*New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

by **FabledIntegral** on Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:28 pm

python800 wrote:Just to let you guys know about the strategy in attacking during a stalemate. I've done the math for odds of winning in risk as a personal project(yeah I know I'm a nerd majoring in mathmatics and statistics).
Rounded to the nearest percent, odds for different situations are as follows
*the odds for any roll of 3v2 are
Both attacker and defender lose 1 army (34%)
Defender loses 2 armies (37%)
Attacker loses 2 armies (29%)
*the odds for any roll of 2v2 are
Both lose 1 (32%)
Defender loses 2 (23%)
Attacker loses 2 (45%)
*the odds for any roll of 1v2 (attackerVdefender)
Defender loses 1 (25%)
Attacker loses 1 (75%)
*the odds for any roll of 3v1 are
Defender loses 1 (66%)
Attacker loses 1 (34%)
*the odds for any roll of 2v1 (attackerVdefender)
Defender loses 1 (58%)
Attacker loses 1 (42%)
*the odds for any roll of 1v1
Defender loses 1 (42%)
Attacker loses 1 (58%)

As you can see in 3v2 dice scenerio the attacker has the advantage. Because of that and the fact that as the number of armies gets higher the 3v2 roll becomes statistically dominate, as two opponents stack armies adjacent to each other at an equal ratio the odds shift in favor of whoever attacks. I don't have the turning point in my records here, but I believe it was somewhere around 15v15 where the attacker become the statistical favorite to win (in a matchup of even armies).

You guys can crunch the numbers yourself if you don't believe me, but it's a lot of crunching.

In a 3v2 scenario the defender has the advantage, not the attacker. A massive advantage, from what I'm aware. Realize in a 3v2 dice scenario the attacker can only use 2 dice to attack, while the defender can use both 2 dice to defend.

This also does not help solve stalemates whatsoever.

by **python800** on Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:19 pm

FabledIntegral wrote:
python800 wrote:Just to let you guys know about the strategy in attacking during a stalemate. I've done the math for odds of winning in risk as a personal project(yeah I know I'm a nerd majoring in mathmatics and statistics).
Rounded to the nearest percent, odds for different situations are as follows
*the odds for any roll of 3v2 are
Both attacker and defender lose 1 army (34%)
Defender loses 2 armies (37%)
Attacker loses 2 armies (29%)
*the odds for any roll of 2v2 are
Both lose 1 (32%)
Defender loses 2 (23%)
Attacker loses 2 (45%)
*the odds for any roll of 1v2 (attackerVdefender)
Defender loses 1 (25%)
Attacker loses 1 (75%)
*the odds for any roll of 3v1 are
Defender loses 1 (66%)
Attacker loses 1 (34%)
*the odds for any roll of 2v1 (attackerVdefender)
Defender loses 1 (58%)
Attacker loses 1 (42%)
*the odds for any roll of 1v1
Defender loses 1 (42%)
Attacker loses 1 (58%)

As you can see in 3v2 dice scenerio the attacker has the advantage. Because of that and the fact that as the number of armies gets higher the 3v2 roll becomes statistically dominate, as two opponents stack armies adjacent to each other at an equal ratio the odds shift in favor of whoever attacks. I don't have the turning point in my records here, but I believe it was somewhere around 15v15 where the attacker become the statistical favorite to win (in a matchup of even armies).

You guys can crunch the numbers yourself if you don't believe me, but it's a lot of crunching.

In a 3v2 scenario the defender has the advantage, not the attacker. A massive advantage, from what I'm aware. Realize in a 3v2 dice scenario the attacker can only use 2 dice to attack, while the defender can use both 2 dice to defend.

This also does not help solve stalemates whatsoever.

I'm sorry to dissappoint you, but the attacker has the advantage, and it's the percentage I posted + or - .5%.
If you discount the 3rd dice of the attacker unconditionally then of course the defender has an adavantage, but the fact that it's the top 2 dice that get counted make it conditional. Unless you study statistics you don't really think too much about conditional probabilities, but if by any chance you've seen the movie "21" that thing they talk about in the classroom about the 3 doors and cahnging your door giving you a higher probability of winning... that's a good example. It works that way because the door that is eliminated depends on wihch door has the prize, just as the die that gets discounted depends on which dice are the highest. To the same effect, if in that 3 door situation from the movie, any door is arbitrarily chosen to be eliminated, then the possibility of eliminating the door with the prize (the highest die, in our case) would exist and the statistics would become unconditional.
You can do the calculations yourself, all you have to do is calculate the odds for a particular outcome for the defender, then figure the probability of every outcome the attacker can have and you can see how many are winners losers etc... The part where this affects stalemates is that it is advantageous to attack if say you had a territory with 50 armies adjacent to an enemy territory with 50 armies. So stalemates shouldn't happen in that regard.
So please don't tell me I'm wrong unless you've done math to prove it, because I've done the math, and it's been checked, and it's correct.

by **FabledIntegral** on Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:40 pm

python800 wrote:
FabledIntegral wrote:
python800 wrote:Just to let you guys know about the strategy in attacking during a stalemate. I've done the math for odds of winning in risk as a personal project(yeah I know I'm a nerd majoring in mathmatics and statistics).
Rounded to the nearest percent, odds for different situations are as follows
*the odds for any roll of 3v2 are
Both attacker and defender lose 1 army (34%)
Defender loses 2 armies (37%)
Attacker loses 2 armies (29%)
*the odds for any roll of 2v2 are
Both lose 1 (32%)
Defender loses 2 (23%)
Attacker loses 2 (45%)
*the odds for any roll of 1v2 (attackerVdefender)
Defender loses 1 (25%)
Attacker loses 1 (75%)
*the odds for any roll of 3v1 are
Defender loses 1 (66%)
Attacker loses 1 (34%)
*the odds for any roll of 2v1 (attackerVdefender)
Defender loses 1 (58%)
Attacker loses 1 (42%)
*the odds for any roll of 1v1
Defender loses 1 (42%)
Attacker loses 1 (58%)

As you can see in 3v2 dice scenerio the attacker has the advantage. Because of that and the fact that as the number of armies gets higher the 3v2 roll becomes statistically dominate, as two opponents stack armies adjacent to each other at an equal ratio the odds shift in favor of whoever attacks. I don't have the turning point in my records here, but I believe it was somewhere around 15v15 where the attacker become the statistical favorite to win (in a matchup of even armies).

