Conquer Club

In a sequential game its not so much of a problem, I dont mind waiting a few turns to get a card but in flat rate games I always seem to mess up in the 1st 1-2 turns when trying to pinch a card. Easy enough when there is a single army on an adjacent territory but when there are 2-3 armies against my 6-7 I'm never sure what to do. Sometimes I get lucky and knock them off while only losing 1 army but other times I just get owned and lose 4 armies for their 0, so is it worth it to get a card? When would you attack to get a card in a 3-6 player flat rate card game?

i allways go for it inb the early rounds then pick up the pieces later on, as i think a 10 bonus on the third round is a big possibility and 10 is enough to get a continent anyway

I think avoiding attack 6v3 in a flat rate game is too timid a way to play the game. Certainly it is preferable to hit a 1 army country but...

On average, a card is worth just a hair less than 3 armies because mixed sets happen more than the others and there's the bonus factor of getting 2s on spots you own. Odds say that attackers rolling 3 dice vs 2 lose just less than 1 army for every one they take. Considering also that, at some point in the attack (ideally on the second rolls, of course), you'll be facing 1 die, so your cost per army decreases. Thus, on average, attacking 6v3 will cost you just a hair over 2 armies which is less than the card should eventually pay.

This means, provided you're assured of rolling 3 dice (well, actually rolling 3 dice twice is preferable) you should go for it.

That doesn't even take into the fact that, there is likely some other advantage to be gained by attacking other than cards. I mean, that is pretty much what the game is about, taking territories.

I understand that people like to drop the first time and then swing away when they've got 9v3, but they've got just as much a chance of swinging and missing twice as the player going 6v3. OK, so now you've waited a turn to get a card and still lost 4 off the bat. So it's 7v3. Are you going to chicken out again? You're no more due to get good dice now than you were two rolls ago. You're never "due" for good or bad dice.

There's not much defense for bad luck so there's not much reason to formulate your opening strategy assuming you'll have bad luck.

Attack once, and if you lose 2, wait until next round, otherwise flip a coin to decide whether to attack 5-2 or not.

Of course there's an argument here to only paticipate in 'no card' games. That way a slow deliberate build up can't be punished so easily. It's crap when you've spent an age preparing tactings and building an army, only for some git to get lucky with the cards and dice and stomp all over ya. I know it's the rules o' the game, but it still stinks when it happens to ya.

Love me x

Findolphin wrote:Of course there's an argument here to only paticipate in 'no card' games. That way a slow deliberate build up can't be punished so easily. It's crap when you've spent an age preparing tactings and building an army, only for some git to get lucky with the cards and dice and stomp all over ya. I know it's the rules o' the game, but it still stinks when it happens to ya.

Love me x

If you're talking escalating then you are badly misled - getting lucky with cards can happen if you have a set at 3 but beyond that it is skill to run through the eliminations. You shouldn't be spending ages strategising and building armies - it is the quick kill for cards that you need. In flat rate (unless its doodle earth) getting lucky with cards should only help you for a couple of rounds before it evens out again and I absolutely hate no cards . There's no incentive to kill anyone or take too many territories. Mine invariably end as build games

Yeah ok, but it's a strategy game and the best strategy seems to be hope for cards and dice. Whoever gets eliminated first aint necessarily the worst player, they just got a bum start

Love me x

Findolphin wrote:Yeah ok, but it's a strategy game and the best strategy seems to be hope for cards and dice. Whoever gets eliminated first aint necessarily the worst player, they just got a bum start

Love me x

Quite often that can be the case but the winner's usually need some skil, unless somebody else came close and buggered it up. If you are first out 9 times out of 10 then you are doing something wrong

yeah just today it was 7v3 my way and i came out with 1 army against 2 and it was my first game so i was thinking this too