Can Blue Squares win in a build game????

[Zaphod]

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=1947088

As you can tell this is a build game. I hold Blue Squares (Formerly Europe - that's how old this game is ). Throughout the game we've had periods where the attack was pressed but hasn't resulted in permanent change. Red obviously had the army advantage in getting 10 a turn to my 8 and Yellow's 7.

Is there anyway that I can win this game w/o an allaince? We've had occassional truces but no actual alliances. Tried suggesting that we eliminate the deadbeat neutrals to open this game up - but no one agreed.

Tempted occassionally to just blow myself out and do as much damage as possible with the thinking that my position makes this game almost unwinnable.

Suggestions and strategies are appreciated.

And here's the for any that suggest not getting into no spoil adjacent games in advance.

Thanks

Zaphod

[para]

attack red

1. first the o0ubvious point, that he is the current leadr in gaining armies and thus will eventually be able to overpower both of you.

2. if you go through NA, this does not affect your borders with yellow so you wont have to worry about him.

3. you can easily fortify those non-border armies to your other borders to ensure that no attacks of any kind come your way from there

4. from what i saw of the game log (i didnt load the whole thing but looked as far as i could otherwise) you and red have been only been deploying in south europe/africa fofr awhile, so i doubt he would see it coming.

basically, although this may appear to be a standoff, you have the benefit of having a specific 1vs1 border that you can take advantage of. also his armies are a bit split up so that helps too.



just curious, what problem do you have with an alliance?

[MeDeFe]

attack red

Don't. At least not yet, yellow will just sit back and win the game once you and red have weakened each other enough.

1. first the o0ubvious point, that he is the current leadr in gaining armies and thus will eventually be able to overpower both of you.

No he won't, you and yellow are getting a total of 15 armies to red's 10, there won't be any overppowering unless you and yellow attack each other.

2. if you go through NA, this does not affect your borders with yellow so you wont have to worry about him.

Too few armies on N3 to go anywhere.

3. you can easily fortify those non-border armies to your other borders to ensure that no attacks of any kind come your way from there

Which would ruin the purpose of keeping a stack of armies behind the front lines.


What you could try is to kill off that stack in A12 with your group on E6, it'll cost you some 70 armies, but red and yellow will suddenly have an open border and yellow holding formerly Asia becomes a real threat. Leave 20 or so on E6 so you don't lose your bonus and fortify the survivors back to A4. Assure yellow that you'll put them back in formerly Europe.
You could even put them on N1 and keep them there. That would practically invite yellow to take Asia and get the biggest bonus with a little luck red will panic.

Other than that I don't see any good possibilities to get the game moving again, other than everyone using the armies they get to attack every turn, that will slowly decrease the number of armies on the board.

[para]

attack red

Don't. At least not yet, yellow will just sit back and win the game once you and red have weakened each other enough.

thats why you attack when at the point when red will not be able to fight back and you wont be weakened

1. first the o0ubvious point, that he is the current leadr in gaining armies and thus will eventually be able to overpower both of you.

No he won't, you and yellow are getting a total of 15 armies to red's 10, there won't be any overppowering unless you and yellow attack each other.

i believe he said without an alliance, if the game keeps a three player free-for-all than this still applies. red doesnt have to take one player out at a time.

2. if you go through NA, this does not affect your borders with yellow so you wont have to worry about him.

Too few armies on N3 to go anywhere.

if he were to attack his next turn, it would be 52 armies to red's 56 to take his bonus. that aint bad odds with attackers advantage. if he ends up with bad dice and gets back to one more army then reds (what he currently has on thier border) than it would be reasonable to stop attacking as the same situation would be given to red too. if red attacked back and was successful, then thats a matter of dice, not bad strategy,

and thats if he attacks this turn. he still has the option of simply putting pressure on that border. if he kept deploying on that border red wouldnt be able to keep up with him with yellow out there too. the same technically applies toblue too but then if red realizes this it then comes down to a psychological battle.

of course, for all we know red doesnt notice blue building there and after one maybe two turns you have a sufficient number of armies to be pretty sure of success.