You guys can crunch the numbers yourself if you don't believe me, but it's a lot of crunching.

In a 3v2 scenario the defender has the advantage, not the attacker. A massive advantage, from what I'm aware. Realize in a 3v2 dice scenario the attacker can only use 2 dice to attack, while the defender can use both 2 dice to defend.

This also does not help solve stalemates whatsoever.

I'm sorry to dissappoint you, but the attacker has the advantage, and it's the percentage I posted + or - .5%.
If you discount the 3rd dice of the attacker unconditionally then of course the defender has an adavantage, but the fact that it's the top 2 dice that get counted make it conditional. Unless you study statistics you don't really think too much about conditional probabilities, but if by any chance you've seen the movie "21" that thing they talk about in the classroom about the 3 doors and cahnging your door giving you a higher probability of winning... that's a good example. It works that way because the door that is eliminated depends on wihch door has the prize, just as the die that gets discounted depends on which dice are the highest. To the same effect, if in that 3 door situation from the movie, any door is arbitrarily chosen to be eliminated, then the possibility of eliminating the door with the prize (the highest die, in our case) would exist and the statistics would become unconditional.
You can do the calculations yourself, all you have to do is calculate the odds for a particular outcome for the defender, then figure the probability of every outcome the attacker can have and you can see how many are winners losers etc... The part where this affects stalemates is that it is advantageous to attack if say you had a territory with 50 armies adjacent to an enemy territory with 50 armies. So stalemates shouldn't happen in that regard.
So please don't tell me I'm wrong unless you've done math to prove it, because I've done the math, and it's been checked, and it's correct.

I've taken college level statistics - I merely assumed 3v2 dice roll meant that one country had 3 and one country had 2. I didn't realize you were attempting to explain ratios, which virtually everyone on this site already knows and it's labeled "attackers advantage."

by **python800** on Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:28 am

So if everyone on this site knows that the attacker has the advantage, why would stalemates be a problem. Not only would you have the better odds when it comes to the dice but you could take away a bonus on the next turn (I'm assuming most of these stalemates come about on country borders).
As far as thinking I was talking about number of armies and not number of dice, I figured I didn't have to atually say that, given that I gave statistics fot 1v1 which would be impossible if I were talking about armies.

by **FabledIntegral** on Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:56 am

python800 wrote:So if everyone on this site knows that the attacker has the advantage, why would stalemates be a problem. Not only would you have the better odds when it comes to the dice but you could take away a bonus on the next turn (I'm assuming most of these stalemates come about on country borders).
As far as thinking I was talking about number of armies and not number of dice, I figured I didn't have to atually say that, given that I gave statistics fot 1v1 which would be impossible if I were talking about armies.

An attacker could win 75% of the rolls and it would still be a problem. When there's 700 armies each on the field, +6 armies vs +8 armies on the field isn't going to do anything. Stalemates generally in escalating do not come about country borders either. Someone will have 120 armies in North America, another person 200, another 230. Continents are essentially worthless considering every 3 turns or so you'll be turning in a set worth 150 armies - the continent bonuses are worthless. Sure you can wipe out 300 armies to take over North America and get +5, but it will take you how long to regain what you just took over? 60 turns (discounting the attackers advantage)? So essentially... in a speed game, like 3 hours to make up what you lost? Or in a casual game, like 3 months? That's not even SOLVING the stalemate. Anyways killing 300 armies would put you in a weakened state that everyone else on the board would kill you - so instead you end up sitting and not going for country bonuses.

Concerning the number of armies vs dice I merely discounted the statistics as most people know all of them, and after seeing the first one I stopped generally reading.

by **python800** on Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:41 pm

sry, I thought by stalemate everyone was talking about 1v1. I can understand the problem when there's more than 2 players. O well, guess there is no solution to it, lol, that's why I try to avoid escalating games.

by **FabledIntegral** on Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:01 pm

python800 wrote:sry, I thought by stalemate everyone was talking about 1v1. I can understand the problem when there's more than 2 players. O well, guess there is no solution to it, lol, that's why I try to avoid escalating games.

There's no such thing as a stalemate in a 1v1.

by **Jordan the Great** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:19 pm

python800 wrote:Just to let you guys know about the strategy in attacking during a stalemate. I've done the math for odds of winning in risk as a personal project(yeah I know I'm a nerd majoring in mathmatics and statistics).
Rounded to the nearest percent, odds for different situations are as follows
*the odds for any roll of 3v2 are
Both attacker and defender lose 1 army (34%)
Defender loses 2 armies (37%)
Attacker loses 2 armies (29%)
*the odds for any roll of 2v2 are
Both lose 1 (32%)
Defender loses 2 (23%)
Attacker loses 2 (45%)
*the odds for any roll of 1v2 (attackerVdefender)
Defender loses 1 (25%)
Attacker loses 1 (75%)
*the odds for any roll of 3v1 are
Defender loses 1 (66%)
Attacker loses 1 (34%)
*the odds for any roll of 2v1 (attackerVdefender)
Defender loses 1 (58%)
Attacker loses 1 (42%)
*the odds for any roll of 1v1
Defender loses 1 (42%)
Attacker loses 1 (58%)

As you can see in 3v2 dice scenerio the attacker has the advantage. Because of that and the fact that as the number of armies gets higher the 3v2 roll becomes statistically dominate, as two opponents stack armies adjacent to each other at an equal ratio the odds shift in favor of whoever attacks. I don't have the turning point in my records here, but I believe it was somewhere around 15v15 where the attacker become the statistical favorite to win (in a matchup of even armies).

You guys can crunch the numbers yourself if you don't believe me, but it's a lot of crunching.

