Which is the "more pure" game? Flat Rate or Esc

[yeti_c]

In the UK - (And europe I believe) the game has always been produced as "flat rate"... and not escalating...

C.

No the choice is given to play either way with the added option of mission cards, no cards play is not mentioned in the rules.

Really? I'm sure I've never seen escalating in the rules...

C.

[Genghis Khan CA]

Really? I'm sure I've never seen escalating in the rules...

C.

The rules are definitely escalating in Australia

Check the bottom of your board, if you have 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20 etc written on the bottom that's because the rules are escalating

[Fireside Poet]

Escalating is the only way to play on CC. The intensity and pulse racing it induces... oh nvm...

[jiminski]

a continent bonus increases my chances of winning-- i win far more esc games when i hold one. obviously you don't need a continent bonus to win but quite many players confuse the two.

Just for interest scott, are you talking freestyle or high ranked games here? I know in the high ranked games you sometimes get conts but often they are blocked off by other players (especially comic )

Obviously a cont is an big advantage if you can get it at a relatively cheap cost... but if someone has shoved a 10 in indonesia it's usually not worth it. I generally don't go for continents in 6p escalating unless it is fairly easy, but that is just my style.

Obviously all have different styles... I usually focus on takeouts better when I don't take continents, I know others love to take continents and it works for them too, so yes as long as you aren't too dogmatic there is room for different styles (eg don't avoid a continent when you only have to take a 1 to secure it... or dont go for australia when your closest armies are in china )

Back on topic... I'd say the reason more high rankers like escalating are:

1) It is much faster... stick high rankers in a flat rate/ no cards games and you will find them still going months or years later

2) As comic boy says, there is absolutely no point to alliances in these games or favouring other players... the hold back and strike whilst the iron is hot method ensures this. This is particularly handy if you are playing players that you know and are on friendly terms with

3) It's closer to the original rules of risk

4) The strategy involved is very subtle and intricate... whereas in flat rate /no cardsyou are planning strategy over rounds, in escalating the game moves so quickly that you might need to change plans 3 times in the same round

5) It is terribly exciting when you can run through a board!

i could not agree more Genghis..... (And i am tempted to leave it as a quote but as i like the sound of my own typing)

... which i why i play escalator almost exclusively, in the singles format. the greater 'honesty' of this format leads us down the path of least irritation.
the non-escalator games can be so infuriating when you all but win, only to find your opponents form a pack and rip you limb from disgruntled limb. (promoting mediocrity and inaction as the supreme strategy perhaps)

But does this make it the most pure version? pure as in uncorrupted by the politics of allegiance and verbal manipulation (although the latter certainly goes on in escalator too )

But the purists may say that diplomacy, surreptition and beguilement are truer to the essence of war and this damn, confounded game!

[Dr_Demento]

Meanwhile, the flat rate games tend to draw out longer

and enjoy the excitement of running the table enough that the setting doesn't bother me at all.

Rather, I'm just curious about your thoughts and why this seems to be the setting of choice among the CC upper tier.

Don't know about the "upper tier" but you layed it out pretty well, and included the reasons I prefer esc. I don't mind playing flat rate or no cards, I just get bored with them because they tend to take to long

[detlef]

a continent bonus increases my chances of winning-- i win far more esc games when i hold one. obviously you don't need a continent bonus to win but quite many players confuse the two.

Just for interest scott, are you talking freestyle or high ranked games here? I know in the high ranked games you sometimes get conts but often they are blocked off by other players (especially comic )

Obviously a cont is an big advantage if you can get it at a relatively cheap cost... but if someone has shoved a 10 in indonesia it's usually not worth it. I generally don't go for continents in 6p escalating unless it is fairly easy, but that is just my style.

