Best attacking path when breaking up bonuses?

[Aurens]

A friend and I have discussed this issue a bit but we haven't been able to come to any kind of consensus. The basic question is: when you're attacking through an enemy's territories trying to reduce their bonus as much as possible, should you try to avoid taking a territory adjacent to a heavily fortified border? I know that might be confusing, so I've brought a picture to help explain.



Basically, is it better to take Niger or Algeria in the above situation if you are trying to break up cyan?

One of us says it's better to take Niger because then cyan has to use his deployment and only his deployment to take back lost territories which reduces his ability to take new territories or fortify borders. The other says to take Algeria because then cyan might use some of his armies in Morocco in addition to his deployment to take back lost territories, weakening his border with Europe.

[FabledIntegral]

Always take Niger. Red does not have to use his Morocco armies if he doesn't want to - attacking the adjacent country just gives him the option to do so. If you're playing vs a better player, he/she will know the optimal or near optimal armies they should take off Morocco if any at all.

Secondly, in that scenario - why would you care if the person takes armies off the European border. Red is there. If red was smart he'd sit still on the situation, gathering his armies, because he would know you already broke him, and his eyes will be set on you rather than him.

[Timminz]

In that situation, I would say, Niger is the better bet. It's as simple as it seems. If you take algeria, they have 14 to hit you with, immediately, instead of, possibly, forting them over to hit you next round.

[whitestazn88]

i'd say it doesn't matter, cuz all blue has is 1's, either way, you're screwed

[Timminz]

The other says to take Algeria because then cyan might use some of his armies in Morocco in addition to his deployment to take back lost territories, weakening his border with Europe.

This wouldn't happen to be the red player, would it?

[TNine]

I say niger, because then he has to fort his army, meaning red will most likely hit him because of the fact that he has most of Africa.

[FabledIntegral]

I'd just like to point out red has no reason to ever break Africa in the first place in this situation - but w/e. Unless you're in second place, you usually don't have any obligation to stop the first place player. VERY situational, but it's what I can gather from the little snippet you've shown.

[Aurens]

Secondly, in that scenario - why would you care if the person takes armies off the European border. Red is there. If red was smart he'd sit still on the situation, gathering his armies, because he would know you already broke him, and his eyes will be set on you rather than him.

I'd just like to point out red has no reason to ever break Africa in the first place in this situation - but w/e.

In this game cyan was far and away the strongest player so everyone else had agreed to work together to weaken him.

i'd say it doesn't matter, cuz all blue has is 1's, either way, you're screwed

There was a 20 army blue deployment pending when I took that screenshot.

This wouldn't happen to be the red player, would it?

No.

Unless you're in second place, you usually don't have any obligation to stop the first place player. VERY situational, but it's what I can gather from the little snippet you've shown.

Could you expand upon that? Most of the time I put a sizeable emphasis on curbing the growth of the strongest player unless I am on the brink of destruction. My thoughts being that if I wait too long he'll just be too strong to beat once it gets down to just me and him. If all the weaker players fight amongst themselves it just makes it easier for the strongest player to clean up afterwards. Of course I don't throw everything I've got at him, but I do what I can.

Where am I going wrong in that train of thought?

[FabledIntegral]

Secondly, in that scenario - why would you care if the person takes armies off the European border. Red is there. If red was smart he'd sit still on the situation, gathering his armies, because he would know you already broke him, and his eyes will be set on you rather than him.

I'd just like to point out red has no reason to ever break Africa in the first place in this situation - but w/e.

In this game cyan was far and away the strongest player so everyone else had agreed to work together to weaken him.

i'd say it doesn't matter, cuz all blue has is 1's, either way, you're screwed

There was a 20 army blue deployment pending when I took that screenshot.

This wouldn't happen to be the red player, would it?

No.

Unless you're in second place, you usually don't have any obligation to stop the first place player. VERY situational, but it's what I can gather from the little snippet you've shown.

Could you expand upon that? Most of the time I put a sizeable emphasis on curbing the growth of the strongest player unless I am on the brink of destruction. My thoughts being that if I wait too long he'll just be too strong to beat once it gets down to just me and him. If all the weaker players fight amongst themselves it just makes it easier for the strongest player to clean up afterwards. Of course I don't throw everything I've got at him, but I do what I can.