Hey thanks, I always went by my experienced guesses at the percentages but now I know the true numbers. Im actually suprised by how close I was. I'm just alittle confused... I dont see 'luck of individual' factored into any of these equations.

by **e_i_pi** on Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:38 am

python800 wrote:I don't have the turning point in my records here, but I believe it was somewhere around 15v15 where the attacker become the statistical favorite to win (in a matchup of even armies).

You guys can crunch the numbers yourself if you don't believe me, but it's a lot of crunching.

Attacker has 50%+ chance of winning once it gets to 5v5 (that's 6 armies on one province vs 5 armies on the other), and that's if you attack down to the last man.

Here's a few 50/50 scenarios for those interested:
(Attack vs Defence)
11 v 12
17 v 19
22 v 25
34 v 39
and the highest I've calculated:
214 v 250

15v15 has attacker winning ~61% of the time.

by **FabledIntegral** on Thu Aug 07, 2008 3:25 am

e_i_pi wrote:
python800 wrote:I don't have the turning point in my records here, but I believe it was somewhere around 15v15 where the attacker become the statistical favorite to win (in a matchup of even armies).

You guys can crunch the numbers yourself if you don't believe me, but it's a lot of crunching.

Attacker has 50%+ chance of winning once it gets to 5v5 (that's 6 armies on one province vs 5 armies on the other), and that's if you attack down to the last man.

Here's a few 50/50 scenarios for those interested:
(Attack vs Defence)
11 v 12
17 v 19
22 v 25
34 v 39
and the highest I've calculated:
214 v 250

15v15 has attacker winning ~61% of the time.

Arg don't include the damn dice that is unusable and has to stay on the territory! It just confuses people. If you have 11 v 12 that should mean 11 armies on one territory total vs 12 armies on another territory total, not 11 attacking armies. Simply because it confuses the hell out of everyone..!

by **Poisonous86** on Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:22 am

FabledIntegral

you give a very convincing argument bout ESC games being a game of strategy while flat and no cards are devoid or at least of it
your points are partly valid

however, that's from your point of view
i'd like to affirm/disprove some of your points

first i'd like to give a small background on me so you know where im coming from
i have a not-so-good connection
i like playing big maps w/ no card and fog options
i rarely play teamgames
i've given up playing escalating games long ago because for me, it's more about luck than strategy
i personally love long drawn-out battles on big maps to really show who has the mettle in both strategy and diplomacy.

options for lots of players and:
1) seq, whoever gets the cards at the right time most usually wins
2) freestyle, also the cards that give huge advantage (when you can get 2 consecutive sets), plus timing
3) freestyle speed, see below
for low # of players, it's not bad

if i were like you that makes a killing using the escalating freestyle speed game as you, scott-land and a few others do, i would encourage ppl to do escalating games. My apologies to Scott-Land for making him an example as i have not played FabledIntegral on the said game format.
unfortunately, it's more about speed and less bout strategy. There is a certain strategy involved and you have explained it quite well. basically, that's it. then there's the speed part. i've played a few games w/ scott-land and others. and they basically make their move on the last 5 seconds of the game or less. Or race to get a kill. Us mere mortals on slow connections cant actually compete regardless of our good strategy and positioning

for non-speed escalating types, after the strategy you mentioned, it's just about the luck of the cards and rolls afterwards. and also your online time if it's freestyle

most of your arguments are applicable but too generalized that it does not apply to all maps/gametypes or too narrow but gives the impression of a general conclusion

FabledIntegral wrote:4. Flat Rate is the least strategy type in the entire game. In a 1v1 (on smaller maps), whoever gets the first mixed set will almost always win, assuming the other person does not also get one. It makes it *so* dependent on luck and so devoid of strategy I have stopped playing flat rate games in one player.

you basically tried to shoot down the FlatRate game option w/ this statement
true for the most parton 1v1s. Larger maps have a slightly lesser chance of this.
you also did not argue for game types other than the 1v1 scenario. more players make flatrate games more challenging strategically.

FabledIntegral wrote:1. No card games are more dependent on dice + drop than escalating game, which is significantly more dependent on strategy. Sure you can get screwed by having two countries in Oceania, and 3 in Africa, but you can still reposition yourself (will go over it in the next point).

again this is generalization
no card games and escalating have completely different strategies. mostly opposite strategies actually.
true that good drops are better for no cards but as for the dice, always depends on the map and number of players on the map. most ppl rely on strategy rather than lucky drops

FabledIntegral wrote:6. Going on after point #1, no card games, if played by higher ranks, will generally end in stalemates, because they are smart and don't make retarded moves. However at low ranks, players are so stupid and don't see the bigger picture they just attack who's next to them. I typically get caught in this crossfire. And considering if I play 8 player games with low ranks (who often suicide higher ranks because they fear strategy, not kidding, I've had it happen, people in chat say "sorry I just get nervous around high ranks so I try to target them first"), if I win 3/8 of my 8 player freestyle games I'll probably just break even points wise (I lose about 60 points vs a cook, gain 5), and that's still beating the odds (as you should obviously win 1/8 of your freestyle games statistically).

1st point: no card games and also flatrate games do end in stalemates if played by high ranked players. more than half the time
2nd point: i play 8 player games w/ varied ranked players. suiciding occurs very seldom but they do occur. does not mean that they will happen often as you are implying w/ the line "(who often suicide higher ranks because they fear strategy, not kidding, I've had it happen, people in chat say "sorry I just get nervous around high ranks so I try to target them first")"

FabledIntegral wrote:8. Fog of War games is simply a mode that adds luck to the game, and log analyzing, not something I'm fond of. You have to continually look at the log and compare it to the map to be able to predict where they will be, about how many armies they will have had to kill to get to that location, and their strength. Not worth my time.

Fog was introduced to encourage thinking, strategy, and realism to the game. you think military commanders (especially in WW2) have all the facts of the battlefield on their hands everytime? This part of your post just tells us that escalating games dont really need much thinking.

