Fighting cooks.

[skychaser]

So what is it that you play for in a game that is over before it even begins? Sometimes the war is between two individual players rather than win the entire War. That is called playing for fun.
Often times you might find yourself teaming up against a single player.

The point of the game Is NOT to Win! It is to have fun Play anyway you like.
Sometimes the point of the game can be the way you die.
The game is played many different ways and for many different reasons.
Just like Strategy...everybody is entitled to play how ever they wish.

If you find yourself in a game that you have no chance to win...what is the point, continuing to play.

"No chance to win" is subjective and cooks seem to jump to that conclusion sooner than they should. If you ACTUALLY have no chance of winning, then you wouldn't have enough troops to do any kind of damage to one of the other players in the game. But if you are strong enough to seriously damage another player's chance of winning, then you are strong enough to stay in the game and try to win yourself.

This is the problem with a lot of cooks (and low ranked players in general) IMO. They fall behind a little in the game (maybe they failed to take a bonus they were going for or whatnot), and rather than figure out a way to stay competitive in the game and try something else, they just give up, say "well, I can't win now", and go on a suicide run which actually does ruin their own chance of winning.


I remember a 3-player game I was in with a cook on the USA map. He was trying to hold the Rockies or something and I broke that up early since I had the West bonus. After a few turns of failing to take it back from me, he simply gave up and spent the rest of the game suiciding on me to allow the other player to win, and then he had the gall to blame ME for it because even though there were like 7-8 bonuses on that board, in his mind he HAD to have THAT ONE in order to win, and since I wouldn't let him have it, clearly I had just ruined his whole game and he was going to "make me pay". lol

Looking at the situation logically, a normal player would have been like "well damn, I can't hold this bonus right now, so I'll try to get a different one and come back to this later" - but a cook looks at the situation as "well, since I can't have this bonus, I can't win, so I'm just going to give up". lol

I forgot to mention. If he wants a continent then give it to him. Even better if you tell him you're giving to him. So he will pester another person.

[waltero]

Quote: If you ACTUALLY have no chance of winning, then you wouldn't have enough troops to do any kind of damage to one of the other players in the game.

Not true.

[skychaser]

Yep. Actually you can have enough troops to break a bonus but not enough to fight back. But the point that weak players give up games they could win is fact.

[waltero]

Go ahead and concern yourself with Cooks. They are the least of my problem in any game that I have played.
You can communicate with a Cook. You don't have any chance trying to reason with A guy that holds a higher rank.

[skychaser]

I wouldn't really 'concern' cause I developed my way of playing that checks their skills and mannerisms into consideration. I can talk to them and maybe teach them something from time to time though.

[Gillipig]

When I used to play more seriously I always thought of the cook as the boards hobo. The guy you don't want to get near but also not insult (because that could mean he tries to make contact with you). Avoid them at all costs was my motto. Don't open a dialogue with him don't offer truces don't treat him as a real player, just look at him like an inevitable part of the game, like the dice.

[GeneralRisk]

The only good cook is a dead or foed 1

[macbone]

Skychaser, your strategy is very close to our recommendations in the Society of the Cooks, although we don't specify that the playing style you're describing is for cooks. We use the term Bonus Monkey for players who think that grabbing a bonus is the secret to winning Escalating games (and this mindset isn't limited to cooks - I've played majors who have done the same thing).

We teach our students not to fight over bonuses, not to break bonuses (small ones, anyway), and to get out of a bonus monkey's way. These players often don't read game chat, and they're not open to discussing the board.

But waltero has a good point, too, in that there's more than one way to play this game. Although I haven't seen a better strategy for Escalating games than the Escalating Juggernaut, it's refreshing to me when someone tries a different strategy, like the Creeper or the Shield & Sword. And, of course, with so many different options in a game, there are many different strategies that are required, depending on the settings.

Many players who started out on the board game were used to the mantra that taking Australia is the best way to win the game. And on some settings, it certainly is, but getting students to look at other ways of playing is one of the main things we do in the SoC.

