Conquer Club

IronE.GLE wrote:#-o

My point is that you pick extreme situations to back up your arguments. There are always exceptions to the rule, you just aren't one.

Yet you nonetheless pointed out "1/1", etc.

My point is - it doesn't matter how extreme the situation is, if it can happen, it can happen, even in a lesser state. And since it happens a lot, one must use logic to draw further conclusions. You fail at doing so. That's the point. If it wasn't beneficial in the 700 army scenario to attack [which happens a LOT, about 1/10 games (which is enough to create an issue)], then there's other scenarios as well, maybe at a lesser extreme, that it would STILL be less beneficial to do nothing than to "take a chance." If you're arguing that it's smart to give the other player an advantage in the odds - that detracts from the point of the game, planning out and strategy.

And because these stalemates occurs more often with high ranked players, once again we can conclude your logic is still flawed.

Again, it's Simple:

If you want a cards-dominated game, play escalating.
If you want a map-dominated game (including stuff like continents), play flat rate.
If you want a drop-dominated game, play no cards.

If you want the strategy to involve Real Life time, play Freestyle.
If you want the strategy to stay locked up in the computer, play Sequential.

FabledIntegral wrote:

IronE.GLE wrote:#-o

My point is that you pick extreme situations to back up your arguments. There are always exceptions to the rule, you just aren't one.

Yet you nonetheless pointed out "1/1", etc.

My point is - it doesn't matter how extreme the situation is, if it can happen, it can happen, even in a lesser state. And since it happens a lot, one must use logic to draw further conclusions. You fail at doing so. That's the point. If it wasn't beneficial in the 700 army scenario to attack [which happens a LOT, about 1/10 games (which is enough to create an issue)], then there's other scenarios as well, maybe at a lesser extreme, that it would STILL be less beneficial to do nothing than to "take a chance." If you're arguing that it's smart to give the other player an advantage in the odds - that detracts from the point of the game, planning out and strategy.

And because these stalemates occurs more often with high ranked players, once again we can conclude your logic is still flawed.

It's certainly more than flawed-- senseless comes to mind.

FabledIntegral wrote:

IronE.GLE wrote:#-o

My point is that you pick extreme situations to back up your arguments. There are always exceptions to the rule, you just aren't one.

Yet you nonetheless pointed out "1/1", etc.

My point is - it doesn't matter how extreme the situation is, if it can happen, it can happen, even in a lesser state. And since it happens a lot, one must use logic to draw further conclusions. You fail at doing so. That's the point. If it wasn't beneficial in the 700 army scenario to attack [which happens a LOT, about 1/10 games (which is enough to create an issue)], then there's other scenarios as well, maybe at a lesser extreme, that it would STILL be less beneficial to do nothing than to "take a chance." If you're arguing that it's smart to give the other player an advantage in the odds - that detracts from the point of the game, planning out and strategy.

And because these stalemates occurs more often with high ranked players, once again we can conclude your logic is still flawed.

Stalemates happen more often with high ranked players because they don't want to lose points. The more points someone has, the less risks they take. Lower ranked players are more willing to take a chance rather than sit tight and engage in border building.

I did point out 1/1, not 1vs1. Perhaps 1-1 would have been the proper way to type it, but it still wouldn't change the fact that you didn't understand the context of the statement. The 1/1 was odds, meaning 1 in 1 chance of being a stalemate. Lets apply your comprehension of my statement to the statement itself:

IronE.GLE wrote:Well if Player X has ten trillion armies, and Player Y has only 9 trillion armies, the odds of a stalemate are 1 versus 1.

Do you see? Now stop harping on something you misunderstood.

If you see the potential of a stalemate within any particular game, your strategy should be adjusted to prevent this. Sometimes that means taking a risk, other times that means creating a power vacuum. Baiting other players to attack each other or over extend themselves tends to open up opportunities for you to take a smash and grab approach, gaining precious territory. You have to grow a pair, think outside the box and use your opponents tendencies against them.

IronE.GLE wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:

IronE.GLE wrote:#-o

My point is that you pick extreme situations to back up your arguments. There are always exceptions to the rule, you just aren't one.

