General advice for two player games?

[DRMacIver]

So, I'm finding I suck at two player games. I do tolerably well with 3 or more, but every time I play a two player game I am immediately slaughtered.

I think the problem is that I'm just too slow at the start of the game, which I get let off on in multi player because no one's gunning straight for me from the word go.

So, any general advice on two player games and the best way to start them off?

[PLAYER57832]

First, 1 vs 1 are always going to be a large part luck. Luck of dice and luck of drop, plus luck of spoils if you play Flat rate.

Beyond that, it depends a bit on the map. If you are playing a large maps, be first and attack, attack, attack (with a few exceptions.. don't lose too much). Every 3 you take from them is like gaining 2 armies (except in Hive), because you gain and they lose.

On small maps, being first helps, but often it comes down to spoils, unless your dice are good enough to win prior to cashing in spoils.

On large maps, and maps with a lot of bonuses, the drop matters a lot. If you are first, knock down their bonuses and preserve your own.. If you are second, you likely are starting behind, but definitely don't give up. Oftentimes its "worth" risking more, becuase your other option is plain losing. HOWEVER, don't get too crazy. If you leave yourself weak, your opponent can come in and take you.

Map choice matters a lot. AOR2, perhaps AOR3 (NOT AOR1!!!), Fuedal, Arms Race!, and most medium-sized maps work well for 1 vs 1. Bigger maps with lots of bonuses tend to get decided early.

Hive is a bit of an exception, because the limit of 12 means one player is less likely to get a head start, BUT once someone does have an advantage, the game drags on .. and on.. and on..

Avoid "even" maps like Chinese checkers.

[denominator]

1v1 games are very different from multiplayer games. This is because unlike in multiplayer games, where if one player gets dominant, the others will react to balance the game, but this is non-existent in 1v1 games.

Taking this knowledge, you now know that every attack you make against your opponent is a good thing. Anything you do to gain an edge over your opponent is positive, even if it is a move from 14 territories down to 13. Obviously the biggest thing in 1v1 games is the territory count, as that 1 troop difference (especially on smaller maps) will be a major decider. I play Australia a lot, so the 12 territory bonus is very important, and sometimes you're forced to make attacks to knock the opponent down under 12 that you wouldn't normally make.

Also keep in mind your dice odds. Like PLAYER said, a lot of 1v1 is luck, and a lot of this luck is in the dice. So you need to manipulate your odds as much in your favour as possible. With few exceptions (like the example above), never attack with less than 4 troops as you won't be attacking with 3 dice. On the defencive side, try to never leave stacks of 1 where your opponent can attack them as it makes for an easy territory gain and card grab for him. Fort troops that are hidden behind neutrals to the front to help attack your opponent.

I also rarely attack the neutrals on the board. You waste your troops for minimal gain, while your opponent attacks you. Use your neutrals as blocks against your opponent.

Finally, if your opponent does grab a bonus, you need to break it immediately. If you attempt to take a bonus without breaking his, he will simply charge back through your bonus with his extra troops, leaving you crippled.

[DRMacIver]

Thanks, this is helpful.

The boards I'm playing on the most at the moment seem to be classic, brazil and england. Where do those fit in the scale of small to large?

One impression I'm getting, both from my repeated trouncings and what you're saying here is that actually it's a bit of a waste of time to go for bonuses and you're better off aiming for size of territory as less easy to lose and less likely to provoke a strong reaction from your opponent. Is this accurate?

[jrh_cardinal]

Map choice matters a lot. AOR2, perhaps AOR3 (NOT AOR1!!!), Fuedal, Arms Race!, and most medium-sized maps work well for 1 vs 1. Bigger maps with lots of bonuses tend to get decided early.

What's wrong with AOR 1?

The boards I'm playing on the most at the moment seem to be classic, brazil and england. Where do those fit in the scale of small to large?

These all seem to be about medium size, or at least they play like medium sized maps. The key is to get your opponent 1 below a multiple of 3 terits. at the end of your turn. For example, on Classic, get them to 14 terits, or 11 if you can, as Denominator said, 1 less army can make a huge difference in 1v1.

One impression I'm getting, both from my repeated trouncings and what you're saying here is that actually it's a bit of a waste of time to go for bonuses and you're better off aiming for size of territory as less easy to lose and less likely to provoke a strong reaction from your opponent. Is this accurate?

This is not necessarily accurate. If you can take a bonus where your opponent has to go through neutrals to get to you, then its really good. For example on the Classic map, if Siam, or if India AND China are neutral (these are the risk names for them, don't remember what CC calls them), and you can take Austrralia, DO IT. Even if you have to attack a neutral. Your opponent is then forced to go through neutrals and waste all of his troops. Also, any continent that has 0 neutrals on it, take it if you can. Your still attacking your opponent, and it gives you a greater reward.
In terms of "provoking your opponent", good 1v1 players attack a lot anyway. The only change would be they would try even harder to break your bonus, and just thin themselves out more. Think of it this way: if your opponent has to go through 2 3's to get to your bonus, then he HAS to attack to kill those three's, and spreads himself out in the process. If you didn't have a bonus, he would just attack your weakest spot, and you would probably end up losing more than 2 terits.

