Attacking 6-3 at the start of a game

[nmhunate]

I've only about 30 games under my belt, and so far I don't think that its a good idea to attack 6-3 when you first start off. you have a decent possibility to lose two armies right away making the next attack a 4-3. another loss will make it 2-3 forcing you to end your turn.

I would rather place 3 armies on the board and freemove some additional armies there increasing the odds of me capturing the country on the next turn.

What do you all think? Is it a good idea to attack 6-3?

[neoni]

half the games i've lost have been set in stone in my first turn

[Samus]

The short answer is no, but if there's something of importance that needs to be taken right then, I go for it. A LOT of players are superstitious about the rolls on first turns being heavily defensive.

[detlef]

Keep in mind that you do have overwhelming odds of success attacking 6v3. If you have the opportunity to fortify the area in case you you lose some troops in doing so, more the better.

In a no-cards or escalating cards game, then it makes sense to a degree. One because you don't need to take a country, one because it puts you at the back of the line when everyone has 5 cards and has to cash. That means your first set goes from being worth 4 to being worth 15.

However, while your odds of success if you wait until your second move to attack obviously improve, you haven't eliminated the chance that you might lose two or even 4 straight right away. So you haven't managed to defy any odds by waiting for a 9 v3 attack. Meanwhile, your delay might have cost you dearly.

I think it is more important to take each game individually. If, for instance, you were given two of the 4 countries in SA or Aussie, then you should jump on the chance to nail that baby down. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

I will say this. If you lose two off the bat, it does make a lot of sense to quit because 4 v3 is very bad odds and you certainly don't want to end your first turn with less than you started with.

[RobinJ]

Generally yes - the odds are good and, as detlef says, if you are in a position to gain a continent go ahead by all means - definitely worth the risk. You can get away with just deploying in escalating and no-cards games but as for flat rate, which I play the most of, you really need to try to take a card every turn.

[joeyjordison]

i often attack first turn to get a decent position if i'm set to take a cont ie oz or SA on classic. often getting a head start on those conts can allow u to not attack on a future turn because u r safe from elimination

[Ishiro]

The key is... if you attack 6 to 3 and lose two the first time, stop. You are better off sitting at 4 than you are winning the day and splitting 4 (or less) between two countries...

Of course, this goes out the window if you are blessed with army placement... if you are dealt 3 of Oceania to start a game, it may be work getting that 4th because you can fortify Indonesia to hold it.

[tahitiwahini]

Is it a good idea to attack 6-3?

Yes.

Caveats: It's during your first turn, there are no better attacks to be made, and it's a flat rate, unlimited fortification type game.

Here are the battle odds for capturing the country against 3 defenders:

Attackers - Odds of Attacker's Success
-----------------------------------------------
6 - 77%
5 - 64
4 - 47
3 - 21
2 - 3

I can't think of a game I've played where I haven't tried to capture a country in the first round. Even if I'm going first when there aren't any depleted countries to go after.

This is especially a good strategy if you can attack from where you have adjacent reinforcements to ameliorate any battle loses.

For example, if you can attack a country 6 v 3 from one country, and 3 v R from another country (where R is the remainder of the enemy left after your initial attack), I think you can have a high expectation for success.

Here are the battle odds for capturing a country with 3 attackers:

Defenders - Odds of Attacker's Success
------------------------------------------------
3 - 21%
2 - 36
1 - 76

So if you've weakened your enemy by 2 armies in your initial 6 v 3, you are sitting pretty taking out the final army with a 3 v 1 attack. If you just managed to eliminate one army in your initial 6 v 3 attack, it's probably better to quit while you're behind -- but not behind enough to hobble you for the rest of the game.

[cenamom]

When attacking on my first turn I do not use the auto attack button. I will use the attack button. In four of the games I just started I won on 6-3. The last one I did not.

