Attack Weak or Strong

by **SerpentIII** on Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:43 pm

This is a question should I aim to defeat the strongest player the weakest or both I am the middle player. I don't want to be knocked out by both but I'll need help defeating the stronger guy

by **SerpentIII** on Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:45 pm

PS I am the unattacked one luckily

by **Jota** on Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 pm

I think one popular rule of thumb is that it's good to weaken the strongest player and to strengthen the weakest player (unless you are the strongest player, of course!).

Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that you should be attacking the big guy: if you can arrange it so that someone else has to expend their armies doing it (drawing attention to themselves and incurring the leader's wrath in the process), all the better.

Also, this rule might not apply in cases where you have the chance to wipe someone out completely: sometimes a nice influx of cards is more powerful than any other strategy.

by **SerpentIII** on Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:22 pm

Thankyou

by **kingwaffles** on Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:22 pm

Although, if you can take out said weaker player and get their cards, then that may be the better move. Depends on position, # of cards, game type, etc....

by **njdevil** on Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:45 am

GO FOR THE CARDS...only if you KNOW you can get them. Cards = armies, and they are ultimately more important than countries or continents.

by **joeyjordison** on Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:56 am

in cards escalating it is definitely worth wiping out the weakest player but only if u can do it in 1 turn otherwise then the other player will wipe them out and get the cards. having said this it is only worth doing if card values are high.