Where am I going wrong in that train of thought?

Put it this way - in an 8-player game, it's a free for all... you should do everything in your power to maintain army strength. Every time you attack the stronger player, you weaken yourself and the strongest player, thus making the other 6 players on the map stronger, which means you benefitted less by your actions than everyone else on the board. Your moves should always be most beneficial to you, never someone else - you're playing for yourself after all.

The second stronger player on teh board has the job of breaking the strongest player, or ignoring him. If the second stronger player does nothing and lets the game fall out - then foe him and don't play him again, but don't take it upon yourself to do something about it. You're just rewarding the second stronger player for his poor play on his account... as he is able to accumulate armies whilst you expend yours.

It's better to throw a single game and set an example than try to salvage a single game and get a reputation for being the sacrifice in a game.

Also never ever, ever ever, try to prevent someone from gaining a bonus early game on World 2.1. If you're in a flat rate/no cards, you will NEVER have any reason whatsoever to go deploy in Europe if you're trying to take South America. Never try to prevent other people from growing - focus on yourself and yourself only. Not until borders are established will you have to worry about things, because as you're taking South America, you'll most likely find whoever started building in Asia will clash to stop the European person.

[BaldAdonis]

{A bunch of advice on 8 player flat rate games}

Map Rank: FabledIntegral + Flat/No Cards + 8 players + World 2.1 + Single player games
Cook -561 Won 13 from 73(18%) Point Hoarder (0.674)

+ Sequential
Cook -620 Won 6 from 44(14%) Point Hoarder (0.643)

How's that ivory tower strategy working for you? Stick to escalating freestyle advice, that way your rank won't confuse people

Aurens: if you're worried that his force will hit your adjacent bonus (for example, if you had Europe in this case), then you should try to move next to it. He'll use that and then fortify back for defense. If you don't care about the bonus, or yours is far away, then attack away from his stronghold.
The best thing you can do (which has nothing to do with the path) is to leave 2s. He'll spend a lot more taking those back than any other arrangement of armies (compared to what you lose, ie. it's better to have four 2s than a 5 and three 1s, but it's obviously not as good as three 2s and a 6. It all depends on how much you're willing to lose).

[Scott-Land]

{A bunch of advice on 8 player flat rate games}

Map Rank: FabledIntegral + Flat/No Cards + 8 players + World 2.1 + Single player games
Cook -561 Won 13 from 73(18%) Point Hoarder (0.674)

+ Sequential
Cook -620 Won 6 from 44(14%) Point Hoarder (0.643)

How's that ivory tower strategy working for you? Stick to escalating freestyle advice, that way your rank won't confuse people

Aurens: if you're worried that his force will hit your adjacent bonus (for example, if you had Europe in this case), then you should try to move next to it. He'll use that and then fortify back for defense. If you don't care about the bonus, or yours is far away, then attack away from his stronghold.
The best thing you can do (which has nothing to do with the path) is to leave 2s. He'll spend a lot more taking those back than any other arrangement of armies (compared to what you lose, ie. it's better to have four 2s than a 5 and three 1s, but it's obviously not as good as three 2s and a 6. It all depends on how much you're willing to lose).

Mr Expert--

[MOBAJOBG]

If I'm not the 2nd strongest player, trust me when I say that breaking the strongest player bonus is not in my list of priorities.

[Kemmler]

If I'm not the 2nd strongest player, trust me when I say that breaking the strongest player bonus is not in my list of priorities.

That's because you only play 1v1...

[Stroop]

I'd say it doesn't matter. Either way cyan can deploy on Sudan, take Libya, take either Algeria or Niger, then Egypt to finish it up

[FabledIntegral]

{A bunch of advice on 8 player flat rate games}

Map Rank: FabledIntegral + Flat/No Cards + 8 players + World 2.1 + Single player games
Cook -561 Won 13 from 73(18%) Point Hoarder (0.674)

+ Sequential
Cook -620 Won 6 from 44(14%) Point Hoarder (0.643)

How's that ivory tower strategy working for you? Stick to escalating freestyle advice, that way your rank won't confuse people

Aurens: if you're worried that his force will hit your adjacent bonus (for example, if you had Europe in this case), then you should try to move next to it. He'll use that and then fortify back for defense. If you don't care about the bonus, or yours is far away, then attack away from his stronghold.
The best thing you can do (which has nothing to do with the path) is to leave 2s. He'll spend a lot more taking those back than any other arrangement of armies (compared to what you lose, ie. it's better to have four 2s than a 5 and three 1s, but it's obviously not as good as three 2s and a 6. It all depends on how much you're willing to lose).