Obviously all have different styles... I usually focus on takeouts better when I don't take continents, I know others love to take continents and it works for them too, so yes as long as you aren't too dogmatic there is room for different styles (eg don't avoid a continent when you only have to take a 1 to secure it... or dont go for australia when your closest armies are in china )

Back on topic... I'd say the reason more high rankers like escalating are:

1) It is much faster... stick high rankers in a flat rate/ no cards games and you will find them still going months or years later

2) As comic boy says, there is absolutely no point to alliances in these games or favouring other players... the hold back and strike whilst the iron is hot method ensures this. This is particularly handy if you are playing players that you know and are on friendly terms with

3) It's closer to the original rules of risk

4) The strategy involved is very subtle and intricate... whereas in flat rate /no cardsyou are planning strategy over rounds, in escalating the game moves so quickly that you might need to change plans 3 times in the same round

5) It is terribly exciting when you can run through a board!

i could not agree more Genghis..... (And i am tempted to leave it as a quote but as i like the sound of my own typing)

... which i why i play escalator almost exclusively, in the singles format. the greater 'honesty' of this format leads us down the path of least irritation.
the non-escalator games can be so infuriating when you all but win, only to find your opponents form a pack and rip you limb from disgruntled limb. (promoting mediocrity and inaction as the supreme strategy perhaps)

But does this make it the most pure version? pure as in uncorrupted by the politics of allegiance and verbal manipulation (although the latter certainly goes on in escalator too )

But the purists may say that diplomacy, surreptition and beguilement are truer to the essence of war and this damn, confounded game!

Fine comments to be sure. The inclination of the masses to bring anyone who pulls ahead back to the pack can, in fact, make a non-escalating game just as "random" as an escalating one. That is, among stronger players, I've actually had better luck not holding bonus areas in flat rate games just as I have in escalating games. The difference is, the games just drag on.

As I think about it more, I play to have fun. And one of the things I find most fun, that makes my heart race in this game, is logging in, seeing that everyone on the board has 4 cards and that you have a chance to pull off an elimination run. That's freaking baller and pure or not, kicks f'ing ass.

I can also thank high ranking escalation games for a recent 300 pt surge in my points, so there's always that.

[detlef]

Meanwhile, the flat rate games tend to draw out longer

and enjoy the excitement of running the table enough that the setting doesn't bother me at all.

Rather, I'm just curious about your thoughts and why this seems to be the setting of choice among the CC upper tier.

Don't know about the "upper tier" but you layed it out pretty well, and included the reasons I prefer esc. I don't mind playing flat rate or no cards, I just get bored with them because they tend to take to long

Are you arguing that escalating is not a popular choice among higher ranked players?

At least in the Captain's Callout Forum, they make up around 90% of the games.

[Dr_Demento]

no, Im saying "I don't know" because I'm not there....yet

[Iron Butterfly]

[quote="Scott-Land

But does this make it the most pure version? pure as in uncorrupted by the politics of allegiance and verbal manipulation (although the latter certainly goes on in escalator too )

But the purists may say that diplomacy, surreptition and beguilement are truer to the essence of war and this damn, confounded game!

Which is what I find the most fun. If I wanted to just roll dice, crunch numbers and hope for the best I would play Yatzee online.

It amazes me how much the game of CC/Risk, from a diplomatic standpoint, resembles real world warring states stripped down to the bare essentials.

The history of Europian Diplomacy from the Confrence of Vienne onward is a hoot. It more or less reflects how some games go diplomaticly.

Its about survival, fear and power. The enemy of my enemy is my friend type of mentality. And THAT is once again another topic.

[detlef]

[quote="Scott-Land

But does this make it the most pure version? pure as in uncorrupted by the politics of allegiance and verbal manipulation (although the latter certainly goes on in escalator too )

But the purists may say that diplomacy, surreptition and beguilement are truer to the essence of war and this damn, confounded game!

Which is what I find the most fun. If I wanted to just roll dice, crunch numbers and hope for the best I would play Yatzee online.

It amazes me how much the game of CC/Risk, from a diplomatic standpoint, resembles real world warring states stripped down to the bare essentials.

The history of Europian Diplomacy from the Confrence of Vienne onward is a hoot. It more or less reflects how some games go diplomaticly.

Its about survival, fear and power. The enemy of my enemy is my friend type of mentality. And THAT is once again another topic.

