*New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

[para]

from what I have understood of this argument, you claim that stalemates happen in no cards, not escalating

were'nt you the one SUPPORTING escalating? why would you be complaining about stalemates happening there?

you make no sense. a stale mate in escalating makes no sense to begin with.

I can follow the argument just fine thank you. you, im not too sure about.'

also, my rank has nothing to do with it. don't try cheap shots like that.

[FabledIntegral]

from what I have understood of this argument, you claim that stalemates happen in no cards, not escalating

were'nt you the one SUPPORTING escalating? why would you be complaining about stalemates happening there?

you make no sense. a stale mate in escalating makes no sense to begin with.

I can follow the argument just fine thank you. you, im not too sure about.'

also, my rank has nothing to do with it. don't try cheap shots like that.

obviously you can't - stalemates happen in escalating as well - apparently you're just too retarded to see it. What happens when people have 400 armies on the board and are cashing in 100 armies every 3 turns ish? Obviously your army value on the board is going up faster than the cash value.

The discussion was concerning stalemates at the time. So don't tell me I make no sense, when you can't even bring together a worthy statement of consideration. "a stalemate in escalating makes no sense to begin with." HA!

[para]

well even with three players, thats 130ish armies even if your equal, if you go man for man against one of the other two you will still have 100 armies left and most likely a new set with which to gain enough armies to take out the other player, so how is that a stalemate?

and thats with only three players left, its alot easier with more people or if its not equal like my example.

but point taken, i see how that could happen occasionally. still, the point remains that you were the one complaining aboutg no cards always ending in stalemates so why are you now saying that escalating has them

if the topic was escalating stalemates, show me the post where this topic was first brought up? i dont see it.

[FabledIntegral]

well even with three players, thats 130ish armies even if your equal, if you go man for man against one of the other two you will still have 100 armies left and most likely a new set with which to gain enough armies to take out the other player, so how is that a stalemate?

and thats with only three players left, its alot easier with more people or if its not equal like my example.

but point taken, i see how that could happen occasionally. still, the point remains that you were the one complaining aboutg no cards always ending in stalemates so why are you now saying that escalating has them

if the topic was escalating stalemates, show me the post where this topic was first brought up? i dont see it.

You're an idiot - it's the exact reverse. First of all your initial statement makes no sense. "that's 130ish armies even if your equal." It's amusing that you're trying (miserably) to explain strategy to me. How do you think it would be EASIER with more people? The more people involved the HARDER it gets to solve the stalemate. Reasoning? If I go and kill player A with 400 armies and get 4 cards, at a set of around 100 armies (plus about 33 armies for the extra card). I just lost a net 200 armies at LEAST when factoring in attackers advantage. So what benefit did I have for taking out the other players? Now I have 200 armies LESS than I previously did - and what can I do now? I can't even kill someone anymore. Now I'm the main target on the map for having the least amount of armies. What did I gain? A bunch of other people getting pissed at me.

I was complaining that no cards always ends up in stalemates, while the chance it will happen in escalating is less. So unless your brain can't comprehend the fact "omg you're arguing for one side why should you say anything else it doesn't make sense!!" try to read the topic in its entirety.

[de@dhe@d]

As someone who is also new to CC, i think this is an interesting question. I think that so far, CC is significantly more mature and enjoyable than other online gaming venues. There are definitely some folks who know how to game here, and they'll be happy to hand you your ass if you let them. The good sportsmanship and competetiveness of CC is very high imho.

The escalation strategy/scenario you described is excactly how the board game this site is based on usually plays out. When you play it with a group of people who understand that, it can be pretty cool. You have to survive until it's just the right moment to strike, and then BAM! try to wipe everybody out. Many fans of the board game adopt house-rules that alter the play of the game (ie: putting armies earned by continents anywhere, instead of into the continents that earned them. read the rules on that one if you don't believe me). but if you really stick to the rules, escalation is how it plays out.

As for CC... Armies that aren't auto-deployed or earned by spaces named on the spoils, can be placed anywhere. combine that with chained or unlimited reinforcements, escalating sploils, multiple players... and yeah, you're probably going to end up with an escalation scenario on a lot of the map-like boards. I've tried boards like d-day, city mogul or arms race for some variations on the basic themes. flat-rate or no-spoils takes care of escalation.

Ramdom set-up and neutral armies are another major CC deviation from the board game. you can get pretty screwed over by a bad set-up and a few unlucky rolls on some of the maps. But hey, that's why they call it war.

There is strategy here. An experienced gamer such as yourself should be able find it soon enough.

[niMic]

I'll play most types, but I prefer no cards. As I don't play 1v1s, and usually nothing but team games (mostly trips and quads), I feel it's the most balanced game type. Maybe for 8 player standard games escalating is the best (and indeed my best ever win came from one), but for team games I still contend that no cards decreases the luck factor significantly.