Yet you nonetheless pointed out "1/1", etc.

My point is - it doesn't matter how extreme the situation is, if it can happen, it can happen, even in a lesser state. And since it happens a lot, one must use logic to draw further conclusions. You fail at doing so. That's the point. If it wasn't beneficial in the 700 army scenario to attack [which happens a LOT, about 1/10 games (which is enough to create an issue)], then there's other scenarios as well, maybe at a lesser extreme, that it would STILL be less beneficial to do nothing than to "take a chance." If you're arguing that it's smart to give the other player an advantage in the odds - that detracts from the point of the game, planning out and strategy.

And because these stalemates occurs more often with high ranked players, once again we can conclude your logic is still flawed.

Stalemates happen more often with high ranked players because they don't want to lose points. The more points someone has, the less risks they take. Lower ranked players are more willing to take a chance rather than sit tight and engage in border building.

I did point out 1/1, not 1vs1. Perhaps 1-1 would have been the proper way to type it, but it still wouldn't change the fact that you didn't understand the context of the statement. The 1/1 was odds, meaning 1 in 1 chance of being a stalemate. Lets apply your comprehension of my statement to the statement itself:

IronE.GLE wrote:Well if Player X has ten trillion armies, and Player Y has only 9 trillion armies, the odds of a stalemate are 1 versus 1.

Do you see? Now stop harping on something you misunderstood.

If you see the potential of a stalemate within any particular game, your strategy should be adjusted to prevent this. Sometimes that means taking a risk, other times that means creating a power vacuum. Baiting other players to attack each other or over extend themselves tends to open up opportunities for you to take a smash and grab approach, gaining precious territory. You have to grow a pair, think outside the box and use your opponents tendencies against them.

So basically your first sentence contradicts your earlier post... that stalemates happen between people that don't know what to do.

High ranking has NOTHING to do with losing points. There's a reason those players have gotten to a high rank in the first place - they are good at the type of game they are playing. You're basically saying that the high ranks, who specialize in a certain gametype, don't know the game the best? The reason they got to that rank is because they know when to make a move and when not to. Many people will even offer other people free kills, bait them on, etc. to get off out of stalemates "if you want to kill green, I won't steal your kill, he's all yours, and I'll even kill him in Aussie for you and take out his 20 there." To try and think you know so much when indeed you've played so little is absolutely priceless. You have no idea how many times I've gone out of my way to get out of a stalemate and taken -50 armies or so just to get the game moving. And the fact that someone should even have to do that in the first place takes away from the spirit of the game, simply because I (or someone else) has to do a move that does NOT benefit them strategically to move on forward. Your entire "grab a territory" thing is idiotic in itself - oh no, someone just went through 100 armies to take South America... good thing that will pay off 50 turns later... when the armies are at 3,000 a piece they'll be getting 2 more armies than others!

I knew full well that you pointed out 1/1. You said it was a 100% chance that it was a stalemate. I did nothing more than point out the flaw in your scenario that you said "player x" and "player y." Thus insinuating two players. Two players in a game would make a stalemate 0/1, not 1/1. Just because you can't realize your own flaws doesn't mean I have them in my logic, but way to try to twist my words. Anything else?

It's very tough to win esc... even if you get out to a huge lead early on. You best friend in games like this (assuming you don't just like sitting back and collecting cards) is a small map and 3 player games (i.e., takes longer to get into la-la-land in the card bonuses, and continent bonuses can still be a biggerer relative percent of the total armies of any given player. On a small map, however, if the weak guy can drag things out until you hit the mega-bonuses on the cards, then you need to spot this in advance and adapt if possible.

Yeah - if you have 4 (possibly 5) players in escalating games, continents become a lot more useful than they previously were. Only in the games with LOTS of players (6-8) do the cashes rise so fast that they exceed the need for continents, although they are still a nice bonus, gauge whether or not it's worth it.

FabledIntegral wrote:
Just because you can't realize your own flaws doesn't mean I have them in my logic, but way to try to twist my words. Anything else?

Twist your words?

I said stalemates happen when people are cowards, don't know the game or both. So how did I contradict my own statement? They are cowards, plain and simple.