3. you can easily fortify those non-border armies to your other borders to ensure that no attacks of any kind come your way from there

Which would ruin the purpose of keeping a stack of armies behind the front lines.

the only good that does him is for a reaction attack. he is only prevented from doing this between E3 and E7 witghin those three borders. if he fortifies E4 to E7 than he still as both of those territories covered just as much as before and now E7 is up to par with A1 and F2

What you could try is to kill off that stack in A12 with your group on E6, it'll cost you some 70 armies, but red and yellow will suddenly have an open border and yellow holding formerly Asia becomes a real threat. Leave 20 or so on E6 so you don't lose your bonus and fortify the survivors back to A4. Assure yellow that you'll put them back in formerly Europe.
You could even put them on N1 and keep them there. That would practically invite yellow to take Asia and get the biggest bonus with a little luck red will panic.

this is also a valid strategy except for the fact that 20 or so armies vs 120 or so armies isnt much protection.

[Iron Butterfly]

A cook with 9 % of his games won versus a colonel with 39% of his games won... hmmmmm who's advice to take?

[para]

i would hope that you would base your decision on more than that

[Iron Butterfly]

So where do you derive your expertise and experience?

Just curious.

[para]

il be honest when i say I dont have experiencen on the subject.

of all the no-cards games ive played (and thats all ive played as of late) ive only come across one game that could be considered a build-up game and im still currently playing it. even that game is breaking down now, sp yeah. i cant say i have ultimate experience on the subject.

but im not6 depending on my experience here. just my logic.

did you even read my argument? or did you just look at my rank and win % and not bother? i believe my logic is sound so if you want to prove m,e wrong, go ahead.

if nothing else, let it be a learning xperience for me.

MeDeFe's argument against me can basically be summarised as "you guys will be weakened and yellow will win!!!!!" i guess he assumes that i dont understand the concept of a three person standoff because of my low rank. this is not true. i instead went beyond that and explained how that can be circumvented.

whats ironic is that he tried to point out a flaw in my strategy and then suggested a strategy that had the same flaw.

[FabledIntegral]

Your logic is very poor. Don't listen to the cook - you'll lose.

Alliances aren't necessary - but red does need to take both out. Although there's no alliance players are generally smart enough not to attack each other in situations where it's mutually beneficial. Nothing needs to be said in chat.

There's a reason he's a cook.

[King_Herpes]

Listen to this guy para and you'll win. He's helped me win many of my games. I don't know where I'd be without him...

[para]

thanks for the sarcasm herpes ^_^

and why exactly is my logic poor? back up your statements

you say alliances are unneccessary, but you havent given a solution.

you say people know when something is mutually beneficial, but if something is beneficial for two of those players, that something is to take out the third one. do you propose that he somehow takes out yellow instead?

of yellow realises that red should be taken out for the benfit of both him and blue, then it wouldnt be a bad move to attack red as yellow would help him out

im simply proposing he doesnt allow himself to fall farther behind in the army count. it looks about equal now, if he waits he will be at a disadvantage

yellow might not what to help blue out. that is why i propose that he uses a route that will not affect his defense against yellow.

however if, as you claim, the player he doesnt go after understands the mutual benefit that will be gained, why is there a problem? this whole dilemna of his is BASED on the fact that with three players you generally dont want to attack one of the two if you cant defend yourself from the third player afterward. he wants a solution on how he can defend himself. i gave him one. i invite you to tell me why it is not a valid one but you have yet to do so.


it is your logic that is poor good sir.


also, as i have already said, none of my losses in games have been from incorrectly handeling a situation like this, so my rank has nothing to do with my knowledge in this situation.

[FabledIntegral]

also, as i have already said, none of my losses in games have been from incorrectly handeling a situation like this, so my rank has nothing to do with my knowledge in this situation.

Then apparently you have no idea how to handle the situation - look obviously your overall RISK knowledge is poor... otherwise you wouldn't be a cook. How can you possible fathom you would know how to handle such a situation that you claim you haven't even been in before? Unless those amazing 5 wins have come from it.

