Page 1 of 1
Flat Rate vs. Escalating
Posted:
Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:28 amby Theguyoverthere
Which one has more strategy in it? They both have their goods, and their bads. Flat rate is lucky because you never know how many your going to get. Escalating is lucky because someone might get a set before you, turn in first, get 35 armies or something ridiculous like that, and wipe you out, where as if you would have matched first, you could have won.
So, what's better? I think that flat rate = more luck at beginning, more strategy at end and escalating = more strategy at beginning more luck at end Am I kind of right?
Posted:
Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:36 amby samuelchin1996
overall, because flat rate can only get 10 armies max so It's more strategy.
Posted:
Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:09 amby Genghis Khan CA
samuelchin1996 wrote:overall, because flat rate can only get 10 armies max so It's more strategy.
Lol - that is curious reasoning...
If you ask escalating players, they will tell you escalating requires more strategy. If you ask flat rate players, they will tell you flat rate requires more strategy.
Both require strategy, just vastly different ones. However, the main skill in escalating towards the end of the game is to position yourself so you are more likely to be the guy who can turn in first with 35 armies - timing of cards is a strategy in itself
Posted:
Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:29 amby jiminski
samuelchin1996 wrote:overall, because flat rate can only get 10 armies max so It's more strategy.
Sam, you've never finished a game and you've never been in a game on this site.
Is all your knowledge based solely upon physical play as, from my personal experience, the collective knowledge and culture of strategy here is vastly different.
Posted:
Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:33 amby benjikat
samuelchin1996 wrote:overall, because flat rate can only get 10 armies max so It's more strategy.
However what strategy is there on turning in a set worth 10 or even 16 on turn 4? I personally find flat rate games too unpredictable, but maybe that's just me
Posted:
Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:39 amby jiminski
benjikat wrote:samuelchin1996 wrote:overall, because flat rate can only get 10 armies max so It's more strategy.
However what strategy is there on turning in a set worth 10 or even 16 on turn 4? I personally find flat rate games too unpredictable, but maybe that's just me
Agreed Benji, Flat rate is a lottery, and i guess that is where the strategy of anticipating the worst possible case as well as being able to capitalise upon the best come in.
Sam, i apologise for sounding curt above but your posting is .. suspicious.
Posted:
Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:42 amby AAFitz
flat rate is just a no cards game with cards... try not to get killed
escalating is a game of chess with a bit of luck thrown in... if you dont plan it well, your odds are slim
Posted:
Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:15 pmby comic boy
The other great thing about escalating is that there are no accursed alliances - where is the skill or strategy in simply ganging up on the most succesfull player in a particular game.
Posted:
Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:41 pmby Haggis_McMutton
Posted:
Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:20 pmby comic boy
Sorry I was talking about proper games
Posted:
Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:27 pmby Haggis_McMutton
So you don`t like freestyle, terminator, or both?
Ah, i play a few of those games once in a while just for fun. Sometimes you really get tired of the 30-40 round + games
Posted:
Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:22 pmby Theguyoverthere
People say that flat rate games go on forever, but I've witnessed escalating games last indefinitely because the numbers got so high. I mean, If someone has most of the world, but has bad cards, then the little guy turns in, gets 60 armies, takes out teh big guy to almost nothing. Next turn big guy turns in, kills little guy. Then the little guy turns in... and so on. Just back and forth back and forth. Plus, a game is just going to take longer if there's more armies involved, right? What battle goes by faster, a 4 vs. 2 or a 40 vs. 20?
Posted:
Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 pmby MeDeFe
use auto attack and the difference isn't very big.
Posted:
Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:40 pmby Blitzaholic
Genghis Khan CA wrote:samuelchin1996 wrote:overall, because flat rate can only get 10 armies max so It's more strategy.
Lol - that is curious reasoning...
If you ask escalating players, they will tell you escalating requires more strategy. If you ask flat rate players, they will tell you flat rate requires more strategy.
Both require strategy, just vastly different ones. However, the main skill in escalating towards the end of the game is to position yourself so you are more likely to be the guy who can turn in first with 35 armies - timing of cards is a strategy in itself
well said khan
flat
Posted:
Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:03 pmby Yahoo oo
flat rate is better so who care
jk
Posted:
Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:17 amby comic boy
Haggis_McMutton wrote:So you don`t like freestyle, terminator, or both?
Ah, i play a few of those games once in a while just for fun. Sometimes you really get tired of the 30-40 round + games
I dont like freestyle because some of the game play can be dubious, terminator is fun but its difficult these days because I get targeted big style.
Posted:
Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:15 pmby spline
I think there are two different issues here. One is the strategy used in the two variations and the other is the satisfaction obtained. These are different. Of course both games require strategy of a different kind. Escalation requires you to be good at timing and understanding momentum and build up of armies. Flat rates requires patience and long term planning.
As for satisfaction, flat rate usually lasts longer. This might not be too much of a problem online, but if you are playing with a board game, anything more than 4 hours becomes tiring. So escalating cards are actually a good thing to make the game more satisfying. So this is basically a matter of preference.