Anyway, interesting thread, man. The first post is very useful in knowing what to be aware of in Escalating play.

[AlexCox]

cooks are irrational griefers, most players are. also there a damned rush to come second when another player is ahead most ranks act like coming second is something better than nothing and let another win.

[Trevor33]

Cooks are players and Most cooks are just as good as you.
Just think you high Ranking players need not be so Serious and play for the fun of it.

Silly rabbit.

[Trevor33]

Only when Victory is no longer an option do others chose another player to go down with em...don't act like this is something that only cooks do. You do it...Everybody does it.

Victory is always an option... 'chip and a chair'. This is a poker site, right?

[AlexCox]

Also, it cuts both ways, if you happen to find yourself as a question mark or cook due to inactivity, a lost password and / or being intoxicated higher ranks will deeply resent any humiliation you heap upon them when active and sober and bare you an irrational hatred.

I'm just going to foe cooks on sight from now on, regardless if I've played them or not, also any griefers I meet when I play, can't be bothered with them even if they are sometimes useful farms, as a non-premmie I just can't be bothered with the lag and stupidity.

Useful tune for British cooks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkF_XpA5P48

Chatter and music on conquer are generally bad but who cares it's only a game.

Enjoying a special brew and listening to this http://www.mixcloud.com/ralph-anderson/ ... rk-db-mix/

while i wait for some suck ass cook deadbeat to get sober and take his turn or let me play mine drunk so I can become a cook

Addendum: British cooks if you find yourself in a position to storm UK from Africa don't hesitate to play this, even if you can't hold it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_tsxbZZHbU

[skychaser]

Skychaser, your strategy is very close to our recommendations in the Society of the Cooks, although we don't specify that the playing style you're describing is for cooks. We use the term Bonus Monkey for players who think that grabbing a bonus is the secret to winning Escalating games (and this mindset isn't limited to cooks - I've played majors who have done the same thing).

We teach our students not to fight over bonuses, not to break bonuses (small ones, anyway), and to get out of a bonus monkey's way. These players often don't read game chat, and they're not open to discussing the board.

But waltero has a good point, too, in that there's more than one way to play this game. Although I haven't seen a better strategy for Escalating games than the Escalating Juggernaut, it's refreshing to me when someone tries a different strategy, like the Creeper or the Shield & Sword. And, of course, with so many different options in a game, there are many different strategies that are required, depending on the settings.

Many players who started out on the board game were used to the mantra that taking Australia is the best way to win the game. And on some settings, it certainly is, but getting students to look at other ways of playing is one of the main things we do in the SoC.

Anyway, interesting thread, man. The first post is very useful in knowing what to be aware of in Escalating play.

Thank you. I will use some of our game's pitcures to my new guide soon.

[Sir-X]

this is the funniest thing i have read in ages....

i never was a private or below. i seemed to slowly male lieutenant and the closest to loosing it was having 1601 points... anyway i really dont like seeing cooks join my games because they are either really crap or they have amazing dice and kill me fast... i loose a good 45+ points to every cook i play...

but nevermind. i have played cooks who have played 1000s of games more than me, they seem to know the game but they never seens to get out of the rut they get into...

[ZeekLTK]

Yep. Actually you can have enough troops to break a bonus but not enough to fight back. But the point that weak players give up games they could win is fact.

If you have enough troops to break someone's bonus then you can leverage that to force a truce or alliance which will benefit you so that you can try to get to a point where you are "strong enough to fight back".

In a multiplayer game you have more options than you think. In your scenario above you can tell the guy you won't break his bonus if he makes a truce with you. Then you can build up while he fights elsewhere. Or you can ask another player for help - say that your neighbor has a bonus and is going to wipe you out soon and try to get someone else to attack him from another border. He will have to divert troops to fight the other guy, giving you breathing room. Etc.