[Emperor_Metalman]

if he were to attack his next turn, it would be 52 armies to red's 56 to take his bonus. that aint bad odds with attackers advantage. if he ends up with bad dice and gets back to one more army then reds (what he currently has on thier border) than it would be reasonable to stop attacking as the same situation would be given to red too. if red attacked back and was successful, then thats a matter of dice, not bad strategy,

and thats if he attacks this turn. he still has the option of simply putting pressure on that border. if he kept deploying on that border red wouldnt be able to keep up with him with yellow out there too. the same technically applies toblue too but then if red realizes this it then comes down to a psychological battle.

of course, for all we know red doesnt notice blue building there and after one maybe two turns you have a sufficient number of armies to be pretty sure of success.

I've noticed that many build games end because two of the players get into a conflict and weaken each other too much

One of the worst things you can do in this game is to get into an arms race with red, as that will just provoke mistrust and eventually conflict between you two. Also yellow may take advantage of this by taking and holding Asia and/or Africa


You should focus on appearing less threatening and trying to lure red and yellow into a conflict
I'd recommend that you withdraw armies from E3, E7, and E6 and N3.

[para]

once again, i gather my opinion based on logic, not experience

I could argue to you about how my games here have nothing to do with my risk knowledge but really it comes down to opinion so im not going to bother. you wont give me any credibility anyway as anything a cook says is apparently worthless, what a vicious cycle

as for the other replyer to me, if blue is succesful in what i suggest, she will weaken red without weakening himself. that is the goal.

yellow taking the last country of asia would take too long and itwould b easy to stop,

[MeDeFe]

para, look, it doesn't matter at which point of the map Zaphod would attack red, red can still make up his own mind about where to retaliate, there are no guarantees that the conflict could be contained in formerly North America with few losses for both parties. Furthermore, you have done nothing to explain how to solve the basic problem of the three-man standoff, the only reliable way to solve it is in fact an agreement between all players to attack each other.

You are, however, right that 20 armies against 120 isn't much, but you miss the fact that 20 armies defending a bonus of 5 is plenty, especially with a far bigger stack behind them. Also: if I see a chance of breaking someone's bonus of 5 for one turn, and a chance of getting a bonus of +7 for myself I know which I'd go for.

[oVo]

attack red

No don't, this is still anyone's game and nothing drastic is required at the moment. Be patient.

1. first the o0ubvious point, that he is the current leadr in gaining armies and thus will eventually be able to overpower both of you.

Red may be the current leader having 13 more armies in reserve than Aqua, occupying 15 territories (equal to yellow) and getting an extra 2 to deploy each round... but that isn't much of a lead. As MeDeFe pointed there will be no quick overpowering anywhere since the Aqua/Yellow +15 balances out nicely against Red's +10 and the bulk on A1, F2 & E7 pretty much negate any drastic action at that intersection.

2. if you go through NA, this does not affect your borders with yellow so you wont have to worry about him.

N2 & N3 are pretty much out there on an island if hostilities occur, with adjacent forts there is no quick support coming... IF you had lucky dice maybe you could instigate an insurgency, but there are not numbers there to expect success without great dice... do you feel lucky? Also... IF you were successful against Red on the Canadian frontier, there is no guarantee that retaliation wouldn't come from Africa softening up Europe to the point that yellow might become a threat there.

3. you can easily fortify those non-border armies to your other borders to ensure that no attacks of any kind come your way from there.

With adjacent forts all reinforcements are slow coming. I like the counter attack threat that E4 represents... and might consider trying to fort little by little on E1 as well.

4. from what i saw of the game log (i didnt load the whole thing but looked as far as i could otherwise) you and red have been only been deploying in south europe/africa for awhile, so i doubt he would see it coming.

Red and Aqua are the closest in "feet on the ground" with Yellow trailing by around 100... so you both have a few expendible armies against each other... but that doesn't mean drastic action should be taken. If I was antsy to do something, I might nibble on N2 from N3 and see how it goes, but a successful insurgency there is doubtful with the current numbers and I would attempt to fort E1 some before considering it.

basically, although this may appear to be a standoff, you have the benefit of having a specific 1vs1 border that you can take advantage of. also his armies are a bit split up so that helps too.

It's a standoff at the moment, but that will change... eventually. That 1v1 border is so isolated that neither of you can get reinforcements there quickly... but your bulk is closer... and that could eventually pay off for you as the game develops. The other two guys have 15 territories padding their bonuses and it will be awhile before you can add to the 9 territories you occupy, but keep it in mind that more territories is probably the only way you will increase your bonus over the next twenty or so rounds.

just curious, what problem do you have with an alliance?

