Escalating etiquette

[iviv]

If I'm going first in a 6+ player game with escalating spoils, naturally I'm only going to get 4 extra from my set. Is it frowned upon to spent a turn not attacking to prevent yourself getting another card, just fortifying your position? I know other players can do this as well, though I imagine most wouldn't. But assuming I'm in a strong enough position that I wouldn't be destroyed by other players cashing theirs in, is it a valid tactic or looked down upon as a form of turtling? To me it seems just like a good strategic move, but I thought I'd check to see what the general opinion is!

[chapcrap]

You can definitely not attack. That's not frowned upon in any way.

[aad0906]

No, in fact people do this all the time. There is no obligation to attack.

[Fewnix]

BUT not aking a tert, not getting a spoils may be bad strategy
For one example assume everyone in a 6 player games takes a tert, a poils a turn and does not cash for a set unitl they have to.
Round 6 with the sets cashed goes - 4, 6, 8, 10,12, 15,
of course when they cash a set round 6 everybo ets a tert, a spoils, so enters round 7 with 3 spoils

So expect sets worth 20, 25, 30, 35 40 being cashed around rounds 7, 8 . 9 If you have sjipped taking a tert for a poils you may not make it to round 10. Certainly in a game with escalting spoils, anybody with 3, or 4 or 6 spoils, which you will be after round 4 even if you cash your first set, is a prime target for elimination.




sets bs

[Viceroy63]

I agree with Fewnix in that the best strategy may be, not to skip, even if you have a good position, you should still card even if it is just for 4 troops. My logic being that of the timing of an engine. I know it may seem illogical to compare the set of spoils trade in this way but if you consider that after 6 sets of spoils you are in line for the 7th. And this is what I believe that Fewnix is referring to here with his math calculations.

The 6th trade in occurs on round 7 normally. Because usually the first round is the set up round and no one should be carding until round two. Providing any exceptions of course. So by round 6 everyone has their sets and on round 7 the sets get traded in. Follow me so far. I believe that this is what Fewnix is stating in other words. OK.

So now you have round 7 and 8 for 2 more additional cards because in round 7, even as you are trading in for 4 troops being the first player to trade in you are also collecting another spoils card. So by round 9 begins the second sets of spoils and if you have been playing correctly so far then this is where the first player to trade in, the same player that traded in for 4 troops will also be the first player receiving 20 troops and under the ideal conditions, this just could be enough for an elimination of just one weak player and the game could be then, over.

Most of these games are in fact over by round 9 and I have even had round 7 victories in non SoC games. Check out this game for example. Just click on the game numbers.

Game 10902804

The point is that an engine is a precise piece of engineering and goes off when it goes off and when it skips then something is badly wrong with the timing. It may seem like a disadvantage to be the first one to trade in for only 4 troops but it also means that you will be the very first one to trade in for 20 troops and that could just mean the end of the game and the victory for you.

[Kaskavel]

And I would like to add that different maps may call for different strategy. Depending the number of the players, the size of the map, the possible bonuses and autodeploys as well as the possibe neutrals between the players, the game may not be decided by the 20-25 etc troops trade. You have to think a little in advance such things...

[ChadTomer]

As a follow up question, is it okay to intentionally miss a turn (when you have 5 cards) to avoid cashing in early?
I see it all the time (at least in freestyle) but I don't know if that tactic is frowned upon.

[chapcrap]

As a follow up question, is it okay to intentionally miss a turn (when you have 5 cards) to avoid cashing in early?
I see it all the time (at least in freestyle) but I don't know if that tactic is frowned upon.

Missing turns is pretty much always frowned upon. But, as long as you don't deadbeat, it's not against the rules.

[greenoaks]

As a follow up question, is it okay to intentionally miss a turn (when you have 5 cards) to avoid cashing in early?
I see it all the time (at least in freestyle) but I don't know if that tactic is frowned upon.

and if you think someone is missing a turn as a strategy, smash their bonuses

[Lindax]

As a follow up question, is it okay to intentionally miss a turn (when you have 5 cards) to avoid cashing in early?
I see it all the time (at least in freestyle) but I don't know if that tactic is frowned upon.

and if you think someone is missing a turn as a strategy, smash their bonuses

They most likely won't have a bonus.

I personally think it's a bad strategy to not take a card or miss a turn to avoid cashing. So what if you cash first and get 4, you'll be the first to cash again when the turn-in is 20 or more, which gives you a chance to attack and sweep the map.

On the other hand, sometimes you have a game where you can't get a card (easily) the first few turns. Again, so what? Doesn't get really important until round 8, 9 or 10, when the turn-in is high enough to actually do something with your troops.

Note: Talking about 6 to 8 player games on standard maps here.

You can definitely not attack. That's not frowned upon in any way.

Just goes to show how much you know. It's often frowned upon amongst good players who play these games a lot.

Lx

[Woodruff]

As a follow up question, is it okay to intentionally miss a turn (when you have 5 cards) to avoid cashing in early?
I see it all the time (at least in freestyle) but I don't know if that tactic is frowned upon.

Rather than doing this, perhaps it might be more effective to take your turn but not take that fifth card. It takes a bit more foresight and certainly carries it's own share of risk...but probably not any more than not taking a turn with five cards already.

[nolefan5311]

You can definitely not attack. That's not frowned upon in any way.