Basically, this is exactly what I said - if you are strong enough to ruin another player's game then you are strong enough to stay alive and try to win.

[skychaser]

Yep. Actually you can have enough troops to break a bonus but not enough to fight back. But the point that weak players give up games they could win is fact.

If you have enough troops to break someone's bonus then you can leverage that to force a truce or alliance which will benefit you so that you can try to get to a point where you are "strong enough to fight back".

In a multiplayer game you have more options than you think. In your scenario above you can tell the guy you won't break his bonus if he makes a truce with you. Then you can build up while he fights elsewhere. Or you can ask another player for help - say that your neighbor has a bonus and is going to wipe you out soon and try to get someone else to attack him from another border. He will have to divert troops to fight the other guy, giving you breathing room. Etc.

Basically, this is exactly what I said - if you are strong enough to ruin another player's game then you are strong enough to stay alive and try to win.

Makes sense. Thank you.

[shadowguynick]

One strategy I like to use against inexperienced players is convince them someone else is the "bad guy". I don't know why, but once they think someone might dominate the game they are hellbent on stopping him. It weakens your top enemy without you having to fight him. The new player may eventually catch on to what you're doing, so be prepared. Diplomacy is also my favorite option, since brute force weakens you, and gains little usually. I am relatively new to this site, but the strategies involved I have been using since I started playing strategy games.

[waltero]

Yep. Actually you can have enough troops to break a bonus but not enough to fight back. But the point that weak players give up games they could win is fact.

If you have enough troops to break someone's bonus then you can leverage that to force a truce or alliance which will benefit you so that you can try to get to a point where you are "strong enough to fight back".

In a multiplayer game you have more options than you think. In your scenario above you can tell the guy you won't break his bonus if he makes a truce with you. Then you can build up while he fights elsewhere. Or you can ask another player for help - say that your neighbor has a bonus and is going to wipe you out soon and try to get someone else to attack him from another border. He will have to divert troops to fight the other guy, giving you breathing room. Etc.

Basically, this is exactly what I said - if you are strong enough to ruin another player's game then you are strong enough to stay alive and try to win.

Most the time (when you are so weak) other players would rather focus on weak players Spoils and terit...bonus.
Rarely (if ever) will somebody come out of a hole. If a weak (or strong) player is giving you grief the simplest way to eliminate any more grief in the game is to take em out!

regardless...There always comes A time when you know the War has been lost. At that point it becomes a game play on how you go out. Some people might want to come in Second (Last to be eliminated). Cooks will do what they do and Lieutenants will do as they wish. Tis all the same.

I love it when you get these renobs (usually the High ranking Players) that enter the game Thinking that they know everything and assume you are there to play the game as they think it should be played. If you want to know what I mean, look up this game 12104164.

I would probably be on top...If I had not missed a Critical turn (only turn I have ever missed)! Anyhow I foed the guy so I would not have to listen to him.

[ZeekLTK]

Well, speaking from a game in which I'm one of the stronger players and was surrounded by several weaker players (weak in terms that they had much less territory and could not do much except probably break someone's [like mine] bonus) I was more than happy to form alliances with them to let them keep their bonuses near me and also have them help me (and themselves) by fighting my (stronger) opponents.

But you are right, in that weaker role you have to be cautious. This was an 8 player game where 4 players had become "top dogs" and 4 were on the verge of elimination. I was allied with 3 of the "small dogs" but eventually at some point 2 of them decided to test their luck and come after me - and then I quickly eliminated them because I wasn't going to deal with that. One of the players was so weak that yeah, he probably wasn't going to last much longer anyways, but the other - he had a decent bonus and was starting to make a comeback, he just got greedy. I think if he had kept our truce, he could have really taken some ground against our common opponent and gotten himself back into the game because I had no interest in fighting him at all, I was much too busy with other opponents so I was perfectly content to share a border that didn't need to be defended.