I have no problem with alliances, detente or no fly zones if a player needs reassurance when there is a dominant force taking over, but this game is still close and no aggreements are necessary. As FabledIntegral already pointed out no alliances are needed here, it's still anyone's game... unless someone tires of the match and becomes suicidal.

[...] to solve the basic problem of the three-man standoff, the only reliable way to solve it is in fact an agreement between all players to attack each other.

I disagree... and think no agreements are required. This standoff is not ready to be resolved and everyone still has to wait and see how it develops... eventually choices will be made that break this log jam
and effect the final outcome.

[Jeff Hardy]

Your logic is very poor. Don't listen to the cook - you'll lose.

...

There's a reason he's a cook.

that pretty much sums up what i was thinking while reading this thread

[Zaphod]

attack red

1. first the o0ubvious point, that he is the current leadr in gaining armies and thus will eventually be able to overpower both of you.

2. if you go through NA, this does not affect your borders with yellow so you wont have to worry about him.

3. you can easily fortify those non-border armies to your other borders to ensure that no attacks of any kind come your way from there

4. from what i saw of the game log (i didnt load the whole thing but looked as far as i could otherwise) you and red have been only been deploying in south europe/africa fofr awhile, so i doubt he would see it coming.

basically, although this may appear to be a standoff, you have the benefit of having a specific 1vs1 border that you can take advantage of. also his armies are a bit split up so that helps too.



just curious, what problem do you have with an alliance?

RE: Allaince

None - I've hinted at one several times; but no takers. Yellow I believe is afraid to ally with me Since most likely I'd get the SA Bonus and it'd be difficult for him to defend Africa (Yellow previously owned Africa - built a huge army (at the time) and took Australia - I responded and routed him in Africa) with me already entrenched in Europe. Red is afraid he'd get spread out too thin.

I've also tried beating Red back in SA (via NA)- actually had a toehold in SA (S1) and had enough armies to hold him back. Then Yellow decided to attack E6 and I couldn't beat him back for my +5 and hold S1 at the same time. So I backed off and restored my +5. Yellow could of, just as easily hit red in Africa while I occupied him in SA, but decided to restore the status quo.

[Zaphod]

Thanks for the debate definitely has me thinking. I like the idea of building up E1 a bit to see if, how red changes strategy. (Don't know if they'll read this thread but I don't think it matters too much at this point).

I doubt this game is going to end anytime soon; but with outsiders posting on the game chat I think at least one of the others might get suspicious and start nosing around for this thread.

Should be interesting and I'll try and post on this thread if the status of this game changes at all.

Thanks again,

Zaphod

[MeDeFe]

[...] to solve the basic problem of the three-man standoff, the only reliable way to solve it is in fact an agreement between all players to attack each other.

I disagree... and think no agreements are required. This standoff is not ready to be resolved and everyone still has to wait and see how it develops... eventually choices will be made that break this log jam
and effect the final outcome.

If everyone waits and sees how the situation develops, it will never develop. If you don't wait and see but instead take action and attack you will put yourself in the weakest position and ultimately will no longer be able to attack anyone without throwing the game.

The only way out is if at least two player attack the third as well as each other until the situation has shifted so far that things can move again. Better yet is for all three players to attack each other. The only halfway reliable way to achieve that is through a mutual agreement.

[Emperor_Metalman]

Here is a link to a game I am currently in

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=3489237

This game started off as a build game , even after red deadbeated. I decided to break teal's Indian Territory bonus as he was getting too many troops and get into a conflict with Teal . Teal retaliated by attacking west Texas and killing most of my troops. As a result, blue now has more than 50% of the armies and will win soon.

So, I'd suggest waiting.

[para]

para, look, it doesn't matter at which point of the map Zaphod would attack red, red can still make up his own mind about where to retaliate, there are no guarantees that the conflict could be contained in formerly North America with few losses for both parties. Furthermore, you have done nothing to explain how to solve the basic problem of the three-man standoff, the only reliable way to solve it is in fact an agreement between all players to attack each other.

