Discussion Topic: Trench Warfare, A New Way of Thinking.

[AndyDufresne]

Some good answers to consider. I'm still trying to tease out what main differences there are for Escalating Trench vs Flat / No Spoils Trench as well.


--Andy

[Viceroy63]

Some good answers to consider. I'm still trying to tease out what main differences there are for Escalating Trench vs Flat / No Spoils Trench as well.


--Andy

Well in escalating spoils trench, Strategy wise, you can suddenly throw an army together into an area where you previously had no army. In other words The battle lines can be quickly and suddenly reconfigured and you could effectively lose one area but gain much more in another area as you shift your forces towards the new area.

You can not do that with no spoils.

Also with no spoils the Bonus zones become the main source of income so you fight for the bonus zone as they then become what eventually determines the winners of the games. So you tend to keep your armies around the bonus zones. So armies are not as independent in no spoils as they are with escalating spoils.

No spoils means that you are fighting for a bonus zone right from the start. That is the strategy there in no spoils, where as in escalating spoils the singular standing army is what needs to be built and maintain right from the start because the spoils quickly become greater than the bonuses.

At least that is how I see it anyway.

Now that I think back; I think that I wrote my article automatically assuming the escalating spoils and never really defined the setting. That probably will cause some confusion with people thinking that the strategy that is discussed in the article could work in any setting. And while I don't exactly remember, I am sure that I did mention the part about the escalating spoils quickly being worth more than the bonuses.

[AndyDufresne]

I've got a few more Trench games going now...so we'll see how things go!


--Andy

[Viceroy63]

I've got a few more Trench games going now...so we'll see how things go!


--Andy

Good Luck to you Andy and if there are any questions about the article or anything that you don't understand, then read it again.

And then ask me about it.

[Pirlo]

I enjoy the team games on standard maps for trench warfare (No Spoils too). I didn't read everything here, but I can share some tactics I have developed so far from my limited experience after some games.

1. Do not go for the elimination option because it's hard to chase an enemy all over the map with such attack restrictions. Instead, work on holding a bonus even in quads games. Given that the typical tactic in quads is to target a certain enemy, this trench warfare is something different and allows you to consider bonuses even in quads.

2. It is possible to go for a big bonus if you managed to clear your enemies off the borders of that bonus. You don't have to limit your strategy to grabbing a little and defensible bonus. Big ones are possible now.

3. When you hold a bonus, again, don't just start thinking about an elimination; you should rather work on extending your bonuses and systematically clear the map instead of chasing a specific player in random spots.

4. A key tactic on this trench warfare and a very important one: When your opponent(s) hold a bonus and you have no adjacent spot thereto for the break, this would mean the bonus is unbreakable, and every time you try to approach, your opponent will just push you back to keep you off his borders with his/her advantage of the bonus that allows him/her to deploy more troops than you do. The best move you can make is to quit bothering about breaking an unbreakable bonus and start working on holding your own one. Your opponent deploys more than you, but you can still hold a bonus because his attacks are restricted too, and stacks are useless.

- PENIS!

[Viceroy63]

Thanks for starting this discussion, Viceroy.

Personally, I'm not ready to offer an opinion on trench strategy yet. I've only played a few games of it so far, and I'm only beginning to evolve an opinion.

Let's hope some of the more brilliant minds on CC step forward here and give us an analysis!

Well so far OliverFA and Ace Rimmer have visited this thread and if neither of them have anything derogatory to say about the ideas that are discussed in this article then it is safe to assume that there is some basis to my understanding of TW games. I really don't know it all and I am just learning all of this like everyone else so please don't anyone hate me because I am so beautiful.

The fact is that even as I read my first thread on TW games, I already envisioned the play in my mind. The advantages and disadvantages of Trench Warfare. When it was necessary to control the trench and when you could let the enemy control it. The advantages of attacking in order to defend and the absolute rule of using that strategy of armies to maintain the battle lines and expand them or retreat from there. And there is so much more to learn about this new setting. It really is an awesome idea. I hope to write more on this only in bite size articles that everyone can digest.

Some one told me of a game called, "Allies and Axis" (I think that is what it's called) and that it is a lot like TW or has similar attributes. But I never played that game. Maybe there is a website for that game and I can see for myself. But anyways. I really enjoy TW now. It takes away the surprise ending. I always hated logging on to find out that I have been eliminated from a game. Oh, and I love the fact that these games take so long. It is made for patient people like me.

[Viceroy63]

Thank You so very much Pirlo!!!

"...and stacks are useless."
-Pirlo

I went ahead and tried to tell that to a few people and practically got belted across the mouth and titled a "heretic traitor." Practically.

