Conquer Club

So, I'm not starting a thread complaining about dice, since that's been done millions of times. What I want to know is this:

What is the CC setup that MINIMIZES luck and MAXIMIZES required strategy?

I prefer games with no cards, as that is obviously a big luck factor. What else can I do to minimize the role luck plays in my games? Are there particular maps that are less prone to lucky starts? Picking either chained or adjacent fortification stops people who get lucky in one part of the board from easily shoving all those armies across the map to get you elsewhere. Also, what about number of players? I've been trying to play lots of heads up games, hoping random clueless n00bs won't be able to mess up the map by playing randomly.

Any thoughts are welcome!!!

-snoop

Big maps. Start with 6 on Doodle Earth heads up and you could lose half of them before you play. Playing on big maps forces you to attack on multiple fronts and pay attention to the whole board.
Freestyle is good for letting either person play first. If you consider clicking fast a strategy, then it's more strategic as well.
Also, everything else you said. No cards, chained or adjacent makes your deployment and attack decisions more important, because you can't fix your mistakes later. Try playing some games with fog, that adds more strategies. And two player games get rid of the crazy player who will ruin the game for someone else.

luck is a strategy, even if not totally reliable

Anyways, Large maps contain more armies, and larger numbers should eliminate most of the luck aspect effect.

SirSebstar wrote:Anyways, Large maps contain more armies, and larger numbers should eliminate most of the luck aspect effect.

Why's that again?

BaldAdonis wrote:Why's that again?

Because if you go last on a small map with lots of players you could be wiped out or have very little to start with.

BaldAdonis wrote:Big maps. Start with 6 on Doodle Earth heads up and you could lose half of them before you play. Playing on big maps forces you to attack on multiple fronts and pay attention to the whole board.
Freestyle is good for letting either person play first. If you consider clicking fast a strategy, then it's more strategic as well.
Also, everything else you said. No cards, chained or adjacent makes your deployment and attack decisions more important, because you can't fix your mistakes later. Try playing some games with fog, that adds more strategies. And two player games get rid of the crazy player who will ruin the game for someone else.

I think there are elements of 1v1 that make luck more important than other formats. For starters, many of the variables of strategy are eliminated by virtue of the fact that there's really only one option of whom to attack. Then, you either get the rolls or you don't. Certainly fog or super complicated maps can affect that and I'm not saying there's no strategy involved at all. Rather, the less options that you have to consider in terms of what to do with your turn, the less strategy matters.

Also, if we're figuring the likelihood of somebody going suicidal or stupid in the realm of luck, then you certainly need to discuss no cards games that way. Obviously the element of not being able to make timely sets or always making reds rather than mixed ones is eliminated. However, if the game settles into a build phase, you might find yourself at the mercy of being next to the guy who got bored and "stirred up the pot" (effectively ending his and your chances).

Of course, I only raise that last bit for sake of argument as I don't think that happens way more often than other forms of bad luck of this form. Being the guy after the guy after the player who ends up one country short of a major take-out in an escalation game, etc.

Good point about the large maps. Doodle Earth seems like a crapshoot, no matter how many players there are.

Also, I guess I agree in principle with the posts about having several players, because if your opponent gets a couple good rolls on his first turn, you can easily lose a couple territories before your first turn. On a map with a small number of territories, if both players start with 15 territories, with a little luck, your opponent will take at least one, though possibly more, dropping your opening bonus to 3-4 armies. This really frustrates me, as it can be next to impossible to "come back" from a lucky opponent's opening turn, particularly 1v1. By round 2, you're still fighting to pick up a few territories to up your bonus, and he's already consolidating his continent and picking you apart. Having a game already "decided" after the first turn saps my will to play!

As for the post saying that LUCK is a STRATEGY, I have a short answer: No. Luck is what you use in the absence of strategy, or to augment a risky strategy. I play a fair bit of poker online, in addition to CC, and in poker (as in CC), your goal is to MINIMIZE the amount of luck you need to win, and MAXIMIZE the luck your opponent needs. Obviously, luck is a factor in both and cannot be ELIMINATED, but a good player should be aiming to minimize their opponents' chances of getting "lucky".

-snoop

BaldAdonis wrote:

SirSebstar wrote:Anyways, Large maps contain more armies, and larger numbers should eliminate most of the luck aspect effect.

Why's that again?

What Hound said... And, due to the way dice is, the more armies, the less the chances of a critical attack being killed by dice. The more troops, the more the dice will balance out. In doodle, if you have two turns of good luck, then it's game. In 2.1, with the amount of armies, if you have two turns of good luck, you'll almost always have 2 bad ones to even it out.

Essentially, law of averages - you roll 10 dice, results are inaccurate. You roll a thousand, and it's much more accurate.