Just goes to show how much you know. It's often frowned upon amongst good players who play these games a lot.

Lx

Games played (and won) by chap > Games played (and won) by Lindax. IJS.

[macbone]

There's never any obligation to take a card. I've never been in a game where someone said, "Hey! You didn't card that time!" You get a card if you take a tert, but there's no unwritten rule that says you have to attack.

But I usually go for the card anyway. There's always the chance that you might not get a set with 3 or even 4 cards.

[Gillipig]

It's not frown upon and especially if you don't have a shot at an easy card.

[Pershing]

Take your turn and not capture something as a strategy but no deadbeating. There are absolutely good times to do this. Yes timing is key to most Escalating games. Two my games that stand out for me. In one game I had cashed in and had over 100 troops on the board in a Classic game and still could not
take out anyone as all had high numbers of troops. In another game I had 1 troop left on the board cashed in and eliminated 5 opponents to win the game. Luck and timing cannot be underestimated.

[darth emperor]

Nothing wrong with missing a turn as a strategy but no deadbeating.

Nothing wrong? really?? Can't you simply predicte, that if you get a 5th spoil? you'll cash it by 4??? (or another number). You don't have to be a genius to calculate that... it's as easy as not taking a spoil in your previous round, no one forces you to take a spoil.

And also, if you miss a turn while holding 5 spoils in an escalating while the value goes to be important, it would be surprising that you survive to take another turn. Afterall, this is the best prey in an escalating game.

[Viceroy63]

Most people who play by the rules do frown down on people who miss turns for the simple reason that it delays the game and it also breaks the pattern of play and that is what this is all about. If a player let's his time run out, then it's just an hour or so but for a player to let 24 hours go by is just undesirable for everyone.

Dead beating is another issue but it is also in the negative spot light. In Chess the losing player resigns because it is so obvious that there is nothing that he can do about it. But while there is life there is also hope and I have seen games turn around from a losing position. So dead beating provides no excuse for denying the opponent the full victory. It's just childish really but sometime we are playing with children on CC. Or so it would seem.

[darth emperor]

Most people who play by the rules do frown down on people who miss turns for the simple reason that it delays the game and it also breaks the pattern of play and that is what this is all about. If a player let's his time run out, then it's just an hour or so but for a player to let 24 hours go by is just undesirable for everyone.

Dead beating is another issue but it is also in the negative spot light. In Chess the losing player resigns because it is so obvious that there is nothing that he can do about it. But while there is life there is also hope and I have seen games turn around from a losing position. So dead beating provides no excuse for denying the opponent the full victory. It's just childish really but sometime we are playing with children on CC. Or so it would seem.

I don't mind if someone misses a turn, things happen, what I cannot grasp, is how people think that a missed turn can be used as strategy. The only ways I see that can be used as a strategy (like 5 spoils in escalating), is because you did something so foolish (like not calculating that if you get 5 spoils you have to trade), that an average player can avoid to do it very easily

[Seulessliathan]

I consider it to be the correct move. The forced move if you like. I consider clicking begin turn to be equilevant to throwing a game, to suiciding.

[Fewnix]

Bottom Line: in escalating spoils its more a question of strategy than etiquette whether you skip a turn OR skip taking a tert a turn,

COOL DISCUSSION!!!

thank you all.

[Sey69]

... Luck and timing cannot be underestimated.

True that.

[Donelladan]

Not taking a card is OK of course.

Missing a turn is, I think, an abuse of the game when it's made intentionaly. I do not even understand how people can consider it.
You are not supposed to miss turn in the game, I mean risk as not be conceived with the possibility of missing turn, so doing it IS an abuse o the game, according to me.

Example : http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... n#p3604910

The example is quite specific but it's "intentionally missing turns to gain advantage" and it got warned. It was freestyle game too.
It's not a rule but I would conclude that missing a turn in freestyle game to avoid to cash IS an abuse.

Of course sometimes u wait to be the last one to cash and miss.

[Viceroy63]

I don't mind if someone misses a turn, things happen, what I cannot grasp, is how people think that a missed turn can be used as strategy. The only ways I see that can be used as a strategy (like 5 spoils in escalating), is because you did something so foolish (like not calculating that if you get 5 spoils you have to trade), that an average player can avoid to do it very easily

I absolutely agree with you Darth.

When I first joined CC I also thought that there was some kind of a strategical advantage in missing turns; At least a psychological advantage in missing turns if not also a very real one with the surprise deferred troops to attack an opponent weak spot on the subsequent turn. But I see now that there are risk as well in missing turns that potentially more than out weight any advantage that one might gain by missing turns. In summation I would have to say that there really is no advantage in missing turns except perhaps when dealing with weaker players but then just sneezing and blowing one's nose may be to one's advantage when playing with weaker players. LOL.

---

[Seulessliathan]

In summation I would have to say that there really is no advantage in missing turns except perhaps when dealing with weaker players but then just sneezing and blowing one's nose may be to one's advantage when playing with weaker players. LOL.---

Your conclusion is incorrect. There are some situations where missing a turn gives you a huge advantage which can turn a game which is otherwise lost into a win or at least a great chance to win. Imo there should be a rule about abuse for this behaviour.

[aligator_al]

I have no problem with somebody not taking a card.

But I'm in the camp that says purposefully missing a turn to gain an advantage violates an unwritten rule of the game.