FabledIntegral wrote:I also never said sequential is primarily based on luck, I said it's MORE luck orientated than freestyle. Neither are luck based, once again, you lose on both fronts, congrats.

again this is a broad statement. sequential is more fully luck based on small maps like google earth but not luck based on maps like the regular sized ones. unless you're playing 1v1 of course

by **FabledIntegral** on Sat Aug 09, 2008 6:06 am

Poisonous86 wrote:FabledIntegral

you give a very convincing argument bout ESC games being a game of strategy while flat and no cards are devoid or at least of it
your points are partly valid

however, that's from your point of view
i'd like to affirm/disprove some of your points

first i'd like to give a small background on me so you know where im coming from
i have a not-so-good connection
i like playing big maps w/ no card and fog options
i rarely play teamgames
i've given up playing escalating games long ago because for me, it's more about luck than strategy
i personally love long drawn-out battles on big maps to really show who has the mettle in both strategy and diplomacy.
options for lots of players and:
1) seq, whoever gets the cards at the right time most usually wins
2) freestyle, also the cards that give huge advantage (when you can get 2 consecutive sets), plus timing
3) freestyle speed, see below
for low # of players, it's not bad

1) Then you must be able to read the map and prevent that player from getting the cards - whether it involves blocking or completely taking them out of an area (extreme). Being able to read every player's setups on one another shows an understanding of the game.
2) What are you talking about 2 consecutive sets... you mean if you make the kill on someone with a high number of cards? How is this different than sequential? I don't see a point here.
3) okie dokie

if i were like you that makes a killing using the escalating freestyle speed game as you, scott-land and a few others do, i would encourage ppl to do escalating games. My apologies to Scott-Land for making him an example as i have not played FabledIntegral on the said game format.
unfortunately, it's more about speed and less bout strategy. There is a certain strategy involved and you have explained it quite well. basically, that's it. then there's the speed part. i've played a few games w/ scott-land and others. and they basically make their move on the last 5 seconds of the game or less. Or race to get a kill. Us mere mortals on slow connections cant actually compete regardless of our good strategy and positioning

Hardly - this site has more escalating games played than flat rate/no cards combined. Only someone arrogant would claim that it is more about speed than strategy - if it was as you portray it, I would be significantly higher ranked than I am, as I can beat a majority of players in speed. In fact - I could dominate in terms of speed if that's what it was about. If you ever care to watch a game with lots of high ranks altogether - I bet you wouldn't understand half the moves that are made, and why they were made.

for non-speed escalating types, after the strategy you mentioned, it's just about the luck of the cards and rolls afterwards. and also your online time if it's freestyle

Luck of the cards? You mean... flat rate? No I'm talking about escalating - where the cash in rate is set in stone.

most of your arguments are applicable but too generalized that it does not apply to all maps/gametypes or too narrow but gives the impression of a general conclusion

Agreed - but generalizations need to be made when differentiating between different gamestyles.

Poisonous86 wrote:
FabledIntegral wrote:4. Flat Rate is the least strategy type in the entire game. In a 1v1 (on smaller maps), whoever gets the first mixed set will almost always win, assuming the other person does not also get one. It makes it *so* dependent on luck and so devoid of strategy I have stopped playing flat rate games in one player.

you basically tried to shoot down the FlatRate game option w/ this statement
true for the most parton 1v1s. Larger maps have a slightly lesser chance of this.
you also did not argue for game types other than the 1v1 scenario. more players make flatrate games more challenging strategically.

It does not matter in larger maps if it's 1v1. You take a bonus early on in a World 2.1 game (the standard map I shall be using for all thus forth examples on "large maps" due to an early rainbow set), you have a massive advantage. No arguing to it.

Poisonous86 wrote:
FabledIntegral wrote:1. No card games are more dependent on dice + drop than escalating game, which is significantly more dependent on strategy. Sure you can get screwed by having two countries in Oceania, and 3 in Africa, but you can still reposition yourself (will go over it in the next point).

again this is generalization
no card games and escalating have completely different strategies. mostly opposite strategies actually.
true that good drops are better for no cards but as for the dice, always depends on the map and number of players on the map. most ppl rely on strategy rather than lucky drops

As do I. Do you think I haven't played no card games and flat rate? I've made my way to a major no problem on large maps such as World 2.1. I grew sick of the luck factor in these games. It usually depends on dice early on if you make it to the final 4 if you're in an 8-player game. Then it becomes a build game until someone is stupid enough to make an attack on another player, and you gotta pray it wasn't you.

Poisonous86 wrote:
FabledIntegral wrote:6. Going on after point #1, no card games, if played by higher ranks, will generally end in stalemates, because they are smart and don't make retarded moves. However at low ranks, players are so stupid and don't see the bigger picture they just attack who's next to them. I typically get caught in this crossfire. And considering if I play 8 player games with low ranks (who often suicide higher ranks because they fear strategy, not kidding, I've had it happen, people in chat say "sorry I just get nervous around high ranks so I try to target them first"), if I win 3/8 of my 8 player freestyle games I'll probably just break even points wise (I lose about 60 points vs a cook, gain 5), and that's still beating the odds (as you should obviously win 1/8 of your freestyle games statistically).

1st point: no card games and also flatrate games do end in stalemates if played by high ranked players. more than half the time
2nd point: i play 8 player games w/ varied ranked players. suiciding occurs very seldom but they do occur. does not mean that they will happen often as you are implying w/ the line "(who often suicide higher ranks because they fear strategy, not kidding, I've had it happen, people in chat say "sorry I just get nervous around high ranks so I try to target them first")"

Your 1st point - it's agreeing with me... so whatever. You said they DO end in stalemates - that's why I avoid them. They are dumb and it all boils down to who breaks first, or the games will just continue. No strategy, just drop + deploy + end.

Your 2nd point - we probably have different definitions of a suicide. I consider a suicide someone trying to take Australia when I have 15 armies in there or so and it's midgame. In my eyes, it's a suicide. And that happens ALL THE TIME.