Yeah, but even with big armies, you can still get uncanny strings here. I had twice today like 16-10 and went down 11-1. But generally it's true with larger bonuses, you get the best apporoximation of "ideal" odds... but I know this isn't supposed to be about dice, so back on topic: Large maps are better for upwards of a certain number of players, but if you are 1v1, a large map is definitely NOT a skill match (although it depends on where they've calibrated the neutrals). If you start out first in such a map, you have a large, although certainly not insurmountable, advantage, particularly if there is fog and player #1 can cordon off enough areas from view and also knock out enough territories to take down bonuses by 3's (think about it, on 2.1, taking 6 territories (which is not out of the question with a +15 starting bonus) is equivalent to holding Austrailia).

So for my money, the biggest skill boards are the castle based games. Everyone starts (feudal, Age of ***, but not Merchants). Everyone starts even, first mover doesn't get any advantage, and bonuses are big enough to pull in the "law of averages" such that, at least once you get some bonuses, the dice don't become a factor (other than knowing how to calculate the probabilities right).

The downside is that early on the dice are a huge factor in those boards (maybe less so with feudal if your playing fog) since the bonus rates accellerate. That's a downside. The other downside - there are some dominant strategies out there for the Age of *** maps that make it tough to capitalize based on "skill" when you play vs. anyone whose played a few vets on those maps.

In 1v1, again, big maps are, IMHO, more about who goes first, and who has the better drop. The worst seems to be D-Day. I've played three times on that map. Once I had the other guy with 18 bonus by the third round (started with a bunker, most of a ship, and first move). Another time I had both -1 bonuses and second move. However, the complex maps do give the ability to prevail based on "terrain" knowledge. Actium, maybe Waterloo (I've never played it). I find Madness and King of Mountains to be complex enough to take a lot of the luck out of it, and make it possible to come from behind even if you start off with some bad rolls or a bad drop. I also like Seige, but there is a problem with the drops sometimes because if you hold the a significant part of the Hall + Throne and get first move, its a big advantage... so this is one case where, in order to counter that possibility, I actually think you can play cards and it will often work out to be an equalizer. And remember, with cards, you can minimize their significance by adjusting your strategy (e.g., in flat rate, unlimited fort is a big plus so you can shift your front based on how many cards are out.) However flat rate cards plus small map = big time crap shoot.

There is one caveat to all this - unlimited fortifications requires the least skill and makes the drop and the first move very important. Adjacent fortification requires the most skill, but it's slow so people don't like it (I have a 6-player adjacent tournament going, games take a week, and it's been mixed with the players). You'll learn really fast which maps its nearly impossible to come from behind with unlimited fortification (this is where cards become not so much addittional luck, but a randomized "luck equalizer" that may or may not save you from the bad luck of getting second draw). Two maps which I just learned the hard way on are Carins Coast and Chinese Checks ... Play with adjacent or chained and it might be a different story, but, shockingly, I have yet to find any of those games being set up.

snoopdobb wrote:I prefer games with no cards, as that is obviously a big luck factor

although no cards add more weight to strategy, from my view, it has some other implications over the decisions of the players.

I've seen no card games where people tend to just stack their armies, cause there is no a real incentive on attacking in one turn. Personally I don't like this configuration. Instead of that i prefer FLAT RATE, a little of luck, but giving to the players a real motivation for permanently attacking and spend armies... and more fun!

I vote for FOG as well. It gives much more incentive, at such point, that I think... It exclude the possibility of a Computer playing and winning to a experimented player (Think that I am not totally sure in an non-fog) ... I guess only Human are capable of giving a good fight under this constraints... There are many trick one can do to hide armies, appear to be weaker than you really are, confuse the enemy ... This is the option I like the most

the last option is ADJACENT, in spite make the game slower, it put much pressure in where to deploy the armies. you can use it as a powerful tool against your opponents... if them have very extended territories, you can force them to deploy far from the place you want to attack ... respect to if this make the game slower, maybe yes, but if speed in games is wanted maybe CC is not the best choice, isn't it?

BaldAdonis wrote:

SirSebstar wrote:Anyways, Large maps contain more armies, and larger numbers should eliminate most of the luck aspect effect.

Why's that again?

Larger armies assume much larger amounts of dicerolls.
A 16-3 can be lost. A 1600-300 loosing is not as likely (understatement)
So luck tends to play a lesser role when the amount of dicerolls grow.

Hi!
I Note that in many games when I am by eliminating another player cost twice. Yesterday, for example (game 1877613), I had the opportunity twice in successive rounds earn 7 to 1 and lost both which lost the game. Why this happens? Is not that the dice are random? its strategy useful when the dices beheaves that form?

sorry for my english, i hope understand my point

Saludos

Luck plays an important role in this game, and no amount of strategy can compensate for terrible dice in a single game. However, in the long run, the dice ARE truly random, and will balance out.