Ultimately, the problem with non-escalating games is that they can often not be won, so much as they require somebody or even multiple people to do something stupid. As you move up in competition, that doesn't happen. Better players know they need to hit the strongest player or they will lose. There's no need to form an alliance, it's just understood.

Of course, it sucks when you do the right things to pull ahead in a game only to see the board turn against you, but you'd be a fool not to see it coming.

So, ultimately, the game is won because somebody goes on some random attack against a non-leader, then that guy gets pissed and hits him back, then the leader scoops them both up and crushes the remaining player. There's two guys who screwed up (one worse than the other) but that's how the game was won.

I can think of precious few flat-rate games that I have "out-witted" players who played an otherwise solid game but just let their guard down just enough for me to take advantage of. Nope, it usually comes down to logging in, wondering, "What the hell was that guy thinking?" and running everyone out of the game.

Certainly there have been exceptions to that, but not often. That doesn't even count the number of times where I've been in a flat-rate game against other solid players and simply been on one side or the other of luck.

[Herakilla]

The thing I have found distasteful about non-escalating games is that it's easy to make a mistake and not be able to make a comeback. I like the idea of a nice long game, but not when it's long and I'm slowly losing the whole time!

you can make come backs, what are you talking about?

[Iron Butterfly]

I agree fully with ya Detlef.

With fog of war in no card it adds an extra dimension to game play and changes things. Without seeing who has what armies one needs to to take diplomacy into account.

Its fairly obvious that each style has its strengths and weakness. I have also not found a game where there is such a grey area between player strategy and luck. In a recent game someone was the dominent player cruising to victory, he went 20 to 4 and lost 17 to take the needed land.

some folks seem to use the wack-a-mole style and come up smelling like roses while the most thought out pland get snuffed because of a disgruntled player who carried a grudge from 10 rounds before.

the commonality of it all is that "There can only be ONE" winner. So whatever works works.

[suggs]

The only way to win is not to play.

[jiminski]

The only way to win is not to play.

hahah Suggs is winner!

[Scott-Land]

a continent bonus increases my chances of winning-- i win far more esc games when i hold one. obviously you don't need a continent bonus to win but quite many players confuse the two.

Just for interest scott, are you talking freestyle or high ranked games here? I know in the high ranked games you sometimes get conts but often they are blocked off by other players (especially comic )

Obviously a cont is an big advantage if you can get it at a relatively cheap cost... but if someone has shoved a 10 in indonesia it's usually not worth it. I generally don't go for continents in 6p escalating unless it is fairly easy, but that is just my style.

Obviously all have different styles... I usually focus on takeouts better when I don't take continents, I know others love to take continents and it works for them too, so yes as long as you aren't too dogmatic there is room for different styles (eg don't avoid a continent when you only have to take a 1 to secure it... or dont go for australia when your closest armies are in china )

Back on topic... I'd say the reason more high rankers like escalating are:

1) It is much faster... stick high rankers in a flat rate/ no cards games and you will find them still going months or years later

2) As comic boy says, there is absolutely no point to alliances in these games or favouring other players... the hold back and strike whilst the iron is hot method ensures this. This is particularly handy if you are playing players that you know and are on friendly terms with

3) It's closer to the original rules of risk

4) The strategy involved is very subtle and intricate... whereas in flat rate /no cardsyou are planning strategy over rounds, in escalating the game moves so quickly that you might need to change plans 3 times in the same round

5) It is terribly exciting when you can run through a board!

I totally agree CA-- and I was referring to 6 man seq escalating. I've dropped my fair share of potential continent bonuses but certainly don't hold it very often at all and even less times going after it. On occasion, when the stars are aligned and the dice gods allow me to win 2 the first roll, I manage to secure one.

Greycloak is probably one of the best if not the best player that utilizes his bonus to the fullest extent. One guy you want to Comic him from a bonus if you can. Some players you don't even know if they're holding one or not and you could give Europe to and they'd still lose.

[Ogrecrusher]

In the Uk the rules are Flat rate, with Escalating as an optional rule in the appendix.

[BadMoonRising]

They drive on the left side of the road as well.

[Snorri1234]

In sovjet russia, escalating plays you.