating requires no skill? Just cos you might be shite at it or because you use the completely wrong strategy means nothing. Flat rate and no cards is about aggression, escalating is about timing, careful control of your armies (positioning them properly, etc.) So, I think you'll find that escalating requires quite a considerable amount of strategy. In fact, some of the best players prefer to play nothing else as it is Classic Risk

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Thanks Robin for accurately responding to that...

I'll try to stay out of this myself...
see... I'm just standing quietly over there on the sidelines and observing...

RobinJ wrote:

robbart wrote:

Georgerx7di wrote:your screwed. It's your own fault for playing singles flat rate. If you were playing escalating you could win on your own. However, since your playing the lower, less skill intensive, pointless, weaker, designed for poorer players, setting of flat rate, which should only be played on 2v2 and 3v3 games; you have to make an alliance.

I disagree. Escalating games DON'T require any skill. You just have to outlast the other players, or get lucky with a elimination cascade... take out a player, turn in his cards, eliminate another, etc...

To me, yeah, those are fun games to play, but they aren't strategic.

Escalating cards allows you to play sloppy, as long as you get lucky.

I prefer No cards games myself. It's mano-a-mano there. Only good strategy and patience wins those games, particularly on really big maps.

Flat rate games are good to insure that their is some progress made, but on big maps, it's not really a "bonus"... since the most you get are 10 armies anyways.

Georgerx7di wrote:If you were playing escalating you could win on your own.

I suppose since he's not playing escalating, he's not winning on his own? Who, then is helping him?

It's all about strategy.

If you want speed-chess style, play Freestyle RT, Georgerx7di.

You have just sounded like a complete n00b there. How can you say escalating requires no skill? Just cos you might be shite at it or because you use the completely wrong strategy means nothing. Flat rate and no cards is about aggression, escalating is about timing, careful control of your armies (positioning them properly, etc.) So, I think you'll find that escalating requires quite a considerable amount of strategy. In fact, some of the best players prefer to play nothing else as it is Classic Risk

Thanks, Robin, for pointing out my noob status...

I don't agree with all of your sentiments, however.

Ok, perhaps I was a little dramatic... you are right, of course. But, I have seen way too many games end in a rush of elimination-turn in-elimination-turn in, etc. It's not the most strategic way to finish out a game. As I said, it's more about outlasting to turn in that one set that puts YOU in a position to take out other players in a consecutive means.

On small maps, like the classic map, it's usually one player who finishes up the game in a flourish, wiping out consecutive players in one turn. Thus, it allows for NON-Strategic play. You don't have to be brain dead to see that if you can just get a card, and be the last one to turn in, you can be the beneficiary of a great consecutive streak of eliminations. Flat rate requires more effort and patience since you aren't going to wipe out everyone in one turn. And no-cards is the most difficult, since all you have are dice, and territory bonuses to work towards.

Back to the original question. You need to get the other players to attack each other instead of you. How about keeping 5-8 more troops on your front lines than your other two opponents? On your opponents turns, they will attack each other because they will always be the easiest target since they usually only keep 1 or just a few troops on their front line.

All three have merit, and if you don't have the gumption to play all three, then promoting your preferred card option by degrading other card options is childish. If you can prove that you are the best at playing a certain card option, and you find it's become futile, which is why you now play a different card option in order to flex your strategic muscles, then by all means...degrade.
I enjoy all three, and I find that I think differently in all three, having said that, nothing is cast in stone, you have to constantly be vigilant of whats happening in each game.

I've been a few games like this, and usually I just keep building up, cuz one of these to things will usually happen:

1) Someone makes a mistake on where they attacked someone or deployed (in a game like that it can usually prove fatal)

2)Someone has really bad luck when they use auto-attack

3)Someone wants to end the game and therefore breaks the stalemate by attacking one of the other 2 players (the problem with this happening i that it could be you)

And that's what I do in stalemates, and it usually works fairly well