I quite liked it:
Wine:
I saw!
I conquered!
The CC Tactician----Submit Your Questions
Moderator: Community Team
Forum rules
Please read the community guidelines before posting.
Please read the community guidelines before posting.
-
chessplaya
- Posts: 1875
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:46 pm
-
alex_white101
- Posts: 1992
- Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:05 am
I'm so tempted to put my own opinion across here... but I won't - I'll leave it to the experts
However, I would like to support this question. I've got a 4-player (now 3-player cos 1 deadbeated) game on Classic. Myself and 1 other captain are the dominant forces in an escalating game. He holds Oceania and is trying to hold Africa, which I keep breaking. Me - I hold S. America. I don't like playing like this because his no cards/flat rate strategy will win him the game if he's not stopped. However, player #3 is too weak and is in the position I would like to be - fiddling around and controlling how and when he gets cards while we fight it out. I don't like it - I'm not used to playing this way on escalating!
jiminski wrote:Why don’t you use the opportunity to ask a question JR?
We should all keep trying to learn.
Sages: in the escalator game; sometimes i find that seemingly ‘naïve’ players end up winning by attacking and playing in a style conventionally more suited to no cards.
I.e. attempting to gain bonuses and attacking strongholds in the immediate vicinity.
How do you cope with the culture-shock of moving from playing with seasoned players to playing with comparative new-comers?
Do you stick to the same pattern of play or do you change?
Or given the right circumstance do you play this style too?
However, I would like to support this question. I've got a 4-player (now 3-player cos 1 deadbeated) game on Classic. Myself and 1 other captain are the dominant forces in an escalating game. He holds Oceania and is trying to hold Africa, which I keep breaking. Me - I hold S. America. I don't like playing like this because his no cards/flat rate strategy will win him the game if he's not stopped. However, player #3 is too weak and is in the position I would like to be - fiddling around and controlling how and when he gets cards while we fight it out. I don't like it - I'm not used to playing this way on escalating!
nmhunate wrote:Speak English... It is the language that God wrote the bible in.
Highest Score: 2437
Highest Place: 84
-
Jolly Roger
- Posts: 346
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:46 am
-
Incandenza
- Posts: 4949
- Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:34 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Playing Eschaton with a bucket of old tennis balls
Jolly Roger wrote:What is a foolproof method for winning a terminator game (flat rate/chained forts) with over 100 players? Lie in wait? Go for broke? Or some other middle of the road strategy which combines the two?
What he said.
THOTA: dingdingdingdingdingdingBOOM
Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est
Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est
-
sully800
- Posts: 4978
- Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:45 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
chessplaya wrote:wicked wrote:Those aren't the top 5 players.
try adding RL_Orange....and greycloak ...for no cards i happen to see some1 called lazaruslong as top player with no cards option...well thats how i see it...have all the respect to the guys on ur list...but srsly they arent the best...
It's pretty hard to argue against Blitz/maniac/Robinette being at least in the top 10 players on this site, no matter how you slice it. I certainly think I fall outside of that range, as would gibbom, but we're both alright
-
Optimus Prime
- Posts: 9665
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:33 pm
- Gender: Male
This might seem dumb, but I have always wondered it.
Is there a certain "criteria" that a player should try to match before risking himself by making a bold move against another player?
I ask only because I've tried many different things and none of them ever seem to be any better than each other.
Just curious.
Is there a certain "criteria" that a player should try to match before risking himself by making a bold move against another player?
I ask only because I've tried many different things and none of them ever seem to be any better than each other.
Just curious.
-
Buddy Jesus
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:06 pm
-
spinwizard
- Posts: 5016
- Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:52 am
Optimus Prime wrote:
This is an interesting question, definitely deserves exploration and maybe even it's own thread. I can't tell you how many times I've been frustrated, when trying to wipe out an opponent with an overwhleming majority of armies, and then lose because of poor dice e.g. I couldn't kill an opponent who had 4 countries, 11 on 2 and 1 on the other 2, with 46 armies.
But extrememly poor dice aside, I have a general idea of how much I feel is enough to wipe out an opponent, if most of the countries have 1 or 2 armies on each territory, I generally like to do it with double +3 (armies) my opponents force. For territiories with concentrated forces, I gamble on about 1.5 times the number of armies. So as an example, if my opponent holds Oceania, how many armies do I need on Siam to take it over, let's say he has 20 on Indonesia and 1 on each on the other territories, I'd say 6 (double) +3 for his 1 fort territories and 30 (20*1.5) for Indonesia, so basically, I'd say an ideal number of armies on Siam would be 39. Though honestly, I'd go with less but wouldn't be as disappointed if I failed.
Of course, there are many other intriguing factors in your question, I've only touched on one, other considerations would include cards, strength of other opponents, your own position, fort types etc... People, please feel free...
Is there a certain "criteria" that a player should try to match before risking himself by making a bold move against another player?
I ask only because I've tried many different things and none of them ever seem to be any better than each other.
This is an interesting question, definitely deserves exploration and maybe even it's own thread. I can't tell you how many times I've been frustrated, when trying to wipe out an opponent with an overwhleming majority of armies, and then lose because of poor dice e.g. I couldn't kill an opponent who had 4 countries, 11 on 2 and 1 on the other 2, with 46 armies.
But extrememly poor dice aside, I have a general idea of how much I feel is enough to wipe out an opponent, if most of the countries have 1 or 2 armies on each territory, I generally like to do it with double +3 (armies) my opponents force. For territiories with concentrated forces, I gamble on about 1.5 times the number of armies. So as an example, if my opponent holds Oceania, how many armies do I need on Siam to take it over, let's say he has 20 on Indonesia and 1 on each on the other territories, I'd say 6 (double) +3 for his 1 fort territories and 30 (20*1.5) for Indonesia, so basically, I'd say an ideal number of armies on Siam would be 39. Though honestly, I'd go with less but wouldn't be as disappointed if I failed.
Of course, there are many other intriguing factors in your question, I've only touched on one, other considerations would include cards, strength of other opponents, your own position, fort types etc... People, please feel free...
general guideline: high numbers of attacking/defending troops have a much more equalised pattern of success/failure because it eliminates the possibility of having a particular bad set of say 6 dice (losing 2 each time attacking 8v2 for example, which is not uncommon) ruin your overall luck. the higher the numbers the more linear the luck will be, so when attacking a large bulk of troops (20+) you can be more confident going in with a slightly less superior numerical advantage than you would if it were lower. in my case anyway, if i can spare the armies i always go 8v2 because to lose a 6v2 you only need to lose the first 2 rolls - keep that in mind when planning a takeout.
top question poll.
there are 14 questions but i can only vote on #1 or #2. why?
i would want to know the answer to question #8
i would want to know the answer to question #8