[Kid_A]

[Hatchman]

If I go first in a brand new game I will usually just deploy 3 in a spot from which I know I will be attacking eventually and to which I can add armies from adjacent territories. I don't attack that turn. I deploy and reinforce "strategically". Then I'll conquer two key territories on my next turn and maybe even get most of a continent with still plenty left over to reinforce the front lines. I just hate losing or aborting a 6-3 on my very first turn. Puts a damper on the game. But that's just me.

[tahitiwahini]

I just hate losing or aborting a 6-3 on my very first turn. Puts a damper on the game. But that's just me.

You're right. Losing out on a 6 v 3 and then continuing to pursue it is a very bad thing. I know I've lost some games from doing that. I was starved for the rest of the game and went out early.

I haven't learned patience yet. I see some of these games mentioned in the fora where there are hundreds of armies on the board and I wonder how in the world that happened.

I tend to be very aggressive in the games I play. If a don't get knocked out first (which happens far too frequently), I have a good chance of winning the game. Not getting a card in a turn is like the end of the world for me. I'm also very aggressive going after cards through player elimination. I like to get off to a lead quickly. Nothing is more fun than being the dominant player in the game (except winning of course). The most gratifying is winning a game even though the other players were forced to form an alliance against me.

So for my style of play getting a card in the first round is paramount. Maybe I'd win more often if I played a little more conservatively, but frankly I'm having too much fun playing the way I do now.

A bad streak of dice can really kill me, because I build in such a low safety margin.

Eliminating a player with a final 2 v 1 attack is as exciting as this game gets for me.

[Hatchman]

I haven't learned patience yet. I see some of these games mentioned in the fora where there are hundreds of armies on the board and I wonder how in the world that happened.

I tend to be very aggressive in the games I play. If a don't get knocked out first (which happens far too frequently), I have a good chance of winning the game.

Well, what's been frustrating the hell out of me is that I always seem to be the last guy eliminated. I'm always coming close but not winning (in the games I lose). Maybe I'm too patient and conservative, doing my best to hold one or two continents, but not attacking/expanding enough from that base.

[Robinette]

This has been a fun thread to read, hearing the reasons for the different approaches. Helps me to understand why people do .... um... er... lets just call them silly moves.

Now keep in mind that I'm not an experienced team player, so my comments are based from a singles perspective. With that said, here's a few thoughts for you to chew on:

Flat Rate - to go 6-3 just for a card is silly unless there is a STRONG strategic advantage to taking that territory. Chef tahitiwahini listed some great stats above, but you should consider that a card is worth, at most, 3.3 armies (I'm guessing the statistical average is closer to 2.6). Anyway, you will on average lose about 2.5 armies, and then likely leave an army behind or exposed. So where is the upside for the attacker... UNLESS there is a STRONG strategic advantage, DON'T take that territory.

No Cards - Obviously, you would only ever attack for strategic territory advantage in no cards.... Let's move on...

Escalating - ohhhhh, my favorite! Now it is very hard to imagine a situation on the 1st round that it would be worth attacking 6-3 to get a card. Ishiro mentioned having 3 aussie countries, but how often does that happen... but even in that situation, your modivation for attacking is not for a card, but for strategic territory advantage.

So in conclusion, it would appear that there is no time that a 6-3 1st round attack makes strategic sense with regards to card management... Not that you can't get lucky and win some,,, but in the long run it'is just silly.

[Nobunaga]

... 6 vs 3 is a b*tch. That's why I hate being first in the play order that first round. Being 2nd, 3rd, or whatever, there's a good chance you'll have a few "1"s around to kill off for a card.

[detlef]

This has been a fun thread to read, hearing the reasons for the different approaches. Helps me to understand why people do .... um... er... lets just call them silly moves.

Now keep in mind that I'm not an experienced team player, so my comments are based from a singles perspective. With that said, here's a few thoughts for you to chew on:

Flat Rate - to go 6-3 just for a card is silly unless there is a STRONG strategic advantage to taking that territory. Chef tahitiwahini listed some great stats above, but you should consider that a card is worth, at most, 3.3 armies (I'm guessing the statistical average is closer to 2.6). Anyway, you will on average lose about 2.5 armies, and then likely leave an army behind or exposed. So where is the upside for the attacker... UNLESS there is a STRONG strategic advantage, DON'T take that territory.