Bad luck happens. In this Game 2103068, my opponent captured an artillery, and with 5 armies did this:

2008-03-27 17:38:23 - lduffin bombarded Wellington from Imperial Guard 04 and annihilated snoopdobb's armies
2008-03-27 17:38:37 - lduffin bombarded Uxbridge 02 from Imperial Guard 04 and annihilated snoopdobb's armies
2008-03-27 17:38:43 - lduffin bombarded Ziethen 05 from Imperial Guard 04 and annihilated snoopdobb's armies
2008-03-27 17:38:45 - lduffin bombarded Ziethen 05 from Imperial Guard 04 and annihilated neutral player's armies
2008-03-27 17:38:59 - lduffin bombarded Uxbridge 05 from Imperial Guard 04 and annihilated snoopdobb's armies
2008-03-27 17:39:08 - lduffin bombarded Uxbridge 06 from Imperial Guard 04 and annihilated snoopdobb's armies
2008-03-27 17:39:28 - lduffin bombarded Picton 07 from Imperial Guard 04 and annihilated snoopdobb's armies
2008-03-27 17:39:34 - lduffin bombarded Picton 05 from Imperial Guard 04 and annihilated snoopdobb's armies
2008-03-27 17:40:15 - lduffin bombarded Ziethen 01 from Imperial Guard 04 and annihilated snoopdobb's armies
2008-03-27 17:40:20 - lduffin bombarded Ziethen 02 from Imperial Guard 04 and annihilated snoopdobb's armies
2008-03-27 17:40:23 - lduffin bombarded Ziethen 04 from Imperial Guard 04 and annihilated snoopdobb's armies
2008-03-27 17:45:50 - lduffin bombarded Picton 06 from Imperial Guard 04 and annihilated snoopdobb's armies
2008-03-27 17:45:58 - lduffin bombarded Picton 04 from Imperial Guard 04 and annihilated snoopdobb's armies
2008-03-27 17:46:10 - lduffin bombarded Picton 01 from Imperial Guard 04 and annihilated snoopdobb's armies
(Several of those had 2 armies defending, and i think Wellington had 3!)
And still had 3 armies left! There is NOTHING you can do about this. However, such runs of luck are rare, and can be expected to happen TO you, not just AGAINST you. The idea of the original post is to determine which game settings (cards, reinforcement, fog of war, number of players, etc) reduce the chances of your opponent getting lucky. For example, escalating cards greatly increase the role that luck will play in a game, since a couple lucky cards (or lucky rolls to eliminate a player) could mean a HUGE difference in the whole game. For this reason, I try to avoid playing games with escalating cards. As I mentioned, I prefer no cards, as this means that your opponent can't get lucky and get two 10 army card sets in a row, which can RUIN your game.

Just try to play through the bad luck. It will turn around. I get very lucky and very UNlucky every day on this site.

-snoop

Yeah sometimes you have the luck sometimes you don't. I had a game recently on a different site where I was getting bonus for South America. Since the get go and had an army of 35 just waiting to take out one players remaining 11 armies when he was suacided against. I hit the attack continually button and when the dust settled he had 5 armys and I had 3. Thats what I call bad luck.

What is the CC setup that MINIMIZES luck and MAXIMIZES required strategy?

Also I will say, the number of players is a big factor.

Some games with "Good" configurations are more based on luck if they only have two players. Although, I don't know if there is an optimal number of players which reach the objective you want (And I want as well). In general my opinion is that big map with lot of player will minimize luck


I meant "good" in the sense that they minimize luck and maximize strategy.

Esc. cards have a lot more strategy than people think. Choosing not to attack a turn to be ahead in the card counts... choosing to wait a turn or two to turn in... wiping out another player for their cards then finishing the game off..

Yeah escalating on 2.1 with a lot of players seems a lot of skill but there is still a lot of luck. Might, 1v1 with fog may seem like there is a lot of luck and just a little skill but in truth there is a lot of luck, but skill plays an even bigger role as you can see when DiM and some of the other top might player play that map, as it is all about trapping you opponent and making them make a mistake (normally being the first one to take a port city, or not going after your opponent if they are the first one to take a port city). if you play a map enough you tend to be able to pink up a few tricks that reduce the luck and increase the skill.

Thought I would throw my two cents in favour of escalating cards in

Flat rate - you could get a 4-6-8or10 cash depending on the cards.
No Cards - highly dice dependant.
Escalating - you know exactly how many men you will get with a cash.4-6-8-10etc. You have to plan to cash at the proper times, eliminating alot of the luck and making it about strategy.

