Conquer Club

I was recently in a 4 player terminator on British Isles. I dropped 3 of the 4 in the southern cont. (forget the name) and so placed my troops there. The yellow guy had the one I was missing, and the red player had the on right at the border. Lo and behold, after we all had placed, yellow had dropped his guys there and red had dropped his ther as well. I was enraged. In their position, I would have assumed the player with 3/4 was going there, and instead of basically mutually assured destruction, I would have allowed the player a +2 bonus and found a new drop. As it was, Red went first, attacked yellows stack (which I was behind), and I was able to take my continent with little to no trouble. Green though was able to secure the entire north with no problems, and ultimately won the game, although I killed both other players. My question is, were they in the right to attempt to immediately attack me, or was my anger justified? I don't play much manual, so I would like to know how it works on there. It seems silly in a non 1v1 to drop beside a guy, especially if you can guess where he is going to go fairly easily.

No ... there is no point being angry over their choices. People make bad choices all the time and you shouldn't allow that to throw you off your game.

In this case, however, neither of them were making bad choices. Many games hinge on carving out a continent bonus as soon as you can and then building from there. The smaller continents are always easier to grab and hold. It is a common strategy in most maps to struggle over the small continents - regardless of how many territories are yours on round one.

And now... flip the situation around... let's say they look at the initial map and see you with that great position. Should they allow you to have it uncontested? Would you allow one of your opponents to have it uncontested? I don't think that either choice would be a winning strategy (usually).

Read up on the strategy guides more and don't let your feelings rule your game play. You will be a better play if you follow that suggestion.

Good luck!

i don't really play a lot of manual deployment yet either, but it doesn't seem like a good choice of them to me.

maybe they are just as inexperienced.

anyways, maybe some day there will be some 'unwritten rules' according to manual deployment.

I'm confused - did you win this game due to your opponents bad placement?

Green though was able to secure the entire north with no problems, and ultimately won the game, although I killed both other players.

So you probably got more points from this, it being a terminator game... what's the big deal.

I have a few strategies from manual games if you would like to here them.

I deploy half of my troops on a startegic territ of my choosing. Then I deploy 1 troop on all other of my territs to make them harder to take and to give me a territ bonus if I want too, there will be singles every where except in the areas where people want continents where there will be big stacks. Clean up some 1's and watch them duke it out while you get a nice territ bonus. Or you could aim for the massive bonus inside the map if its a foggy game, there will just be 1's every where. You get a territ bonus and a big continent bonus.

Another strategy of mine is when I have 2 stacks. I deploy one where I can easily get a bonus or where the best bonus is and another one away from that area. The benefit of this is that if people think its too risky to deploy in the small bonus area where you can easily get the bonus there will just be 1's there and you can easily take it. However if there is troops there you won't waste them all against all these big stacks and you can still be in the game with you other stack.

Thats just some strategies of mine. Its a bit late so they might not make sense, so I will come back tomorrow to make sure an edit them

at least some does post a strategy that seems to make sence to me.

i haven't played enough manual games to actually suggest anything better.

deathcomesrippin wrote:My question is, were they in the right to attempt to immediately attack me, or was my anger justified?

red and yellow both gambled that u had chosen to station insufficient troops in land's end to resist attack. although incorrect in this assumption, red followed through with the plan. by doing so, red and yellow were obviously weakened enough for u to take advantage of the situation and gain more points than the eventual winner of the game.

there's no point in becoming upset over bad moves. in many multiplayer games, someone complains of being attacked in a similar situation. it's not unique to manual placement games.

as an aside, u were also annoyed that yellow joined the game when that slot was meant for another player (though there was no way he could have known). u can avoid this happening in future by using the my games page to invite the final player immediately after u urself join.

ian.