No Cards - Obviously, you would only ever attack for strategic territory advantage in no cards.... Let's move on...

Escalating - ohhhhh, my favorite! Now it is very hard to imagine a situation on the 1st round that it would be worth attacking 6-3 to get a card. Ishiro mentioned having 3 aussie countries, but how often does that happen... but even in that situation, your modivation for attacking is not for a card, but for strategic territory advantage.

So in conclusion, it would appear that there is no time that a 6-3 1st round attack makes strategic sense with regards to card management... Not that you can't get lucky and win some,,, but in the long run it'is just silly.

It's not just about cards, but waiting to make your first attack until you are attacking 9 v 3 is realy what is being debated here. My point is that you are no less likely to lose your first two armies attacking 9 v3 vs 6v3. So, let's say you wait, attack 9v3 and lose your first two guys. Do you attack 7v3? It's just barely better than 6v3. By the logic that says attacking 6v3 is a bad idea unless you have some very important territorial gain means you may never get started.

As for Aussie, one can make a very good argument for attacking off the bat even if you only own 2. If you win two off the bat, there's a very good shot that you'll take the first territory without losing a man. If you're feeling ballsy, you can go for the second 5 v3 (still better than 60% chance of success. Even if you barely take the second, you only have one border to protect so you may be in business right off the bat. If you take it with one to spare (which you have a better than 50% chance of doing), you'll have 4 in Indonesia. Anyone in Siam is now facing a 6v4 attack (those who hate 6v3 must reaaallly hate this one) that is neither an easy card or doing them much good in their own development. All over a measly 2 pt bonus.

At some point, you need to make a move. Not doing so is much like a football coach kicking a field goal the minute his team gets inside the 20 regardless of what stage of the game it is or what down it is because he doesn't want to risk a turnover.

Chance is an element of risk and all you can do to mitigate it's bad effects on you is not to engage in attacks with bad odds. Basically, when you don't get to roll more dice than your target.

There are a ton of variables involved but cards do matter somewhat. Hopelessly chasing a card attacking 3v3 is just plain stupid. However, getting off to a good start by taking a country on your first turn and happening to grab a card is not a bad idea per se.
[/i][/b]

[tahitiwahini]

With that said, here's a few thoughts for you to chew on:

Flat Rate - to go 6-3 just for a card is silly unless there is a STRONG strategic advantage to taking that territory. Chef tahitiwahini listed some great stats above, but you should consider that a card is worth, at most, 3.3 armies (I'm guessing the statistical average is closer to 2.6). Anyway, you will on average lose about 2.5 armies, and then likely leave an army behind or exposed. So where is the upside for the attacker... UNLESS there is a STRONG strategic advantage, DON'T take that territory.

Well, when my 6 v 3 fails, I do feel pretty silly. There's a great deal of truth in what you said regarding flat rate games. And obviously since I don't win every game I play, I can't even begin to make a claim that the way I do things is best.

I do tend to go 6 v 3 when I need to. But I'm happier about doing so if I'm adjacent to another country I own. If I'm adjacent to two countries I own I'm even happier. You get the idea, I'm using reinforcements from my adjacent countries to rectify any disaster I may suffer in my attacks.

When it comes right down to it I guess I'm comfortable betting on 77% odds. Roughly 3 out of 4 times I come out looking pretty good; the fourth time I look like an idiot. I willing to live with that. In real life my odds aren't usually that good anyway.

Again, for my style of play (which may not be optimal from the perspective of winning points, but is a heck of a lot of fun for me, maybe more so than accumulating points -- although there's certainly nothing wrong with that!), cards are the fuel that I absolutely require to advance.

I do agree with your average loss of armies in a 6 v 3 attack being 2.5.

However, I would guess that a card is worth on average closer to 2.9 armies.

