Conquer Club

I have seen it many times.

Players with well over 5000 games, land-locking their forces.
Of course their skill (%) is low.

Very few situations where A player should land lock his units ( i would tend to believe).
Take a classic game, for example: other than not wanting to threaten somebody (pose a threat), would there be any other reason you would want to land-lock your units?
I am not talking a small amount of units (not sure the situation is any diff regardless of how big or small).
Usually it is well over 100 units.

I would guess that players who have a low % and over 1,000 games, are slow to learn...if they are one of those players who habitually land lock their units.

Better Example:Classic, escalating spoils (spoils are currently at 75), three players, three cards, 175 units while somebody on the board has less than 22 terits and fewer than 50 units.
Any reason at all to land-lock your forces?

Land locking your forces is never a good idea.

You are correct if given the option to land lock or not to land lock you should always pick not to landlock.

Jippd wrote:You are correct if given the option to land lock or not to land lock you should always pick not to landlock.

never say always ...

never say never...

Gweeedo wrote:never say never...

always say never ...

Right off the top of my head I can think of two reasons to do this:

1) Fog games. Especially in no spoils or flat spoils, you may not want to reveal you true strength.

2) Trench games. It often makes sense to leave 1 troops on a border territory. The enemy can go through that one territory only, and thus you can preserve your stack for later use.

Yes there are situations where it might be acceptable.
But when I see somebody with over 5,000 games landlocking 175 units while the two other opponents have 85 combined.

Not utilizing that force to go for somebodies elimination is bad enough...but to landlock them as well! knowing you have a set to turn in on your next turn?

Think some people can not help themselves. I do not understand it. what is it they are trying to protect?
For the most part landlocking your units is never a good Idea. I think they would be better used for defense or assault..not sitting in your rear used for reinforcements, while having nothing out on the battlefield.

Gweeedo wrote:Players with well over 5000 games, land-locking their forces.
Of course their skill (%) is low.

% is not equivalent to skill. It's more a function of game-types played. Some of the very best players have % in the 20's and 30's.

How does that work with players who play 'only' Classic map?
Or any single map.

The map doesn't really make a difference..

If someone plays exclusively 1v1 games they should win 50% at a minimum. If they player four player games then 25% minimum, and so on.

SuicidalSnowman wrote:Right off the top of my head I can think of two reasons to do this:

1) Fog games. Especially in no spoils or flat spoils, you may not want to reveal you true strength.

2) Trench games. It often makes sense to leave 1 troops on a border territory. The enemy can go through that one territory only, and thus you can preserve your stack for later use.

+1

But are they really landlocked? Or could this be considered more like "stationed next to the border"?

When I see somebody with a lower % than me and plays muti player games equivalent to my own...I consider their skill to be low.
Same, when I see people land-locking their forces...consider them to have little skill.
It is just plain silly to land-lock your forces..does more harm than good. Not a good habit.
I continually observe such game play by some players that have better score than my own...that is perplexing.

SuicidalSnowman wrote:Right off the top of my head I can think of two reasons to do this:

1) Fog games. Especially in no spoils or flat spoils, you may not want to reveal you true strength.

2) Trench games. It often makes sense to leave 1 troops on a border territory. The enemy can go through that one territory only, and thus you can preserve your stack for later use.

+2

Gweeedo wrote:I continually observe such game play by some players that have better score than my own...that is perplexing.

Maybe they have a better score because they understand when it is appropriate to use such a strategy and when it is not. Instead of making a blanket statement like "Land locking your forces is never a good idea.", perhaps you should attempt to learn something about how to use it.

Manipulating the actions of your opponents by choosing how much of your troop strength to reveal to them is an important part of multiplayer fog games. The player who appears to be in the lead (by some combination of bonuses and visible troop strength) is often the target of all the other players. Making yourself appear weak can get others to fight the presumed leader who has large stacks on his border while you build and wait for the right time to unleash them.

If you have all your troops at your borders, then what happens once someone breaks through and sees nothing but 1's? It's an invitation to go on a rampage and wipe out your interior. Having some landlocked stacks held in reserve can minimize the damage and allow a counterattack. And after discovering that you do that, an opponent may be reluctant to attack even your weak borders, knowing that it could release a large army (though he doesn't know how large).

SuicidalSnowman is right about trench games. If you have 1 troop bordering an opponent, and he has a border with someone else with a stack, who is he going to focus on? He can only kill your 1 troop, and will probably use the rest of his deploy to attack the more threatening border.

In all of these situations, (and probably others that I haven't mentioned), leaving all your troops on your borders is an invitation to have large numbers of your troops killed. Sometimes that's necessary, especially in 1v1, escalating, non-fog or non-trench games, but in many situations land locking some troops will lead your opponents to attack each other more than they attack you. Add to that the dice advantage you get from attacking more and defending less, and it can make a big difference in your win rate.