"Luck" is a myth, and it does not exist in reality.

BeakerWMA wrote:Thought I would throw my two cents in favour of escalating cards in

Flat rate - you could get a 4-6-8or10 cash depending on the cards.
No Cards - highly dice dependant.
Escalating - you know exactly how many men you will get with a cash.4-6-8-10etc. You have to plan to cash at the proper times, eliminating alot of the luck and making it about strategy.

However, neither Flat Rate or No Cards carry with them the very real possibility that being next in line after someone falls a bit short on an elimination run, even if there are still 4-5 solid player remaining can effectively hand you the game. That's about as much luck as anything.

I would have to say that well over half the escalating games I've been in have been ended that way (be it by me or somebody else).

detlef wrote:

BeakerWMA wrote:Thought I would throw my two cents in favour of escalating cards in

Flat rate - you could get a 4-6-8or10 cash depending on the cards.
No Cards - highly dice dependant.
Escalating - you know exactly how many men you will get with a cash.4-6-8-10etc. You have to plan to cash at the proper times, eliminating alot of the luck and making it about strategy.

However, neither Flat Rate or No Cards carry with them the very real possibility that being next in line after someone falls a bit short on an elimination run, even if there are still 4-5 solid player remaining can effectively hand you the game. That's about as much luck as anything.

Sort of... in that situation, the "luck" is quite often due to someone else's lack of skill. Although, I guess no matter what game you're playing, you're "lucky" if you're playing against a poor player.

no cards, chained fortif on the soon to be available mogul map. details in my sig.

in theory it should be the map with the least luck influence.

good work DiM i want to play it.

BaldAdonis wrote:

SirSebstar wrote:Anyways, Large maps contain more armies, and larger numbers should eliminate most of the luck aspect effect.

Why's that again?

law of big numbers

Timminz wrote:

detlef wrote:

BeakerWMA wrote:Thought I would throw my two cents in favour of escalating cards in

Flat rate - you could get a 4-6-8or10 cash depending on the cards.
No Cards - highly dice dependant.
Escalating - you know exactly how many men you will get with a cash.4-6-8-10etc. You have to plan to cash at the proper times, eliminating alot of the luck and making it about strategy.

However, neither Flat Rate or No Cards carry with them the very real possibility that being next in line after someone falls a bit short on an elimination run, even if there are still 4-5 solid player remaining can effectively hand you the game. That's about as much luck as anything.

Sort of... in that situation, the "luck" is quite often due to someone else's lack of skill. Although, I guess no matter what game you're playing, you're "lucky" if you're playing against a poor player.

That actually opens another argument for take out protocol in escalation games. Many would argue that, unless you have very good odds of success (at very least better than 50% but I'm sure plenty would argue even better) attempting an elimination run is a poor tactic. If you think about it, however, that is a rather narrow view.

While it is a rather unsavory notion to to swallow, we should not be irritated about people attempting such runs even with less than 50% chance of success. Well, assuming, that is, that the cards reaped from success put them in position to either run the table or take a very commanding, if not insurmountable lead.

Think about a 6 player game. Pure odds dictate that, prior the drop, each player has a about a 17% chance of winning. Thus, if your odds ever increase substantially beyond that, you're a fool not to capitalize. Thus, if you have a 40% chance of eliminating a player and doing so will trigger what I spoke of above, you should do so. Of course, depending on how far you get in the attack before you fail, you may very well be handing the game to another, but that's life. I mean, there was an 83% chance that somebody else was going to win it from the first roll so that had to be considered a real possibility all along.

This can be little consolation to everyone but the guy next in line to clean up the crumbs, cash in, and finish what you hoped to but, like you, the odds were stacked against them winning right from the outset. Perhaps the hardest part of this to get your mind around is that, assuming there is a player going right after you in position to have a very easy take out and run the board, you are, in essence accepting that you are giving that player better odds of wining the game than you are yourself. This, however, does not undo the fact that this may be the best odds you ever see of winning the game. If the game is at a stage where taking out one player can trigger such a run, there's a decent chance that you may not see your next turn or, at very least may not see another situation where you have a nearly 50/50 shot of winning a six player game.

After all, you shouldn't really care who wins if it isn't you. The only concern you should ever have is what your odds are vs the average odds of your opponents. If your odds of success are 40% and the other 5 players still exist, than your odds are much better than the average odds of everyone else (in this case 12%).

So, basically, this is still luck. It is still lucky to be the guy who goes after the guy who comes up short. Hell, even if the guy is an idiot and screws up the take out, it is still a matter of luck to have been the next guy in line as opposed to the guy who went right before him and has virtually no chance of capitalizing on the failure.