Page 2 of 2
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:43 am
by qeee1
Bishop wrote:I think a lot of people don't realise that escalating games require a completely different strategy than flat rate or no card games. In flat rate, and especially no card games, the most important factor for growth and strength is owning continents. I think most would agree that the best strategy is to try and hold continents.
The problem a lot of people have with escalating games is that they try to play a strategy based on getting continents. Most of the time these people get beat out by someone who has put themselves in a position to steal cards. They don't realise that the person who stole cards ws trying to place themselves in a position to get cards and probably was ignoring continents all together. They think this person was just lucky to get cards. As the person was not playing in what they perceive as basic strategy (taking continents), they figure the player sucked and simply got lucky.
But really this person won because they altered their strategy for the escalating games. Here is an example of my escalating strategy and tactics:
I ignore continents and simply try and stay out of my opponents way. The begining of the game consists of fighting as little as possible. This usually involves hanging around in Asia somewhere. I try and consolidate my troops and put myself in a position to trade in a set at the opportune time and take someone elses cards.
There's lots of good tactics for this. I try to put myself in a position to attack in a lot of different directions. This means I don't, for example, have all my troops in Japon and have a single one of my own armies in Kamtchatka. This would prevent my army from sweeping into North America. I also try and isolate single armies from somebody else inside my frontiers. Basicially, I make a defensive sheild around a singe enemy army. If an enemy has an army in Japan, I'll build troops in Kamtchatka and Mongolia, so anyone taking out that colour has to fight through me. This usually gives me a monopoly on getting that person's cards.
What do people thing of this? Am I full of shit?
You're perfectly right. I do get escalating strategy, ask anyone I've played against recently. However, I still think there's more luck involved in escalating than flat rate.
To Marv's comment, the dice are the same in every game, just because you've more rolls doesn't mean your luck is better, it just means the odds are different.
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:46 am
by Pedronicus
if the rate at which cards escalated was: 3,6,9,12,15,18,21,24,27,30 etc. - escalating would be a lot better....
it would be a nice (and easy to programe) option.
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:30 pm
by sanityassassin
I don't really think one set of rules is preferable to another it is just the strategy you use in them is different. I have never played a RT game on here yet but would like to if I had the time. In a lot of games timing is everything along with luck which I seem to lack is spades in a lot of games
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:57 pm
by Robinette
Pedronicus wrote:if the rate at which cards escalated was: 3,6,9,12,15,18,21,24,27,30 etc. - escalating would be a lot better....
it would be a nice (and easy to programe) option.
We often played "plus 1 escalating": 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11...
These games would last longer than regular escalating, as continents were initally most important, transitioning to cards being most important..
But the 3 by 3 escalating would make little difference in most games, until near the end.
std
esc.........3x3.........Variance (cumulative)
4..............3..............-1
6 (10).......6 (9).........-1
8 (18.)......9 (18.).......0
10 (28.)....12 (30).....+2
12 (40).....15 (45).....+5
15 (55).....18 (63).....+8
20 (75).....21 (84).....+9
25 (100)...24 (108)...+8
30 (130)...27 (135)...+5
35 (165)...30 (165)... 0
40 (205)...33 (198)...-7
45 (250)...36 (234)...-16
50 (300)...39 (263)...-37
55 (355)...42 (305)...-50
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:33 pm
by sully800
The thing I don't like about sequential escalating games is that you often can't control your own destiny. I've seen too many games end where someone tries to take a player out and comes up short....then the next person easily takes that player out and goes on to win the game. If your turn was in the wrong spot you often don't have a chance to win in that position which I think sucks.
Sequential escalating can be fun with all decent players and no situations like I described above, but I still prefer freestyle for escalating. Freestyle is the only way you get to choose when to take your turn and therefore you are more in control of your own destiny which I prefer.
Yes you can often wield an advantage by simply hovering next to your computer and never doing anything else, but that's not why I like it. I like being able to take my turns at the times I feel are best strategically and not having to wait and hope my opponents don't blow the game.
Cards, yes.
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:20 am
by Dicetimo
I like the escalatin +1 idea mentioned above
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:04 am
by eye84free
well most of the people here no my side of this ?....so i dont think i need to answer...lol...since i mainly play no cards i prefer them ...if i am to play a card game its usaly flat rate..yes the games takes the same amount of time either way...ive had no card games last to 15 rounds and ive had them last 3 rounds...same thing with card games...but ive had more card games last to round 30+....so realy to each his/her own...people like diff types of maps as well as cards...
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:15 am
by Pedronicus
eye84free is a budhist! - but when he took over my goes for a weekend with esc. he killed everyone (Inc. Blitz)
He's a Budhist with a mean side!
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:19 am
by Pedronicus
Robinette wrote:Pedronicus wrote:if the rate at which cards escalated was: 3,6,9,12,15,18,21,24,27,30 etc. - escalating would be a lot better....
it would be a nice (and easy to programe) option.
We often played "plus 1 escalating": 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11...
These games would last longer than regular escalating, as continents were initally most important, transitioning to cards being most important..
But the 3 by 3 escalating would make little difference in most games,
until near the end.
std
esc.........3x3.........Variance (cumulative)
4..............3..............-1
6 (10).......6 (9).........-1
8 (18.)......9 (18.).......0
10 (28.)....12 (30).....+2
12 (40).....15 (45).....+5
15 (55).....18 (63).....+8
20 (75).....21 (84).....+9
25 (100)...24 (108)...+8
30 (130)...27 (135)...+5
35 (165)...30 (165)... 0
40 (205)...33 (198)...-7
45 (250)...36 (234)...-16
50 (300)...39 (263)...-37
55 (355)...42 (305)...-50
it's at the end where escalating could do with some calming down
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:37 pm
by eye84free
Pedronicus wrote:eye84free is a budhist! - but when he took over my goes for a weekend with esc. he killed everyone (Inc. Blitz)
He's a Budhist with a mean side!
pedro...i didnt do that well....u are the real player...im just a litlle spek in the big picture....lol
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:39 pm
by dafranca
I would only play no cards in terminator mode.
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:04 am
by gavin_sidhu
I mostly play flat rate, but sometimes play no cards. I don't like escalating, I feel there is more waiting in them then anything else, wait for the opportunity to kill a player. Its funny cos i think i win a larger percentage of escalating then any other type.
Cards or no cards
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:44 pm
by Puff
I like a flat rate