[DRMacIver]

The key is to get your opponent 1 below a multiple of 3 terits. at the end of your turn. For example, on Classic, get them to 14 terits, or 11 if you can, as Denominator said, 1 less army can make a huge difference in 1v1.

Yeah, I've been following this advice in my most recent 1v1 game and it's making a huge amount of difference.

This is not necessarily accurate. If you can take a bonus where your opponent has to go through neutrals to get to you, then its really good. For example on the Classic map, if Siam, or if India AND China are neutral (these are the risk names for them, don't remember what CC calls them), and you can take Austrralia, DO IT. Even if you have to attack a neutral. Your opponent is then forced to go through neutrals and waste all of his troops. Also, any continent that has 0 neutrals on it, take it if you can. Your still attacking your opponent, and it gives you a greater reward.

This makes sense.

In terms of "provoking your opponent", good 1v1 players attack a lot anyway. The only change would be they would try even harder to break your bonus, and just thin themselves out more. Think of it this way: if your opponent has to go through 2 3's to get to your bonus, then he HAS to attack to kill those three's, and spreads himself out in the process. If you didn't have a bonus, he would just attack your weakest spot, and you would probably end up losing more than 2 terits.

That's a good point. Thanks.

[PLAYER57832]

Map choice matters a lot. AOR2, perhaps AOR3 (NOT AOR1!!!), Fuedal, Arms Race!, and most medium-sized maps work well for 1 vs 1. Bigger maps with lots of bonuses tend to get decided early.

What's wrong with AOR 1?

If you know how to play it, its either a gimme or a wait game.

[PLAYER57832]

Thanks, this is helpful.

The boards I'm playing on the most at the moment seem to be classic, brazil and england. Where do those fit in the scale of small to large?

The problem with classic is that people who play it tend to be VERY good. Brazil and England are OK, but try branching out a bit.

One impression I'm getting, both from my repeated trouncings and what you're saying here is that actually it's a bit of a waste of time to go for bonuses and you're better off aiming for size of territory as less easy to lose and less likely to provoke a strong reaction from your opponent. Is this accurate?

It depends on the map. On the maps you described, likely. But some maps are very bonus-heavy. For example, Arms Race! getting a few bonuses matters more than territory. Territory really matters most on the medium and large "standard play maps" (maps that basically play like classic, but with different shapes). On small maps, if you can take out your opponent right away, great. Else it tends to fall to whomever gets the spoils first (more or less).

Again, try venturing out to different maps. If you need help understanding any in 1 vs 1, feel free to pm me. I have played them all several times (though I am not great at all of them, I admit!) Oh, and pay attention to the number of times people giving you advice have played different maps. Blitzaholic is an expert. Some others.. not so much.

[DRMacIver]

The problem with classic is that people who play it tend to be VERY good.

Huh. That wouldn't have occurred to me. That might explain some of the games I've been particularly thoroughly defeated on...

Brazil and England are OK, but try branching out a bit.

Yeah, I intend to. I'm not particularly sold on these three as The One True Maps - it's just that of the ones I've played, these are the ones I've liked enough to return to. Any particular recommendations?

Again, try venturing out to different maps. If you need help understanding any in 1 vs 1, feel free to pm me. I have played them all several times (though I am not great at all of them, I admit!)

Will do. Thanks!

[knubbel]

GENERAL advise (this might not be good in every situation but in 95% of the cases)

- don't attack neutrals
- break the bonus of your opponent
- only go for a bonus if you are likely to hold it
- attack as much as possible (but only with three dice. sometimes 2 vs 1 if you knock down his bonus)

if you do it like this you should be able to win at least 50% of 1vs1 games. There are a lot of details you can take care of but these are the basics.

[denominator]

Like PLAYER, I've played them all a number of times and have my preferences.

Brazil and England are OK, but try branching out a bit.

Yeah, I intend to. I'm not particularly sold on these three as The One True Maps - it's just that of the ones I've played, these are the ones I've liked enough to return to. Any particular recommendations?

Based on the ones you like, I'd suggest (in no particular order):

Australia
South America
Ireland
Europa
Montreal
Canada
USA

There are a lot of similar maps with the "classic" style gameplay. I'd suggest heading into the Viewing Gallery of quenched maps to check some out before you try them in game.

[dhallmeyer]

want to have a high score? don't play singles unless you want to be a farmer. join the Society of the Cooks and we'll show you how to play, score, win and have more fun.

[pmchugh]

want to have a high score? don't play singles unless you want to be a farmer. join the Society of the Cooks and we'll show you how to play, score, win and have more fun.

Depends what you mean by "high". Captain/major is easily achievable without farming purely through 1v1's, infact its quicker to get to that point if your freemium. Not that im a purely 1v1 player, i play team games just as much which are great for points.

I agree with most advice given, one of the first things I do in 1v1 on "standard maps" is to look for bonuses without neutrals in them. Or ones blocked off by nuetrals so my opponent couldnt break them with out hitting nuetral. Just remember, always try to reduce your opponents income and never leave yourself to weak, if you can break an opponents +2 bonus by hitting 6v4 sure go for it. But if its 6v (nuetral) 3, (opponent) 8 you may aswell try reduce there territ count instead and leave the bonus till you have a set or something.