(10*6/27 + 8*1/27 + 6*1/27 4*1/27)/3 = 2.89

Plus we're forgetting the potential for 2 additional armies for every country you own in the set you turn in. No idea how to quantify that (but I'll bet our resident statistician Aimless could whip something up along those lines ) , but it's got to be worth something.

So on average, I'm coming out ahead by 0.4 armies on the 6 v 3 attack. It ain't much in itself, I'll readily admit.

But, I get to deploy my card bonus armies anywhere I want. Deployment can be a much more powerful mechanism than fortification. I can deploy anywhere I want to on the board. There are restrictions on where I can fortify. I get to deploy at the beginning of my turn, before I make my attacks, I have to fortify after my attacks have already been made (in other words my fortification armies aren't necessarily positioned correctly for my attacks during the current turn while my deployments are always positioned correctly).

Now, you can make the obvious counter-argument that my 2.5 armies that I expect to lose (on average) from my attack are "real" armies, whereas my 2.9 armies I expect to receive (on average) don't actually exist until the third round. You got me there. However, I don't mind making the investment, because if I can survive to the third round (sometimes this has to be the fourth or fifth round of course depending on how favorable the card gods have been to me), I'm positioned to get (on average) 8.7 armies. I need these 8.7 armies desperately to feed my aggressive continent grabbing strategy.

But all the foregoing is just rationalization. I really do it because I have fun doing it.

Of course, you must take my opinion for what it's worth. This is just CPT. tahitiwahini respectfully offering my opinion to COL. Robinette. It's funny Robinette called me chef because I've probably got about as much chance winning against him as the weekly challenger does winning against the Iron Chef.

[osujacket]

By my calculations which are estimates but I think are pretty close mathmatically

25% of the time the attacker wins both armies
50% of the time you should split win one and lose one
25% of the time you lose both armies.

So statistically you will win most of the time but may be down to three armies for two countries leaving them both exposed to other attacks.

So like Ms Robin said above you should only attack if there is a strategic advantage such as

1. Owning a continent
2. Eliminating a color from an area?
3. Disrupting multiple fortifications.

[detlef]

By my calculations which are estimates but I think are pretty close mathmatically

25% of the time the attacker wins both armies
50% of the time you should split win one and lose one
25% of the time you lose both armies.

So statistically you will win most of the time but may be down to three armies for two countries leaving them both exposed to other attacks.

So like Ms Robin said above you should only attack if there is a strategic advantage such as

1. Owning a continent
2. Eliminating a color from an area?
3. Disrupting multiple fortifications.

FWIW, the odds are actually about 37/33/30 respectively on the won armies breakdown you gave.

[DiM]

i always attack 6vs3 i just hate to take a turn and not attack

[Ehriggn]

I rarely put all three reinforcements on one country, I try to find three countrys that all border the same place and put one on each of them, so that I can attack 4 on 3 three times. improving the odds a bit, and possibly connecting them to form a large force.

and like cinamon, I never use the auto attack button, unless the game is ending.
I've got my superstitions about that, its given me some nasty suprises...

[Shai]

Keep in mind that you do have overwhelming odds of success attacking 6v3. If you have the opportunity to fortify the area in case you you lose some troops in doing so, more the better.

In a no-cards or escalating cards game, then it makes sense to a degree. One because you don't need to take a country, one because it puts you at the back of the line when everyone has 5 cards and has to cash. That means your first set goes from being worth 4 to being worth 15.

However, while your odds of success if you wait until your second move to attack obviously improve, you haven't eliminated the chance that you might lose two or even 4 straight right away. So you haven't managed to defy any odds by waiting for a 9 v3 attack. Meanwhile, your delay might have cost you dearly.

I think it is more important to take each game individually. If, for instance, you were given two of the 4 countries in SA or Aussie, then you should jump on the chance to nail that baby down. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

I will say this. If you lose two off the bat, it does make a lot of sense to quit because 4 v3 is very bad odds and you certainly don't want to end your first turn with less than you started with.

you're wrong I think, you should always attack first round, you can always "stall" your attacks in the 4th round and postpone cashing in...