Poisonous86 wrote:
FabledIntegral wrote:8. Fog of War games is simply a mode that adds luck to the game, and log analyzing, not something I'm fond of. You have to continually look at the log and compare it to the map to be able to predict where they will be, about how many armies they will have had to kill to get to that location, and their strength. Not worth my time.

Fog was introduced to encourage thinking, strategy, and realism to the game. you think military commanders (especially in WW2) have all the facts of the battlefield on their hands everytime? This part of your post just tells us that escalating games dont really need much thinking.

This is not realistic - Generals didn't rely on attackers advantage when planning an attack... so for the love of God keep it pertinent. Fog adds the luck element if there's more than 2 players, simply because you can't know what hte other players are doing, nor know how their dice rolled. Thus you have to guess, whether an educated guess or not is irrelevant, on what the other person is doing. Thus it adds significantly more luck to the game - you can attack and think someone is in a territory only to find out that you unnecessarily weakened that player and another player and handed hte game to someone else, because you thought the situation was different. And don't use the excuse "take that into consideration and account for all possibilities." It's a joke, end of story.
[/quote]

Poisonous86 wrote:
FabledIntegral wrote:I also never said sequential is primarily based on luck, I said it's MORE luck orientated than freestyle. Neither are luck based, once again, you lose on both fronts, congrats.

again this is a broad statement. sequential is more fully luck based on small maps like google earth but not luck based on maps like the regular sized ones. unless you're playing 1v1 of course

It's a very personal statement, as MANY will disagree with me on whether it is or not. I've argued about it a lot - I'm not going to keep going. I play both sequential and freestyle.

Oh and concerning suicides - I've been suicided in almost half hte last games I've been in. I've gone down from 3810 to less than 3000 in a week and a half due to nothing more than idiots throwing games - I have decided to stop joining public games with low ranks. It's private games here on out from me.

by **Paddy The Cat** on Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:53 pm

Fabled is right on the money

when it comes to escalating there are a few types of players

1-the type who have the worst strat and think getting continents is best

2-the type who have a middle strat and know getting continents isn't the best way to win, but don't read the game well enough to block

3-the best strategists, who will spend 30, even 45 minutes thinking about a turn and maybe getting the best kill.. then properly placing armies to block player x from killing player y or z, and then making sure player y will be in no position to kill player z or or a or b, while not blocking player x to the point your hanging him, etc.

i only speak of seq of course, freestyle is another beast, and i used to be good at them, but there are better in these times than I

people who think escalating is all luck truly dont understand the proper way to go about playing them

by **Paddy The Cat** on Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:55 pm

***also, i can say as a retired speed freestylist, it is a very strategical game type...

by **Commander Eric** on Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:33 am

Poisonous86 wrote:FabledIntegral

you give a very convincing argument bout ESC games being a game of strategy while flat and no cards are devoid or at least of it
your points are partly valid

however, that's from your point of view
i'd like to affirm/disprove some of your points

first i'd like to give a small background on me so you know where im coming from
i have a not-so-good connection
i like playing big maps w/ no card and fog options
i rarely play teamgames
i've given up playing escalating games long ago because for me, it's more about luck than strategy
i personally love long drawn-out battles on big maps to really show who has the mettle in both strategy and diplomacy.
options for lots of players and:
1) seq, whoever gets the cards at the right time most usually wins
2) freestyle, also the cards that give huge advantage (when you can get 2 consecutive sets), plus timing
3) freestyle speed, see below
for low # of players, it's not bad

if i were like you that makes a killing using the escalating freestyle speed game as you, scott-land and a few others do, i would encourage ppl to do escalating games. My apologies to Scott-Land for making him an example as i have not played FabledIntegral on the said game format.
unfortunately, it's more about speed and less bout strategy. There is a certain strategy involved and you have explained it quite well. basically, that's it. then there's the speed part. i've played a few games w/ scott-land and others. and they basically make their move on the last 5 seconds of the game or less. Or race to get a kill. Us mere mortals on slow connections cant actually compete regardless of our good strategy and positioning

for non-speed escalating types, after the strategy you mentioned, it's just about the luck of the cards and rolls afterwards. and also your online time if it's freestyle

most of your arguments are applicable but too generalized that it does not apply to all maps/gametypes or too narrow but gives the impression of a general conclusion

FabledIntegral wrote:4. Flat Rate is the least strategy type in the entire game. In a 1v1 (on smaller maps), whoever gets the first mixed set will almost always win, assuming the other person does not also get one. It makes it *so* dependent on luck and so devoid of strategy I have stopped playing flat rate games in one player.

you basically tried to shoot down the FlatRate game option w/ this statement
true for the most parton 1v1s. Larger maps have a slightly lesser chance of this.
you also did not argue for game types other than the 1v1 scenario. more players make flatrate games more challenging strategically.

FabledIntegral wrote:1. No card games are more dependent on dice + drop than escalating game, which is significantly more dependent on strategy. Sure you can get screwed by having two countries in Oceania, and 3 in Africa, but you can still reposition yourself (will go over it in the next point).

again this is generalization
no card games and escalating have completely different strategies. mostly opposite strategies actually.
true that good drops are better for no cards but as for the dice, always depends on the map and number of players on the map. most ppl rely on strategy rather than lucky drops

FabledIntegral wrote:6. Going on after point #1, no card games, if played by higher ranks, will generally end in stalemates, because they are smart and don't make retarded moves. However at low ranks, players are so stupid and don't see the bigger picture they just attack who's next to them. I typically get caught in this crossfire. And considering if I play 8 player games with low ranks (who often suicide higher ranks because they fear strategy, not kidding, I've had it happen, people in chat say "sorry I just get nervous around high ranks so I try to target them first"), if I win 3/8 of my 8 player freestyle games I'll probably just break even points wise (I lose about 60 points vs a cook, gain 5), and that's still beating the odds (as you should obviously win 1/8 of your freestyle games statistically).