Thank You Pirlo for that confirmation of what I had also figured out. It is all in the article "Trench Warfare; A New Way of Thinking" in the first post also.

[pmchugh]

Has anyone played ass trench yet? It essentially degenerates into a running match in which all players have stacks that are one step behind their targets stacks who in turn are one step behind their own target. The way to win seems to be to corner your target.

I have only played a couple of these games though, does anyone have a strategy to avoid this circular stalemate?

[chapcrap]

Has anyone played ass trench yet? It essentially degenerates into a running match in which all players have stacks that are one step behind their targets stacks who in turn are one step behind their own target. The way to win seems to be to corner your target.

I have only played a couple of these games though, does anyone have a strategy to avoid this circular stalemate?

My strategy is round limits. I noted this in the OP of the original GD Trench thread: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 6&t=168689

[MGSteve]

I agree that freestyle does not work well with Trench. Found that out the hard way! Also a lot of the strategies depend on the maps like Safariguy said...

"As for your comments about stacking, I think that really comes down to the number of players and the map."

I think that what I really need to learn is the classic map first and what setting make for a good trench game there. The next time I will try those other settings, No spoils, Chained and definitely Sequential. Got to try that next.

One of the first games I played was a quads, freestyle game with unlimited forts. My 3 mates were all in the European time zone where 10:00 am was equal to 1:00 am my time. We very quickly decided to all meet at that time so that we could coordinate our efforts from deployment to final forting and won the game in only a few moves, under a dozen I believe.

Freestyle is a very powerful weapon for the team that can all meet at the same time so they can choreograph their moves, operate as 4 parts of a single player making a single turn. It does not require people to always be online, just all be online at the same time.

Most of my TW games have been team games and it's always a matter of the following: Deploying and forting to areas where you can do the most damage, ie a tert that has several enemy terts that it can reach or has several troops on one or more terts next to it. Clearing as much as possible from a tert and then forting to the next player up where possible or where the troops will do the most good. Once an area is clear of enemy troops, then all the friendly troops need to be forted out to the front lines or to the key terts that guard a cleaned area to keep the enemy out and maintain any bonuses.

Keep the pressure on the foes with constant attacks. Clear areas of foe troops asap then fort all the troops on where they can keep working for you. Clear, secure and advance to the next area. Simple, easy and lots of fun.

[AndyDufresne]

Hm, some good thoughts. After some of my current games wind down, I'll probably try some Team Trench games to get a sense of that setting.


--Andy

[Pirlo]

Hm, some good thoughts. After some of my current games wind down, I'll probably try some Team Trench games to get a sense of that setting.


--Andy

invite sent.. you are welcome!

[pmchugh]

Has anyone played ass trench yet? It essentially degenerates into a running match in which all players have stacks that are one step behind their targets stacks who in turn are one step behind their own target. The way to win seems to be to corner your target.

I have only played a couple of these games though, does anyone have a strategy to avoid this circular stalemate?

My strategy is round limits. I noted this in the OP of the original GD Trench thread: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 6&t=168689

Of course, I should have thought of that considering I use it in most of the trench games I have entered.

[Ace Rimmer]

I never said you were right. I tend to listen in on tactical discussions, learning what I can and not sharing what I know

[Viceroy63]

I never said you were right. I tend to listen in on tactical discussions, learning what I can and not sharing what I know

And I never said, that you said, that I was right, Ace.

What I said is that I must have a pretty good understanding of the strategy for escalating spoils trench otherwise you would have told me that I was full of shit right from the start.

One thing that people have to admire about you is you willingness to be completely honest with whom ever about what ever. At least that is what I get about you from reading other post that you have made.

Mind you that I am still learning so if you scrutinize my words, you are bound to find imperfections in my reasoning and logic but future articles will no doubt correct that as I gain an even better understanding of TW games and in other settings as well. In fact I am counting on learning from my flaws and others showing them to me plain and clear. =)

[Ace Rimmer]

Honestly... I mostly glazed over what you read. I'm a victim of tl;dr on the internet, mostly.

Fancy a game? I'm freemie now, so send me an invite.

[Dukasaur]

I have a couple criticisms of the article.

1) I think it relies too heavily on the idea of alliances. Many people simply find alliances distasteful and will never change their mind. Furthermore, there is no mechanism for enforcing alliances in CC, so anyone trying to use a strategy relying heavily on alliances will be forever a sitting duck for backstabbers. I think a strategy needs to address how to optimize one player's chances of victory, and if he finds alliances to make it easier along the way then so be it, but don't ask him to be dependent on them.

