Conquer Club

As anyone who plays a good amount of flat rate knows, going for someone's cards when they're on the brink isn't always the best move - I guess the same can be said for escalating, but bear with me on the "flat rate" front here. I hardly ever eliminate a person in a flat rate game unless I absolutely know that I can get them, and that the benefit I gain from eliminating them is worth it. I mean, flat rate cards aren't like escalating cards, where the reward can be 100+ armies sometimes.

My question is this:

has anyone noticed that, more often than not, the person who goes for the first elimination usually ends up not winning the game? It could just be me and the games I've been in recently, but I've seen this trend happening quite a lot.

Usually that is the case.

Someone eliminates another player. Becuase of that he gets stronger, more powerfull and clearly are in the lead in the game. Then the other combanats in the game go together and eliminate the strongest one. Very common that this happens, not only in flat rate.

I've been finding that a person will make the first elimination in a game and is weaker because of it. The reward gained in flat rate just isn't worth it, more often than not.

You saw how long it took for Stroop to get taken out in our game. I ended up taking him because he had three territs with one army each, and I wasn't losing anything by taking him out. But it took you hitting him twice and not getting him before I went at him.

Exactly, if you lose 23 guys to maybe get a 10 trade you are probably stretched thin and become a target yourself, however it is still sometimes worth the risk if you are taking out the biggest threat to you. Its never an absolute truth in Risk.

A lot of the time I try to eliminate someone and end up exposed. Then I lose.

I agree..in flat rate there's just no point in eliminating someone for his cards because you usually end up weaker than when you started. You might lose 30 armies to eliminate an opponent, and then because you only get to cash to get 10 of them back your remaining enemy is now strong enough to take you out.
On doodle earth it might be worth it, but long into a game where every player has dozens and dozens of armies you only hurt yourself.

I disagree.

First and foremost common sense should be the deciding factor. With that said there are several other things to consider. It also depends on your board position and relative strength. When I take someone out for their cards I try to do so knowing I will get a turn on the turn I attack.

If I have 3 cards and take out another player who only has 2 cards I will get a turn in plus a card at the end of my turn. Some times that can raise your odds of getting a rainbow for you next turn.

If I have 5 cards and turn in for 10 armies (and possible owner bonus) and see that player A has only 2 cards and can be taken out I will try to do so knowing that I can get another turn in AND still have the possibility of having another turn in my next turn.

There is also a psychological aspect of folks thinking twice about spreading themselves thin seeing you have 3 or 4 cards in you hand.

I do not eliminate folks just to eliminate if it hurts me. However there is alot to be said for setting youself up to have potential turnins each turn, which is dictated by the cards I have, my strength and board position. Is a confident place to be always having 3 to 4 cards each turn when Im on a roll.

If you're after points rather than victories, it depends if it's Terminator.

jonesthecurl wrote:If you're after points rather than victories, it depends if it's Terminator.

You bring up a good point, jones. If I'm playing a terminator game, and I have the opportunity to take out a high-ranked opponent and receive, say, 40+ points, then I will take the chance of stretching myself thin. Odds are I will end the game with positive points.

Sentinel XIV wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:If you're after points rather than victories, it depends if it's Terminator.

You bring up a good point, jones. If I'm playing a terminator game, and I have the opportunity to take out a high-ranked opponent and receive, say, 40+ points, then I will take the chance of stretching myself thin. Odds are I will end the game with positive points.

Thats usually a bad mistake, reaching out like that to elim a high rank will get you run off the board if there are quality players in the game (no one likes rank hunters) and depending on who is involved...expect some cussing and a trip to ignore land.

millertime13 wrote:

Sentinel XIV wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:If you're after points rather than victories, it depends if it's Terminator.

You bring up a good point, jones. If I'm playing a terminator game, and I have the opportunity to take out a high-ranked opponent and receive, say, 40+ points, then I will take the chance of stretching myself thin. Odds are I will end the game with positive points.

Thats usually a bad mistake, reaching out like that to elim a high rank will get you run off the board if there are quality players in the game (no one likes rank hunters) and depending on who is involved...expect some cussing and a trip to ignore land.

I've heard of plenty of high ranks that will do the same. And I would make sure to leave myself something behind by way of defense. I'm just saying that I would be willing to stretch myself thinner than I normally would if I had a good chance at a higher rank. Isn't that what terminator is about?

its debatable, some perceive it as rank hunting...anytime you thin out, that says you did not provide for defensive measures. It makes you a target, and in escalator can be the trigger for the player that follows to clean the board.

terminator games require a good strategy to take the points off the board, without exposing yourself.

millertime13 wrote:its debatable, some perceive it as rank hunting...anytime you thin out, that says you did not provide for defensive measures. It makes you a target, and in escalator can be the trigger for the player that follows to clean the board.

terminator games require a good strategy to take the points off the board, without exposing yourself.

Well put, millertime13. Now, back to the topic at hand, that being flat rate games.

are you talking singles or teams?

i assumed he was talking flatrate single.
Doubles=differnt dynamics and strategy.

Iron Butterfly wrote:i assumed he was talking flatrate single.
Doubles=differnt dynamics and strategy.

exactly

Blitzaholic wrote:

Iron Butterfly wrote:i assumed he was talking flatrate single.
Doubles=differnt dynamics and strategy.

exactly

Yes, I am speaking of singles.

I don't play a lot of flat rate for some of the reasons stated already in this thread, but it's all relative to your existing opponents. When you're speaking about return value for the armies you're using to make the kill, sure at times its not worth burning 25 armies for a chance at a mix set but you also have to factor in the strength of the remaining players. Are you still going to have the army lead, and/or does it give you a better position, do you gain another bonus. how many cards do your opponents hold? etc....

Point is, sometimes its worth the loss of armies for those reasons. You have to factor in several aspects and not just army count or return value.