IronE.GLE wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:
Just because you can't realize your own flaws doesn't mean I have them in my logic, but way to try to twist my words. Anything else?

Twist your words?

I said stalemates happen when people are cowards, don't know the game or both. So how did I contradict my own statement? They are cowards, plain and simple.

First, you twisted what I said about 1v1 vs 1/1. Second, you've gone from saying that they are either cowards, which under you definition, as I already pointed out, is someone who will NOT perform a strategically dumb move, or they don't know what they are doing. However, then you say in the next subsequent post Stalemates happen more often with high ranked players because they don't want to lose points. The more points someone has, the less risks they take. Lower ranked players are more willing to take a chance rather than sit tight and engage in border building.. So they happen *more* often with high rankers now? But aren't those the ones that *do* know what they are doing? Amusing now. That seems to be contradicting itself.

You obviously fail to realize that a high ranked player is smart enough not to take any bait you think will work. You go and attack someone a little bit like you suggested - what did that accomplish for YOU personally? Nothing. Every other player on the board thus benefitted from YOUR strategically inept move except the person you attacked, and no one else need act upon it except watch you continue to make a mockery of yourself. You don't think the smarter people won't fall for such basic tactics? Amusing - nothing more. And you're still suggesting that you go out of your way to put yourself in a less strategically viable position.

There's no such thing as a coward in risk - everything is done by calculations and strategy. Either it's worth it to do a move, or it's not. If the costs outweigh the benefits, you shouldn't do it. However, sometimes in stalemates, for the mere sake of getting the game moving, you have to make a move where IN TERMS OF THE GAME the cost did outweigh the benefit. And you're saying that's good. Thus, you are wrong.

Good God man, you are a dense motherfucker. How can you not understand that I am calling high ranked players involved in stalemates cowards and saying low ranked players don't have a full grasp on strategy?

Listen, if Player A has a 5% chance of winning an attack against Player B, it is stupidity (or suicide) to attack. Conversely, Player B has a massive (95%) advantage, in which case it really isn't a stalemate at all! I never said someone is a coward for failing to attack against a vastly superior force. You and I both know this, yet you still try to put words in my mouth OR you are just too fucking stupid to understand the meaning of cowardice, in which case I would assume that you are one.

IronE.GLE wrote:Good God man, you are a dense motherfucker. How can you not understand that I am calling high ranked players involved in stalemates cowards and saying low ranked players don't have a full grasp on strategy?

Listen, if Player A has a 5% chance of winning an attack against Player B, it is stupidity (or suicide) to attack. Conversely, Player B has a massive (95%) advantage, in which case it really isn't a stalemate at all! I never said someone is a coward for failing to attack against a vastly superior force. You and I both know this, yet you still try to put words in my mouth OR you are just too fucking stupid to understand the meaning of cowardice, in which case I would assume that you are one.

I'm teh dense motherfucker, yet you still fail to understand a STALEMATE CAN'T HAPPEN IN A 1v1. Thus the 5% vs 95% scenario doesn't work, stalemates need at LEAST 3 people on the board, usually 4 or more. The 5% refers to player A killing someone off and still being able to win, or somehow attacking large stacks of armies and still being able to win. Obviously, ONCE AGAIN, you fail to realize this, because after 10 or so posts you still fail to realize stalemates CAN'T happen in 1v1's.

If you're saying that high ranks are cowards, and low ranks don't have a full grasp on the game, then you're virtually including everyone. Thus you're saying only the very select "middle ranks" which is indeed very arbitrary, are the ones that know how to avoid stalemates, even though you already made the point that low rnaks DON'T get into stalemates because they avoid risk.

And no, you're the dense idiot if you still use the word coward. once again, there's no such thing as a coward in risk. The entire game is a game of strategy, whether or not a certain move is worth it. If you're too stupid to see that, its' not my fault. But once the strategy is MOST viable to not attack for all players on the board, tehre is no such thing as a coward, it's that the people are smart. If you're REALLY that stupid, and I mean that's pretty dumbfucking stupid, to think that high ranks are just cowards (and not the true fact that they see beyond your very limited board understanding), then you're doing nothing more than make a mockery of yourself in this thread.