In this aspect I like the realpolitik in Pirlo's post. It depends on playing the game, not playing the players. It's not so much a matter of making a deal (I get Michigan, you get Missouri) but rather a realistic acceptance of the situation (okay, you have Sterea Ellada, and I'll never be able to break it, so I'm going to focus on Asia Minor.) This kind of acceptance might be formally agreed to, but among many players it will never be discussed but just silently understood.

This, I think, is the one thing that justifies the title of "A New Way of Thinking." Conventional doctrine on CC is that in everything except Escalating, it's always more important to break the enemy's bonus than to pursue your own. I think with Trench we now have a modified situation where this is not always true, but it is still dependent on the map, the settings, and the number of players.

I would say in No Spoils, and in games with Spoils where there is a good ratio of players to map size, it is now more important to pursue your own bonus than to break the enemy's. (What is a good ratio? I would say something between 2 to 1 and 3 to 1. So on the Classic map, with 6 available bonus zones, this "New Way of Thinking" rule probably holds true in 1v1 and debatably in 3-player, but it's still wrong in games with 4 or more players. On a map like 3rd Crusade, with 20-something bonuses to choose from, the new rule may hold true with a full roster of 7 or 8 players.)

2. You're too quick to pronounce "the stack is dead." I think you learned the hard way in Game 10943678 that the stack is not dead. By blindly pursuing your "New Way of Thinking" in an Escalating game with too few bonus zones to justify it, you basically handed the game to Leehar.

3. My third criticism is purely stylistic. It reads nicely, but it is just too long. This is the Internet Age; people have short attention spans. Have a look at:

Honestly... I mostly glazed over what you read. I'm a victim of tl;dr on the internet, mostly.

The tl;dr effect will negate the value of what you say with all but a few people unless you do some ruthless self-editting.

[Viceroy63]

I have a couple criticisms of the article.

1) I think it relies too heavily on the idea of alliances. Many people simply find alliances distasteful and will never change their mind. Furthermore, there is no mechanism for enforcing alliances in CC, so anyone trying to use a strategy relying heavily on alliances will be forever a sitting duck for backstabbers. I think a strategy needs to address how to optimize one player's chances of victory, and if he finds alliances to make it easier along the way then so be it, but don't ask him to be dependent on them.

I never asked anyone at anytime to be dependent on an alliance. But yes I was suggesting that it would be easier and beneficial to form an alliance and early in the game. I mentioned 5 good reasons in my article why forming an alliance is a benefit. Alliances are tools that do optimize a players chances for victory. As for backstabbing? They say that all is fair in love and war. "It's all gravy, Man."

2. You're too quick to pronounce "the stack is dead." I think you learned the hard way in Game 10943678 that the stack is not dead. By blindly pursuing your "New Way of Thinking" in an Escalating game with too few bonus zones to justify it, you basically handed the game to Leehar.

I think that you have your facts backwards Sir, concerning that game. Anyone who really scrutinizes the game logs will realize that it was not the stacks or lack of stacks that got me eliminated but rather wave after wave of attacks with Yellow and Blue trying to place a stack in NA. and me trying to maintain an area for my standing army. I was not about to allow a stack next to mine that would eliminate me when the spoils got any higher. It was all part of the game as that is the whole point to Trench Warfare.

Finally it was Leehar and his alliance that got me eliminated from the game. And it was not even Leehar but NeilLock who eliminated me in exactly the same way that I attack those three other colors and Leehar was there to clean up after them and collect all of those juicy spoils. Poetic Justice if I do say so myself. So what lesson did I learn the hard way?

The fact is that Yellow, Pink and Cyan were basically all eliminated because they trusted in the strategy of the stacks. A strategy that I still maintain, Just does not work in TW games. As the spoils grew, I like everyone else in the game, continued to strike the targets of other stacks before they struck me first. It's only logical. In fact it was the Strategy of the standing army that allowed me to survive for so long in the game when the stacks were being put to rest.

When it came time for blue everyone gave him a break for some reason. Since the beginning of the game I was asking for an alliance but no one wanted to make an alliance with me but the minute that Leehar decided to go after me there was suddenly an alliance everywhere against me. And that is the obvious truth about why I am no longer in that game if only you would care to see that with your mind and not your heart because I know that they are all your friends and I also consider them friends but I see things the way that they really are.

[My version]
Leehar: "Blue get out of the way so I can get to Vice without having to kill your troops." And of course Blue complies. What the hell is that all about???