I'm assuming we are dealing with smart players. if ed chooses to retaliate thats due to his own stupidity. nothing can be done about that.

if blue is successful in weakening red, he would eventually be able to take SA and at that point he's getting 12 armies per turn against red and yellow's 13 per turn. that's alot closer to winning the game than he is now.

You are, however, right that 20 armies against 120 isn't much, but you miss the fact that 20 armies defending a bonus of 5 is plenty, especially with a far bigger stack behind them. Also: if I see a chance of breaking someone's bonus of 5 for one turn, and a chance of getting a bonus of +7 for myself I know which I'd go for.

point taken.

[para]

2. if you go through NA, this does not affect your borders with yellow so you wont have to worry about him.

N2 & N3 are pretty much out there on an island if hostilities occur, with adjacent forts there is no quick support coming... IF you had lucky dice maybe you could instigate an insurgency, but there are not numbers there to expect success without great dice... do you feel lucky? Also... IF you were successful against Red on the Canadian frontier, there is no guarantee that retaliation wouldn't come from Africa softening up Europe to the point that yellow might become a threat there.

odds in that battle are slightly in his favor, also, I've already said that he can stop if his dice go bad.

and once again, i would hope red would not be st6upid enough to give yellow the win.

3. you can easily fortify those non-border armies to your other borders to ensure that no attacks of any kind come your way from there.

With adjacent forts all reinforcements are slow coming. I like the counter attack threat that E4 represents... and might consider trying to fort little by little on E1 as well.

this was mostly seperate advice and has nothing to do with my suggestion to attack red as i was referring to his european borders, which are adjacent.

4. from what i saw of the game log (i didnt load the whole thing but looked as far as i could otherwise) you and red have been only been deploying in south europe/africa for awhile, so i doubt he would see it coming.

Red and Aqua are the closest in "feet on the ground" with Yellow trailing by around 100... so you both have a few expendible armies against each other... but that doesn't mean drastic action should be taken. If I was antsy to do something, I might nibble on N2 from N3 and see how it goes, but a successful insurgency there is doubtful with the current numbers and I would attempt to fort E1 some before considering it.

I wouldnt consider this a drastioc action, just logical. and I already said it would be okay to fort it a couple of times before hand, but I wouldnt do it more than once. maybe twice.

basically, although this may appear to be a standoff, you have the benefit of having a specific 1vs1 border that you can take advantage of. also his armies are a bit split up so that helps too.

It's a standoff at the moment, but that will change... eventually. That 1v1 border is so isolated that neither of you can get reinforcements there quickly... but your bulk is closer... and that could eventually pay off for you as the game develops. The other two guys have 15 territories padding their bonuses and it will be awhile before you can add to the 9 territories you occupy, but keep it in mind that more territories is probably the only way you will increase your bonus over the next twenty or so rounds.

the 1vs1 border doesnt need reinforcements from other borders. at the most it just needs a couple of turns of deployment forts. there isnt neccessarily anything wrong with fortifying that way, except that red would have more time to react. and we cant have that when he can deploy more than blue.

[...] to solve the basic problem of the three-man standoff, the only reliable way to solve it is in fact an agreement between all players to attack each other.

I disagree... and think no agreements are required. This standoff is not ready to be resolved and everyone still has to wait and see how it develops... eventually choices will be made that break this log jam
and effect the final outcome.

this standoff HAS been developing, nothing has happened.

[dhallmeyer]

I would suggest nibbling on red in NA. Don't ever lose more than you drop, and comtinue to build up europe. Consider taking N6 to start with, as it's a neutral and it's protected. After that start working N3-N2. Slowly. See what he does in response. You need to continue to protect yourself and slowly expand your territory bonus to increase your drop to equal and surpass your opponents. Patience, combined with a strategy more than wait-and-see will pay off.

[Sun Zeus]

You could sacrifice Europe and take both South America and Australia. You would lose one deployment but you could squish red and yellows main forces together. Winning your game would depend on weather they attacked one another over Europe or not. Leave Europe all ones to instigate the fight over it while simultaneously preventing their continent bonus.

Or you could half attack Yellow at A1 to reduce his forces there to tempt red to attack Australia. Australia's like a magnet for attackers.

Whatever you do decide make sure they attack one another.