FabledIntegral wrote:

IronE.GLE wrote:Good God man, you are a dense motherfucker. How can you not understand that I am calling high ranked players involved in stalemates cowards and saying low ranked players don't have a full grasp on strategy?

Listen, if Player A has a 5% chance of winning an attack against Player B, it is stupidity (or suicide) to attack. Conversely, Player B has a massive (95%) advantage, in which case it really isn't a stalemate at all! I never said someone is a coward for failing to attack against a vastly superior force. You and I both know this, yet you still try to put words in my mouth OR you are just too fucking stupid to understand the meaning of cowardice, in which case I would assume that you are one.

I'm teh dense motherfucker

I have nothing else to add. That partial sentence sums it up nicely.

Congrats - even though others have already disagreed with you, you fail to understand the most of basic concepts. Congrats, as well, on not being able to ever refute a single point, continually twisting words, never making a point yourself, except contradicting yourself. Let all marvel in your utter stupidity, although I'm sure with you 150 game knowledge you know the true foundations of this game!

Just a quick question. Who claimed 1vs1 can become stalemates?

MeDeFe wrote:Just a quick question. Who claimed 1vs1 can become stalemates?

Nobody did. He has been trying to attribute such a statement to me even without any text proving such a thing.

MeDeFe wrote:Just a quick question. Who claimed 1vs1 can become stalemates?

He continually put up scenarios of only using "player A" and "player B." Thus two players.

To continue, he also specified when I said "if player A only has a 5% chance of winning by attacking, or doing some certain move..." that it would mean "player B has a 95% chance of winning the game then if player A is in that scenario." If you're adding up to 100% with two people, logic implies that there MUST only be two players, unless all other players have a 0% chance of winning. So yeah, it was him on multiple occasions.

FabledIntegral wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Just a quick question. Who claimed 1vs1 can become stalemates?

He continually put up scenarios of only using "player A" and "player B." Thus two players.

To continue, he also specified when I said "if player A only has a 5% chance of winning by attacking, or doing some certain move..." that it would mean "player B has a 95% chance of winning the game then if player A is in that scenario." If you're adding up to 100% with two people, logic implies that there MUST only be two players, unless all other players have a 0% chance of winning. So yeah, it was him on multiple occasions.

lol, I used YOUR examples.

FabledIntegral wrote:
Stalemates happen when it's not beneficial for anyone to advance any further. For example, if your only move on the board could be to not attack, or have a 5% chance at winning which thus gives the other player 95% chance at winning, what are you going to do? To even state that you should attempt the 5% chance means that you're playing into your opponent's hands. Which shows very mediocre gameplay by some people who advocate risk taking, most notably the poster I just quoted.

This is where you first quoted my initial post in this thread. Somehow you took my statement about taking risks as attacking when you have a 5% chance of winning. I never said that, you put those words in my mouth from the very beginning, then harped and harped on something I NEVER said. My example of of 5%/95% was taken directly from your statement. I NEVER said a single thing about 1 versus 1 games. So again, you put words in my mouth and continued to harp on something I NEVER said.

I suppose this begs the question: Do you even know what you say from one post to another, or do you just ramble so you have something to read?

Zigtar wrote:WOW thank you for the fast response. Yes flat rate would prevent this and No cards would as well. Most games seem to be esc cards. But I guess it is my choice what games I chose to play. If I want to play a strategty game choose flat or no cards would be the way to go.

Am I correct in seeing the stall and chain turn in as the primary method of winning in those esc card games?

Folks already talked about the stall and chain for esc.

I play sequential primarily because I have kids and generally cannot sit around without a break while someone decides to take their freestyle turn. This was more of an issue before the rules changed to require a delay between ending and starting the next turn, but it is still an issue. Freestyle is a "pounce" and "respond" strategy. I like to set back, decide my moves .. then go on.


One point no one has mentioned is that the impact of bonuses and such really depend on the map. For the Realms maps, in particular, bonuses matter much more than cards. They are often won in 3-4 rounds. By then, your opponent, if lucky, will be getting 40-70 or more armies and the cards just don't matter.

Similarly, the effect of strategy and luck all vary depending on the map and style of play.