2012-04-20 14:08:58 - Leehar: So would killing you prove you wrong?
2012-04-20 14:26:23 - Leehar: Anyway, move to Havana please Sully

[My version]
Green: "Leehar, Let me just get out of Africa, I promise that I wont attack you in SA."

2012-04-22 15:50:02 - Dukasaur: If you want to leave the Lagos-Dakar route open route for me, I won't hit SA
2012-04-23 09:22:01 - Leehar: it may be a trifle late, but it's all yours

As for me letting Leehar win the game or handing over to him the game??? Well that is just a crying out loud shame. It is just Scandalous to even think that when you read the game log. And not only that, I have the pictures to prove how I really lost that game when compare to the game logs, and it was not due to bad strategy I can tell you that right now. I guess that I also handed him the 1000 man, army troops that Leehar currently possess?



I don't really understand this game at all because even among friends this is just too sad letting some one win and then casting the blame on me.

3. My third criticism is purely stylistic. It reads nicely, but it is just too long. This is the Internet Age; people have short attention spans.

As to your third point; You are right. That is why from now on I will endeavor to keep my articles short and sweet. I realize that perhaps the reason why I don't have too many readership is because there is too many details in the deep. I would also add that this is the type of comment that should have been made in the strategy section of the Newsletter before post time. Don't you agree? But again, If Sully said nothing to me about it, then why should you or anyone else from the Newsletter for that matter? One person that did hint it was CMS5. So Thank you both for letting me know in your own way.

Let me take this opportunity to thank you both for being so honest about my articles being too long and just coming out and saying it.

Thank You!

[AndyDufresne]

I have a couple criticisms of the article.

1) I think it relies too heavily on the idea of alliances. Many people simply find alliances distasteful and will never change their mind. Furthermore, there is no mechanism for enforcing alliances in CC, so anyone trying to use a strategy relying heavily on alliances will be forever a sitting duck for backstabbers. I think a strategy needs to address how to optimize one player's chances of victory, and if he finds alliances to make it easier along the way then so be it, but don't ask him to be dependent on them.

I never asked anyone at anytime to be dependent on an alliance. But yes I was suggesting that it would be easier and beneficial to form an alliance and early in the game. I mentioned 5 good reasons in my article why forming an alliance is a benefit. Alliances are tools that do optimize a players chances for victory. As for backstabbing? They say that all is fair in love and war. "It's all gravy, Man."

Alliances and diplomacy are tools that some use and others don't. For the most part, I pretty much avoid them. I'll make mention of things in game chat, saying so and so is gaining bonus zones, so why don't you focus on assaulting them and not me, etc, but I rarely form solid diplomatic relations.

But I do think diplomatic relations are probably a little more powerful in Trench Games, because it might just be more difficult to fight back a gang-up when your assaults are limited as they are.

Dun dun dun!


--Andy

[Viceroy63]

Alliances and diplomacy are tools that some use and others don't. For the most part, I pretty much avoid them. I'll make mention of things in game chat, saying so and so is gaining bonus zones, so why don't you focus on assaulting them and not me, etc, but I rarely form solid diplomatic relations.

But I do think diplomatic relations are probably a little more powerful in Trench Games, because it might just be more difficult to fight back a gang-up when your assaults are limited as they are.

Dun dun dun!


--Andy

Thank You Andy!

And you know what else? All the backstabbing put a side for a minute, when you form an alliance, that is then essentially, one less player that you need to concern yourself with in the game. Just thought that I would mention that.

[notus]

I've played a couple of long games. The main difference is that you can abandon all the unreachable areas with 1 army. The defence by attack is a good strategy, but you could end up with ruinous battles since you could place more armies to defend a key area.

Once you have enough armies it is a good move to move forward with an unattackable force, because if you rear is attacked so to speak you can always regain it with your forward army so to speak.

[thehippo8]

A good article to write is "backstabbing for fun and profit".

[Viceroy63]

Well; I wouldn't know about that. I'm just here to enjoy myself as much as I can before the inevitable death of all life.

In other words we all have to die sooner or later; So why not just make the most of life while we can? Because in the end the way in which we live will be the way that we die, right or wrong!

[pmchugh]

I think games where diplomacy is key are interesting if you get a good set of players who enjoy that sort of thing, but to be honest it is dead amongst the long standing players of CC. If you go seeking alliances, you are more likely to be targeted yourself. If what you are saying is true then multiplayer trench will be almost impossible to gain points on and more fun to play with newer players.

[Viceroy63]

Yep; I am learning that the really, really hard way.

And it is not so much that it is nearly impossible to score points, just that the points come a slow in the making. This game is really more for the patient player who does not mind waiting for the right time to strike. The impatient player's will eliminated themselves.