I looked at your dice stats - you attack 5.2% more than you defend. I attack 13.7% more than I defend. This could be because I'm a more aggressive player, but I suspect that you are actually much more aggressive than me because you attack 8.01% of the time when the odds are against you (2v2 dice or worse) compared to my 1.83%. I think the main reason for the difference is that you are attacked a lot more than I am because you don't land lock your troops.

True. I understand that sometimes it is wise to hold your forces back.
I find it extremely perplexing when I see somebody landlock their forces in a Classic game no fog, escalating.
I have run into this three time in one day.
That is the reason for this post. I was not sure if I was missing something.

My dice stats are askew. I have been in many games where I have to assault at crazy odds. Too many!
I can not seem to win battles, even with the odds in my favor.
Been going on about three weeks after I got premium.

SO you can view my dice stats. But they will tell you very little.
Being that my battles are dictated , due to circumstance.

SO we have no fog classic game escalating spoils...any reason to landlock your forces (other than not wanting to pose a threat to others)?

I never said that it was always a good idea - just that it's not "never a good idea". I'm sure it's misused sometimes, like any strategy, and I'm often conflicted about choosing between two entirely different ways to position my troops, so sometimes it's just a crap-shoot anyway. I play a lot of fog, and prefer large maps and non-escalating spoils, so my perspective may be a bit different from yours.

I know I was probably reading too much into the dice stats. Though it might be an interesting feature to be able to filter them by game type.

degaston wrote:In all of these situations, (and probably others that I haven't mentioned), leaving all your troops on your borders is an invitation to have large numbers of your troops killed. Sometimes that's necessary, especially in 1v1, escalating, non-fog or non-trench games, but in many situations land locking some troops will lead your opponents to attack each other more than they attack you. Add to that the dice advantage you get from attacking more and defending less, and it can make a big difference in your win rate.

Exactly right. People get nervous when they can see large stacks that are ready to go. Having a large stack on the border invites attack, defensive build-up, and can trigger alliances. But people are curiously blind about threats that are not immediate: if they can see I have a big stack but that it can't attack, they very well may choose to ignore it for this turn. That's not entirely irrational: they would like to focus on achieving their own tactical objectives rather than worry about mine. So they hope they can get theirs done this turn and worry about me next turn. Multiply that effect by several players, some of whom are fighting each other, and you can see how keeping my troops behind the front is very beneficial to me. When the time is right, I attack with my border troops plus this turn's drop, but when the attack is over I have a large reserve to secure whatever I gained.

I agree that land-locking them isn't usually a good idea, but sometimes there are sound tactical reasons for doing it.

Well said AyeTrain.

When I am in A game, I only notice (inform them) somebody's landlocked units when it is a critical .
I ask why they have their units unavailable, usually they don't respond. Sometimes they acknowledge their mistake.
While sometimes it is totally acceptable to land lock your forces...not a good habit. Either they forget or advance said forces too late (misread the board).
Board changes so rapidly at times, if you miss it...it could spell your doom!

For argument sake, landlocked units do not apply (meaning no such thing) in trench or fog games..how can they.

I really hate it when somebody landlocks their forces (entire, huge) and I open them up to do what is needed, and they simply block themselves again, at games end.

Gweedo you should join SOC they have lots of information for you to learn there

I landlock when one territory can deter an attack on multiple fronts.
But I generally have the fronts stacked too.
Some players landlock way behind the front and I've noticed other players with bigger armies on the borders many times do not attack the smaller army. I guess their fear is the player will then reinforce the landlocked army and then suicide the attacker?
The worst players are the ones who do the above and then start suggesting truces and wars for the rest of the players who aren't landlocking themselves. I've only run into that situation a couple of times. Players like that get a mouthful from me and go right to foe list. One of them even said 90% of his fun in the game was 'diplomacy' lol.. I can see that as a strategy but it's not one I like to use nor like to play against it. It's amazing how many players will just agree to suggestions from a landlocked army though..

I read here, land locked units are good strategy in fog games. Lol because if the opponent know how to use the battle outcomes from Dice Stats Menu properly, he knows that you have a big stack somewhere. In many situation he even know, how many troops you have exactly.

More info : viewtopic.php?f=4&t=199241

Need some supports there

A strategy that is called the "Arrow" uses land-locking. the concept is that if you have too many borders to protect, you put a sizeable army in a location right by the borders, that way people might be reluctant to attack the borders, for fear of retaliation from the "arrow" army. They choose not to take your bonus, just so that they can keep theirs.