I would suggest experimenting a bit will all. Initially, don't worry too much about your rank. It will go down and up. Be a mature player and folks will join your games (you'd probably just as soon avoid most of those who won't). Learn and you will go up in rank.

I care more about playing a lot of games than my rank. If I stuck to one type, I could go up. (and I have), but I would rather play than sit around waiting for someone to join the games in my "specialties". Overall, I think this will make me a better player.

IronE.GLE wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Just a quick question. Who claimed 1vs1 can become stalemates?

He continually put up scenarios of only using "player A" and "player B." Thus two players.

To continue, he also specified when I said "if player A only has a 5% chance of winning by attacking, or doing some certain move..." that it would mean "player B has a 95% chance of winning the game then if player A is in that scenario." If you're adding up to 100% with two people, logic implies that there MUST only be two players, unless all other players have a 0% chance of winning. So yeah, it was him on multiple occasions.

lol, I used YOUR examples.

FabledIntegral wrote:
Stalemates happen when it's not beneficial for anyone to advance any further. For example, if your only move on the board could be to not attack, or have a 5% chance at winning which thus gives the other player 95% chance at winning, what are you going to do? To even state that you should attempt the 5% chance means that you're playing into your opponent's hands. Which shows very mediocre gameplay by some people who advocate risk taking, most notably the poster I just quoted.

This is where you first quoted my initial post in this thread. Somehow you took my statement about taking risks as attacking when you have a 5% chance of winning. I never said that, you put those words in my mouth from the very beginning, then harped and harped on something I NEVER said. My example of of 5%/95% was taken directly from your statement. I NEVER said a single thing about 1 versus 1 games. So again, you put words in my mouth and continued to harp on something I NEVER said.

I suppose this begs the question: Do you even know what you say from one post to another, or do you just ramble so you have something to read?

I'll admit - very poor word usage by me. What I was implying was that if Player A attacked someone such as player C, it would give something like 95% chance of winning to player B. Meaning that Player A would weaken himself out so much from doing attacks, player B would thus win, and it's very unlikely Player A would ever be able to take out Player B and C (or around a 5% chance of succeeding). My wording was very off. Your point was slightly different, which is why I responded the way I did, although I'd admit fault on the reason you responded in terms of 2 people, as i explained it poorly.

Nonetheless the points still remain concerning everything else.

So are you ready to hug it out or keep arguing

IronE.GLE wrote:So are you ready to hug it out or keep arguing

Yay! Group hug!

IronE.GLE wrote:So are you ready to hug it out or keep arguing

Well - the point is I disagree completely with what you are saying. Whether or not you want to continue discussing the matter is up to you.

Tell me how you really feel.

sad

Just to let you guys know about the strategy in attacking during a stalemate. I've done the math for odds of winning in risk as a personal project(yeah I know I'm a nerd majoring in mathmatics and statistics).
Rounded to the nearest percent, odds for different situations are as follows
*the odds for any roll of 3v2 are
Both attacker and defender lose 1 army (34%)
Defender loses 2 armies (37%)
Attacker loses 2 armies (29%)
*the odds for any roll of 2v2 are
Both lose 1 (32%)
Defender loses 2 (23%)
Attacker loses 2 (45%)
*the odds for any roll of 1v2 (attackerVdefender)
Defender loses 1 (25%)
Attacker loses 1 (75%)
*the odds for any roll of 3v1 are
Defender loses 1 (66%)
Attacker loses 1 (34%)
*the odds for any roll of 2v1 (attackerVdefender)
Defender loses 1 (58%)
Attacker loses 1 (42%)
*the odds for any roll of 1v1
Defender loses 1 (42%)
Attacker loses 1 (58%)

As you can see in 3v2 dice scenerio the attacker has the advantage. Because of that and the fact that as the number of armies gets higher the 3v2 roll becomes statistically dominate, as two opponents stack armies adjacent to each other at an equal ratio the odds shift in favor of whoever attacks. I don't have the turning point in my records here, but I believe it was somewhere around 15v15 where the attacker become the statistical favorite to win (in a matchup of even armies).

You guys can crunch the numbers yourself if you don't believe me, but it's a lot of crunching.