The last ally, I lost because he was losing to the bigger guy he was fighting and was on the verge of being eliminated, so I took him out to get his cards (hence the other thread I started lol).

[AlexCox]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2xmRwHyK-E In refernce to earlier Leroy Jenkins got his own dubstep - from the original promo but with dubstep mixed in

[jsnyder748]

I have found the greatest success vs cooks or bad players in general is to play on maps where they will not affect how you will win the game.

For example maps like all are bases are belong to us, das schloss, baseball, and Antarctica use starting positions that cannot be taken without going through a neutral stack. This is invaluable when playing players who will do irrational things. It ensures your survival if you are targeted and makes the map more confusing for those who don't take a minute to read the rules...Most of these maps also contain the dual threat of objectives/elimination.

Confusing maps or specialty maps also help to ensure that a cook will not win entirely on luck. They must have some strategy and feel for the map if they want to keep up.

Of course, game types play the biggest role of all. Team games make cooks irrelevant because you need strategy. Freestyle makes it more in the favor of experienced players who get on frequently and can use the many freestyle tricks successfully. This strategy guide helps with situations where you are playing a cook in a standard game....not much else

[skychaser]

You're right. I focused at the "defaults". Which is the way most players are used to so most people would think the guide as valuable.


I don't like these maps where you can avoid weak players, it ruins all the fun cause you can't be touched it also means they can't touch your opponents.
Thus at these maps one can't influence the board as much as a normal game so I think it has lesser skills involved and it's only a matter of farming, not playing. Once one learn these maps this one will always do the same thing, attack at the same turn and so on, so on. Boring.

[skychaser]

Example. Last Game I played I had a lot of trouble cause There was a player I didn't know where his last pieces where. I attacked 3 of his weak spots and a weak player followed by eliminating him from a section of the map. Exactly what I wanted. You can't see this at Das Chloss as an example cause the armies at any section hardly matter. Even more if it's Freestyle. At this mode the armies have no importance at all.

[jsnyder748]

You're right. I focused at the "defaults". Which is the way most players are used to so most people would think the guide as valuable.


I don't like these maps where you can avoid weak players, it ruins all the fun cause you can't be touched it also means they can't touch your opponents.
Thus at these maps one can't influence the board as much as a normal game so I think it has lesser skills involved and it's only a matter of farming, not playing. Once one learn these maps this one will always do the same thing, attack at the same turn and so on, so on. Boring.

Obviously I have enough skill to play "default" games, but I am not sure how you can say that those games take more skill. I would say they take more luck than anything else. If I played those simple, slow paced games I would be much more bored than playing maps that actually make you think and strategize, as well as influence others through the chat. A prime example of this would be xiangwang, Kiron or mc05025. They play on complicated maps, with interesting settings that lend to different playing strategies and tricks. Everyone has a chance at winning, but they need to be able to play with the same skill level as those who have mastered the technique to win.

How would you not be able to influence the board in freestyle or on maps where you have a starting position? (Even on the few maps I mentioned) The "double turn" is one of the biggest swinging factors in freestyle and if used correctly can win the game in a few short strokes. There are bonuses on these maps despite what you are implying that make others want to hold areas and attack each other and while it may not be the best strategy under some settings such as escalating (better to sit back and wait for high level card cashes) you can certainly do anything you would be able to do on default maps but with more precision and faster.

You can never truly avoid weak players. It just helps to have a region that cannot be attacked out of the starting gates. This ensures that the person with the most skill will have a chance to use that skill before they are attacked for no reason.

[jsnyder748]

Example. Last Game I played I had a lot of trouble cause There was a player I didn't know where his last pieces where. I attacked 3 of his weak spots and a weak player followed by eliminating him from a section of the map. Exactly what I wanted. You can't see this at Das Chloss as an example cause the armies at any section hardly matter. Even more if it's Freestyle. At this mode the armies have no importance at all.

That is only the case for escalating. All escalating games are not about bonuses or territories, just about sweeping the map in one turn.