1st point: no card games and also flatrate games do end in stalemates if played by high ranked players. more than half the time
2nd point: i play 8 player games w/ varied ranked players. suiciding occurs very seldom but they do occur. does not mean that they will happen often as you are implying w/ the line "(who often suicide higher ranks because they fear strategy, not kidding, I've had it happen, people in chat say "sorry I just get nervous around high ranks so I try to target them first")"

FabledIntegral wrote:8. Fog of War games is simply a mode that adds luck to the game, and log analyzing, not something I'm fond of. You have to continually look at the log and compare it to the map to be able to predict where they will be, about how many armies they will have had to kill to get to that location, and their strength. Not worth my time.

Fog was introduced to encourage thinking, strategy, and realism to the game. you think military commanders (especially in WW2) have all the facts of the battlefield on their hands everytime? This part of your post just tells us that escalating games dont really need much thinking.

FabledIntegral wrote:I also never said sequential is primarily based on luck, I said it's MORE luck orientated than freestyle. Neither are luck based, once again, you lose on both fronts, congrats.

again this is a broad statement. sequential is more fully luck based on small maps like google earth but not luck based on maps like the regular sized ones. unless you're playing 1v1 of course

I see, but nobody that I have seen yet except for Fabled herself can not get over the high that bathing in another person's blood or eating an newbees heart out, gives them that is why they keep on playing the Risk games as they are here. [-X

by **FabledIntegral** on Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:54 am

Commander Eric wrote:
Poisonous86 wrote:FabledIntegral

you give a very convincing argument bout ESC games being a game of strategy while flat and no cards are devoid or at least of it
your points are partly valid

however, that's from your point of view
i'd like to affirm/disprove some of your points

first i'd like to give a small background on me so you know where im coming from
i have a not-so-good connection
i like playing big maps w/ no card and fog options
i rarely play teamgames
i've given up playing escalating games long ago because for me, it's more about luck than strategy
i personally love long drawn-out battles on big maps to really show who has the mettle in both strategy and diplomacy.
options for lots of players and:
1) seq, whoever gets the cards at the right time most usually wins
2) freestyle, also the cards that give huge advantage (when you can get 2 consecutive sets), plus timing
3) freestyle speed, see below
for low # of players, it's not bad

if i were like you that makes a killing using the escalating freestyle speed game as you, scott-land and a few others do, i would encourage ppl to do escalating games. My apologies to Scott-Land for making him an example as i have not played FabledIntegral on the said game format.
unfortunately, it's more about speed and less bout strategy. There is a certain strategy involved and you have explained it quite well. basically, that's it. then there's the speed part. i've played a few games w/ scott-land and others. and they basically make their move on the last 5 seconds of the game or less. Or race to get a kill. Us mere mortals on slow connections cant actually compete regardless of our good strategy and positioning

for non-speed escalating types, after the strategy you mentioned, it's just about the luck of the cards and rolls afterwards. and also your online time if it's freestyle

most of your arguments are applicable but too generalized that it does not apply to all maps/gametypes or too narrow but gives the impression of a general conclusion

FabledIntegral wrote:4. Flat Rate is the least strategy type in the entire game. In a 1v1 (on smaller maps), whoever gets the first mixed set will almost always win, assuming the other person does not also get one. It makes it *so* dependent on luck and so devoid of strategy I have stopped playing flat rate games in one player.

you basically tried to shoot down the FlatRate game option w/ this statement
true for the most parton 1v1s. Larger maps have a slightly lesser chance of this.
you also did not argue for game types other than the 1v1 scenario. more players make flatrate games more challenging strategically.

FabledIntegral wrote:1. No card games are more dependent on dice + drop than escalating game, which is significantly more dependent on strategy. Sure you can get screwed by having two countries in Oceania, and 3 in Africa, but you can still reposition yourself (will go over it in the next point).

again this is generalization
no card games and escalating have completely different strategies. mostly opposite strategies actually.
true that good drops are better for no cards but as for the dice, always depends on the map and number of players on the map. most ppl rely on strategy rather than lucky drops

FabledIntegral wrote:6. Going on after point #1, no card games, if played by higher ranks, will generally end in stalemates, because they are smart and don't make retarded moves. However at low ranks, players are so stupid and don't see the bigger picture they just attack who's next to them. I typically get caught in this crossfire. And considering if I play 8 player games with low ranks (who often suicide higher ranks because they fear strategy, not kidding, I've had it happen, people in chat say "sorry I just get nervous around high ranks so I try to target them first"), if I win 3/8 of my 8 player freestyle games I'll probably just break even points wise (I lose about 60 points vs a cook, gain 5), and that's still beating the odds (as you should obviously win 1/8 of your freestyle games statistically).

1st point: no card games and also flatrate games do end in stalemates if played by high ranked players. more than half the time
2nd point: i play 8 player games w/ varied ranked players. suiciding occurs very seldom but they do occur. does not mean that they will happen often as you are implying w/ the line "(who often suicide higher ranks because they fear strategy, not kidding, I've had it happen, people in chat say "sorry I just get nervous around high ranks so I try to target them first")"

FabledIntegral wrote:8. Fog of War games is simply a mode that adds luck to the game, and log analyzing, not something I'm fond of. You have to continually look at the log and compare it to the map to be able to predict where they will be, about how many armies they will have had to kill to get to that location, and their strength. Not worth my time.

Fog was introduced to encourage thinking, strategy, and realism to the game. you think military commanders (especially in WW2) have all the facts of the battlefield on their hands everytime? This part of your post just tells us that escalating games dont really need much thinking.

FabledIntegral wrote:I also never said sequential is primarily based on luck, I said it's MORE luck orientated than freestyle. Neither are luck based, once again, you lose on both fronts, congrats.

again this is a broad statement. sequential is more fully luck based on small maps like google earth but not luck based on maps like the regular sized ones. unless you're playing 1v1 of course

I see, but nobody that I have seen yet except for Fabled herself can not get over the high that bathing in another person's blood or eating an newbees heart out, gives them that is why they keep on playing the Risk games as they are here.