Dont even try to pull that shit on me - use your head. Think why Id be a mere -620 points in sequential and such. If I average around rank 3200 (Im currently at a low after joining a lot of sequential chained games with rank 1200 and below... I joined around 60 games at once), and Im a stronger freestyle player than escalating, then Im going to end up going negative in the overall score. If I am a 3200 rank freestyle player, but would only maintain a score of around 2500 in sequential, then my score will still stay around 3200, yet my freestyle score will be much higher.

Its basic mathematics, something apparently you dont understand. Map rank only analyzes the point logs, not where your actual standing would be. Thus because Im rank 3200, and not a rank 3200 but around 2000-2500 (I got to around rank 2300 before I started playing freestyle... a while before CM came out, soley playing flat rate/no card games namely on World 2.1). So my score woul dhave showed around THAT time around a positive 2000 points. However when I raised my rank in freestyle, then it was inflated in terms of sequential games. Thus even though I could have maintained the same major status (potentially colonel as I was rising), I was at rank 3200 and thus gaining less points for each sequential win, and losing more for each sequential loss.

I could have been winning in sequential around 1/4 games in 8-player and going around positive 150 pts around rank 2000.
At rank 3200 I was stlil winning around 1/4 games in 8-player but going around negative 120 points.

Thus although my skill level didnt change, its very easy to see why it would show me as a cook. As soon as my score kept dropping from sequential flat rate/no cards, freestyle escalating would bring it right back up, as Id have a higher net gain for each win since my score had dropped.

Dont be so stupid as to try and pull some bullshit map rank on me, my advice is completely valid.

[BaldAdonis]

{a bunch of garbage} Dont be so stupid as to try and pull some bullshit map rank on me, my advice is completely valid.

Won 6 from 44(14%) speaks for itself. 14% is not 1/4 of the games. It's just better than 1/8, and those were all 8 player games. If you play the way you say, then your advice doesn't work. You said yourself you'd rather throw a game to prove a point: well, this guy is not looking for advice on how to lose.

Mr Expert--

BaldAdonis + 6-8 Players + Flat Rate/No Cards + Sequential + Single Player Games
Won 55 from 243(23%)

Scott-Land + 6-8 Players + Flat Rate/No Cards + Sequential + Single Player Games
Won 2 from 17(12%)

Obviously no one's coming to you for advice on this one. Clickable Maps won't help you here.

And for completeness:

FabledIntegral + 6-8 Players + Flat Rate/No Cards + Sequential + Single Player Games
Won 19 from 85(22%)

So you're not as unqualified as Scott-Land (and +119, 4 from 9 on 2.1 6 player is respectable, I dunno where you get the patience {edit: nevermind, had a look and they're all public against players who get silly by round 50. The chat is pretty amusing too. You sound like Scott-"please don't attack me guys!"-land}). But really, play some more games. Games where you can't just take two consecutive turns when you need them. You'll learn that not everyone is using an optimal strategy, so basing your strategy off of that is bad. And if they are using an optimal strategy, then you shouldn't have joined that high ranking game, they're always stalemates for a long, long time.

[FabledIntegral]

Amusing how much you can manipulate the statistics.

1. He never said it was sequential.
2. He never said it was flat rate and not nocards/escalating.
3. He never specified how many players there were.


Hilarious how far your ego is shoved up your ass. I believe all the advice I gave was completely valid. And saying 1/4 games, I apologize if I said 1/4, when it was 22% and not 25%. 3% off! Sorry I wasnt aware everything I said was going to be taken literally for the exact value, I didnt look my stats up exactly.

[Aurens]

1. He never said it was sequential.

I only play sequential. I apologize for omitting that, I have no plans to bother with freestyle so I usually completely forget it's an option.

2. He never said it was flat rate and not nocards/escalating.

This particular game was flat rate, but I didn't think that was very relevant to any advice.