Scott-Land wrote:I don't play a lot of flat rate for some of the reasons stated already in this thread, but it's all relative to your existing opponents. When you're speaking about return value for the armies you're using to make the kill, sure at times its not worth burning 25 armies for a chance at a mix set but you also have to factor in the strength of the remaining players. Are you still going to have the army lead, and/or does it give you a better position, do you gain another bonus. how many cards do your opponents hold? etc....

Point is, sometimes its worth the loss of armies for those reasons. You have to factor in several aspects and not just army count or return value.

I agree completely with this statement, but in general flat rate games with lower ranks tend to be a runaway. Someone is allowed to run away with the game.

Bruceswar wrote:

Scott-Land wrote:I don't play a lot of flat rate for some of the reasons stated already in this thread, but it's all relative to your existing opponents. When you're speaking about return value for the armies you're using to make the kill, sure at times its not worth burning 25 armies for a chance at a mix set but you also have to factor in the strength of the remaining players. Are you still going to have the army lead, and/or does it give you a better position, do you gain another bonus. how many cards do your opponents hold? etc....

Point is, sometimes its worth the loss of armies for those reasons. You have to factor in several aspects and not just army count or return value.

I agree completely with this statement, but in general flat rate games with lower ranks tend to be a runaway. Someone is allowed to run away with the game.

I have also noticed this in my admittedly short career so far on CC. Having played Risk a lot in real life I found the natural dynamic around the table would usually curtail the early front runner. Any half decent player would therefore learn to push late and hard. Yet on CC I have already played a few games where one player pushes almost suicidally early and those around him fail to attack, or even where one player does attack another breaks him...thus allowing the front runner breathing room while disuading other players to make the sacrifice. It just wouldn't happen in a 'real' game. So pushing hard early here may have some merit!

Flat rate strategy? I would always suggest playing them when they will actually give you some tangible benefit i.e increase your number of territories, protect your existing positions or yes even to kill another player. However, in general I wouldn't take a player out unless I was also going to increase my bonus for the next round - as in I had enough weight to not only kill him but also defend what I had taken from him afterwards.

Personally, I prefer to disable my opposition one at a time before finishing them off at the end. But then I almost always play 2.1, where the number of territories and army sizes means that 10 extra troops is if not pointless, still fairly unimportant.

Mr Changsha wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:

Scott-Land wrote:I don't play a lot of flat rate for some of the reasons stated already in this thread, but it's all relative to your existing opponents. When you're speaking about return value for the armies you're using to make the kill, sure at times its not worth burning 25 armies for a chance at a mix set but you also have to factor in the strength of the remaining players. Are you still going to have the army lead, and/or does it give you a better position, do you gain another bonus. how many cards do your opponents hold? etc....

Point is, sometimes its worth the loss of armies for those reasons. You have to factor in several aspects and not just army count or return value.

I agree completely with this statement, but in general flat rate games with lower ranks tend to be a runaway. Someone is allowed to run away with the game.

I have also noticed this in my admittedly short career so far on CC. Having played Risk a lot in real life I found the natural dynamic around the table would usually curtail the early front runner. Any half decent player would therefore learn to push late and hard. Yet on CC I have already played a few games where one player pushes almost suicidally early and those around him fail to attack, or even where one player does attack another breaks him...thus allowing the front runner breathing room while disuading other players to make the sacrifice. It just wouldn't happen in a 'real' game. So pushing hard early here may have some merit!

Flat rate strategy? I would always suggest playing them when they will actually give you some tangible benefit i.e increase your number of territories, protect your existing positions or yes even to kill another player. However, in general I wouldn't take a player out unless I was also going to increase my bonus for the next round - as in I had enough weight to not only kill him but also defend what I had taken from him afterwards.

Personally, I prefer to disable my opposition one at a time before finishing them off at the end. But then I almost always play 2.1, where the number of territories and army sizes means that 10 extra troops is if not pointless, still fairly unimportant.

I would agree with you about pushing hard late if it were escalating but in flat rate, I would think it's the opposite. Push hard early ( not to the point of driving yourself into the dirt) and stay aggressive otherwise it goes in stale mode late in the game. The best flat rate games I've played have been where you utilize the small edge you have early in the game- when you try to build in order to stay strong; it tends to go stale as you let the weaker players build as well. It almost becomes sitting and waiting to see which player makes the first mistake by attacking.

tbh most of the best flat rate games, according to a players rank always tend to go stale at some point... but you can get that lead early and never look back, even if you go into build mode later on you will be getting more armies a turn, and thus gaining a bigger lead with every turn.

I suspect our methods are not so different. For example, in an 8 player game I prefer to be 2nd or 3rd strongest into the mid. game...strong enough to build well, but not an obvious target. I think we we are in agreement with regards to pushing hard for territories before round 10 or so, as you just make yourself a target. My point, was that strategy seems to work quite well here at times (though often it doesn't) and that is due to players not working together to snuff it out.

Sentinel XIV wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:If you're after points rather than victories, it depends if it's Terminator.

You bring up a good point, jones. If I'm playing a terminator game, and I have the opportunity to take out a high-ranked opponent and receive, say, 40+ points, then I will take the chance of stretching myself thin. Odds are I will end the game with positive points.

It's that kind of mentality which makes me fear Terminator games. The last couple Terminator games I've been in people have been suiciding and weakening me because I'm the highest ranked person in the game.

bruceswar makes a good point.

ive won a few flat rate games very quickly because I've been able to take out a person's cards and then another and the momentum just builds until I win the game easily.

I just did that in a middle earth game. You need a feel for the situation. You usually need another couple players fighting on another portion of the map.
And sometimes leaving a border open so you dont lose a large stack of armies but only a 3 army bonus helps too.