I think you might want to work on getting more games under your belt, as well as fixing your grammar before you attempt to flame. No credibility on your part, you're just another fucking dismissable question mark that thinks they are the shit.

by **OliverFA** on Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:48 pm

FabledIntegral wrote:
IronE.GLE wrote:I would suggest staying away from Freestyle games and opt for Speed games now that you are a paid member. Freestyle is nothing more than a way to get cheap wins, but they will all tell you it requires better strategy yadda yadda ya. Stalemates only happen when people are too cowardly to take a chance, simply don't understand the game or both.

Hardly - way to prove your ignorance. Stalemates happen when it's not beneficial for anyone to advance any further. For example, if your only move on the board could be to not attack, or have a 5% chance at winning which thus gives the other player 95% chance at winning, what are you going to do? To even state that you should attempt the 5% chance means that you're playing into your opponent's hands. Which shows very mediocre gameplay by some people who advocate risk taking, most notably the poster I just quoted.

I know that your rank suggest that you are much more skilled than me playing the game. However, I cannot resist to, with all respect, comment on what you say.

Being patient and waiting for the right moment to attack, is also strategy in my opinion. Think about Cold War. What was that if not a big, long building up that lasted for some decades? It is possible that a game can enter a phase in which two or more players have to build up until they find the right chance to take on each other. For some players it won't be rewarding because it will take a lot of time until you can win (or lose) and get (or lose) your points. But if yo enjoy the game itself, this phase should also be funny

FabledIntegral wrote:Concerning freestyle, as said, it gives everyone an equal opportunity to make their moves. It's also insanely quicker than sequential games, (both casual or speed). Sequential is merely a game type that you need to have multiple games open at the same time to keep yourself entertained. Freestyle you can actually sit down and focus on one game. Sequential is significantly more luck based.

When I joined CC not so long ago, I played some freestyle games. I was atracted by the faster pace, but soon I discovered that freestyle was incompatible with having a life. Some players seem to be able to be next to the computer 24 hours a day, so when I came to the game (after working, sleeping, being out with girlfriend, or just being busy with real life) they always had made the right move in the right moment, obliterating me. I have enough learning how to master the game, so I don't want to in addition have to be next to the computer 24 hours a day. For that reason I only play sequential now.

by **OliverFA** on Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:57 pm

Zigtar wrote:The path I have chosen to become a better player is the following:

1. Play a small quantity of maps with all conditions the same except fortifications.

I hope this will teach me to grasp the varying strategy concepts in regards to fortification.

2. Play one map with the same fortification terms and change the cards conditions.

I think I will have to do this with each of the fortifying types as well.

3. Try a few combinations of the previous with varying amounts of players.

4. Not sure yet I will have to reassess my results and experience at that time.

Suggestions are welcome.

PS When I said I considered my self an excellent strategist I was not referring to Risk style games specifically. I was referring to many types of strategy games.

My experience is in many types of gaming as well as many different games.

I am trying something similar right now. I am playing all three world maps (Classic, Doodle and 2.1) with unlimited fortifications, no fog and different cards options. Once I have mastered the subtile differences between all cards options maybe I will experience with other settings.

Oh, and I also play some Feudal Maps and AoR maps just because they seem interesting. Always with no cards.

by **FabledIntegral** on Mon Aug 25, 2008 2:07 am

OliverFA wrote:
FabledIntegral wrote:
IronE.GLE wrote:I would suggest staying away from Freestyle games and opt for Speed games now that you are a paid member. Freestyle is nothing more than a way to get cheap wins, but they will all tell you it requires better strategy yadda yadda ya. Stalemates only happen when people are too cowardly to take a chance, simply don't understand the game or both.

Hardly - way to prove your ignorance. Stalemates happen when it's not beneficial for anyone to advance any further. For example, if your only move on the board could be to not attack, or have a 5% chance at winning which thus gives the other player 95% chance at winning, what are you going to do? To even state that you should attempt the 5% chance means that you're playing into your opponent's hands. Which shows very mediocre gameplay by some people who advocate risk taking, most notably the poster I just quoted.

I know that your rank suggest that you are much more skilled than me playing the game. However, I cannot resist to, with all respect, comment on what you say.

Being patient and waiting for the right moment to attack, is also strategy in my opinion. Think about Cold War. What was that if not a big, long building up that lasted for some decades? It is possible that a game can enter a phase in which two or more players have to build up until they find the right chance to take on each other. For some players it won't be rewarding because it will take a lot of time until you can win (or lose) and get (or lose) your points. But if yo enjoy the game itself, this phase should also be funny

FabledIntegral wrote:Concerning freestyle, as said, it gives everyone an equal opportunity to make their moves. It's also insanely quicker than sequential games, (both casual or speed). Sequential is merely a game type that you need to have multiple games open at the same time to keep yourself entertained. Freestyle you can actually sit down and focus on one game. Sequential is significantly more luck based.

When I joined CC not so long ago, I played some freestyle games. I was atracted by the faster pace, but soon I discovered that freestyle was incompatible with having a life. Some players seem to be able to be next to the computer 24 hours a day, so when I came to the game (after working, sleeping, being out with girlfriend, or just being busy with real life) they always had made the right move in the right moment, obliterating me. I have enough learning how to master the game, so I don't want to in addition have to be next to the computer 24 hours a day. For that reason I only play sequential now.

You're incorrect about the first part - unless you're hoping on waiting for someone to make a critical mistake and pounce - which will NEVER happen. The strategy at that point of hte game is too simplistic - if you're a private and are able to realize that's the best strategy (to wait and build up), I believe it's safe to assume nearly all players will have that same mentality. Thus nothing happens - no one will attack... ever.

by **OliverFA** on Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:43 am

FabledIntegral wrote:You're incorrect about the first part - unless you're hoping on waiting for someone to make a critical mistake and pounce - which will NEVER happen. The strategy at that point of hte game is too simplistic - if you're a private and are able to realize that's the best strategy (to wait and build up), I believe it's safe to assume nearly all players will have that same mentality. Thus nothing happens - no one will attack... ever.

It depends on the situation. Maybe that front is stalled. But the board has more fronts and more players. So things might change there.