3. He never specified how many players there were.

6. Again I didn't think it especially relevant given the number of players seen in the screenshot.

[FabledIntegral]

1. He never said it was sequential.

I only play sequential. I apologize for omitting that, I have no plans to bother with freestyle so I usually completely forget it's an option.

2. He never said it was flat rate and not nocards/escalating.

This particular game was flat rate, but I didn't think that was very relevant to any advice.

3. He never specified how many players there were.

6. Again I didn't think it especially relevant given the number of players seen in the screenshot.

Its not the point. Although the advice I gave was generally due to flat rate/no cards, would have been applicable in freestyle OR sequential, and would have applied to 5-8 player games, the point was that he came in here throwing specific statistics around to make himself sound like some God player - aboslutely and utterly ignorant, especially because he didnt factor into account the way the map rank accumulates statistics.

[OliverFA]

Very interesting. Seems like different games (Escalating / Flat rate, 1v2 / 8 players, Sequential / Freestyle) play very differently, and a player that is good in one type does not have to be also good in the others.

[BaldAdonis]

Its not the point. Although the advice I gave was generally due to flat rate/no cards, would have been applicable in freestyle OR sequential, and would have applied to 5-8 player games, the point was that he came in here throwing specific statistics around to make himself sound like some God player - aboslutely and utterly ignorant, especially because he didnt factor into account the way the map rank accumulates statistics.

Give good advice and I won't have to show the other players that it's bad advice.

[FabledIntegral]

Its not the point. Although the advice I gave was generally due to flat rate/no cards, would have been applicable in freestyle OR sequential, and would have applied to 5-8 player games, the point was that he came in here throwing specific statistics around to make himself sound like some God player - aboslutely and utterly ignorant, especially because he didnt factor into account the way the map rank accumulates statistics.

Give good advice and I won't have to show the other players that it's bad advice.

Why not try dealing with obviously skewed statistics to attempt to prove your point?

If you truly believe that if you're not in first/second place in terms of strength, which is obviously arbitrary and can apply to whatever circumstance YOU deem to be "strength," that you should still try to hold back the strongest player in a flat rate game - that's dumb. The first place person will eventually have to try to break whatever deadlock ensues in those crappy no cards/flat rate games, and if he attacks someone weak to try to gain land obviously the second place person will have time to captilize on the issue.

He was referring to the act of "breaking up bonuses," which obviously then would make us conclude he's not going in for a new territorial land grab - merely stopping the other person from having bonuses.

[BaldAdonis]

May be "dumb", but it wins games. The player who is actually in second/first is just as likely to attack you as they are to attack the leader. Assuming that everyone will play optimally is a mistake - and yelling at them in game chat only works to scare freestyle players, so you can't use that common tactic.

The games are there to show other people that your ideas don't work. If they listened to you, they'd have to lose all those games for themselves.

[FabledIntegral]

May be "dumb", but it wins games. The player who is actually in second/first is just as likely to attack you as they are to attack the leader. Assuming that everyone will play optimally is a mistake - and yelling at them in game chat only works to scare freestyle players, so you can't use that common tactic.

The games are there to show other people that your ideas don't work. If they listened to you, they'd have to lose all those games for themselves.

Aren't you the one that says you play good players? Assuming other people will play optimally is a better strategy than assuming they will throw the game to the leader.

[KoE_Sirius]

May be "dumb", but it wins games. The player who is actually in second/first is just as likely to attack you as they are to attack the leader. Assuming that everyone will play optimally is a mistake - and yelling at them in game chat only works to scare freestyle players, so you can't use that common tactic.

The games are there to show other people that your ideas don't work. If they listened to you, they'd have to lose all those games for themselves.

Aren't you the one that says you play good players? Assuming other people will play optimally is a better strategy than assuming they will throw the game to the leader.

You aren't a good player FabledIntegral ! .You have a fast internet connection that gives you an advantage in a freestyle speed game .You let emotion rule your play and it's reflected in your rank .If I could hit 2 territories in 1 second I'd be conqueror .I can't so this is reflected in my rank .
Anyone who takes advise from you is on a losing streak .Logic and reason do not belong in the same sentence as FabledIntegral .