Also, is very unlikely that both players involved in the stalled front will have exactly the same reinforcements each turn. So in the long run one of them will acumulate more armies. This means that the player with less reinforcements has to think about something, or lose in the long run.

by **FabledIntegral** on Thu Aug 28, 2008 8:37 am

OliverFA wrote:
FabledIntegral wrote:You're incorrect about the first part - unless you're hoping on waiting for someone to make a critical mistake and pounce - which will NEVER happen. The strategy at that point of hte game is too simplistic - if you're a private and are able to realize that's the best strategy (to wait and build up), I believe it's safe to assume nearly all players will have that same mentality. Thus nothing happens - no one will attack... ever.

It depends on the situation. Maybe that front is stalled. But the board has more fronts and more players. So things might change there.

Also, is very unlikely that both players involved in the stalled front will have exactly the same reinforcements each turn. So in the long run one of them will acumulate more armies. This means that the player with less reinforcements has to think about something, or lose in the long run.

Incorrect - in escalating this will not happen because the difference in deployment is negated by the sets turned in. Numerous fronts don't matter - often more than not, no one will hold a continent, or maybe South America/Oceania are the two held, IF they are held. In the long run, they will all have around the same armies, as overtime after every three turns (on average) they will have turned in a set which keeps the army counts of all players relatively equal.

It is VERY likely that everyone will all have the same army counts if they are good players - I don't know what types of games you're in... but I've come to notice most players that are captains and below have this mentality of "attack with all my armies to take bonuses... it will pay off in the long run!" and thus have a very low army count early game. Yeah - that shit doesn't happen with people who know what they are doing...

We're still discussing escalating yes?

by **Ramned** on Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:57 am

All settings, all styles, all maps, all card types, all risk is based on some factor of LUCK. Video Risk, as I call this, lacks the strategy used in board risk, due to the add-ons, plug-ons, connection dependency, and various factors!

NO CARDS are the best in my opinion. Even if you get an amazing drop, you will find the other players will tag up to weaken you some! In 1 v 1, a good drop however would win the game. But in 1 v 1 escalating, and flat, a good drop wins the game as well.

If you guys want a game that measures your skill, learn chess. It is definitly on of the most complex games in the world. It has no degree of luck relative to risk.

by **spline** on Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:15 am

Very interesting way to put the question. Indeed the wait-until-attack strategy seem to be dominant in esclating game as indicated by many in this thread. Online Risk games like CC have helped to evolve the game strategy of far more rapidly. While here most are familiar with this kind of strategy to win a game, a lot of traditional board game players still carry on with traditional continent based growth. As always what matters is how many times you win the game over time. Risk players seem to be evolving and those who survive are passing their ideas to the next generation of player and this has escalated to this new level. It's a sign of maturation ....

by **para** on Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:51 pm

FabledIntegral wrote:
OliverFA wrote:
FabledIntegral wrote:You're incorrect about the first part - unless you're hoping on waiting for someone to make a critical mistake and pounce - which will NEVER happen. The strategy at that point of hte game is too simplistic - if you're a private and are able to realize that's the best strategy (to wait and build up), I believe it's safe to assume nearly all players will have that same mentality. Thus nothing happens - no one will attack... ever.

It depends on the situation. Maybe that front is stalled. But the board has more fronts and more players. So things might change there.

Also, is very unlikely that both players involved in the stalled front will have exactly the same reinforcements each turn. So in the long run one of them will acumulate more armies. This means that the player with less reinforcements has to think about something, or lose in the long run.

Incorrect - in escalating this will not happen because the difference in deployment is negated by the sets turned in. Numerous fronts don't matter - often more than not, no one will hold a continent, or maybe South America/Oceania are the two held, IF they are held. In the long run, they will all have around the same armies, as overtime after every three turns (on average) they will have turned in a set which keeps the army counts of all players relatively equal.

It is VERY likely that everyone will all have the same army counts if they are good players - I don't know what types of games you're in... but I've come to notice most players that are captains and below have this mentality of "attack with all my armies to take bonuses... it will pay off in the long run!" and thus have a very low army count early game. Yeah - that shit doesn't happen with people who know what they are doing...

We're still discussing escalating yes?

he's clearly talking about no cards.

none of what he was saying would make any sense otherwise.

by **FabledIntegral** on Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:26 pm

para wrote:
FabledIntegral wrote:
OliverFA wrote:
FabledIntegral wrote:You're incorrect about the first part - unless you're hoping on waiting for someone to make a critical mistake and pounce - which will NEVER happen. The strategy at that point of hte game is too simplistic - if you're a private and are able to realize that's the best strategy (to wait and build up), I believe it's safe to assume nearly all players will have that same mentality. Thus nothing happens - no one will attack... ever.

It depends on the situation. Maybe that front is stalled. But the board has more fronts and more players. So things might change there.

Also, is very unlikely that both players involved in the stalled front will have exactly the same reinforcements each turn. So in the long run one of them will acumulate more armies. This means that the player with less reinforcements has to think about something, or lose in the long run.

Incorrect - in escalating this will not happen because the difference in deployment is negated by the sets turned in. Numerous fronts don't matter - often more than not, no one will hold a continent, or maybe South America/Oceania are the two held, IF they are held. In the long run, they will all have around the same armies, as overtime after every three turns (on average) they will have turned in a set which keeps the army counts of all players relatively equal.

It is VERY likely that everyone will all have the same army counts if they are good players - I don't know what types of games you're in... but I've come to notice most players that are captains and below have this mentality of "attack with all my armies to take bonuses... it will pay off in the long run!" and thus have a very low army count early game. Yeah - that shit doesn't happen with people who know what they are doing...

We're still discussing escalating yes?

he's clearly talking about no cards.

none of what he was saying would make any sense otherwise.

Maybe you're too dumb to understand it - but yes we were referring to escalating stalemates. The topic was already escalating stalemates and he came in talking about how you need to be patient. I pointed out being patient just intensifies the stalemate. So enlighten me, how would it not make any sense otherwise great cook?

*New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Re: *New Player Q? Does real strategty exist in CC?

Who is online