Conquer Club

Here's a common scenario:

There are three most-powerful players in the game: Player A, Player B, and you.

Basically, you have mutually-assured destruction set up where if Player A attacks you, then Player B will win because you and A are weakened so much. Or if Player B attacks you, Player A will win because Player B and you will be too weakened.

And yet, so many times, you have to deal with Player A or Player B being irrational and not thinking that far ahead, and they go ahead and attack you, which results in both of you getting destroyed. Often the person who attacks you is low-rated, and they don't seem to get the connection that if you throw the game out of balance, it can quickly result in the non-attacked player winning.

So my question is, how in general do you handle this situation of the irrational player?

Adventally someone has to be attacked. The three of you can't sit there for 200 rounds holding hands, so adventally someones gona be pissed they were attacked, right? The noob thing is if they don't wait for a spoils drop or something to give them a chance of taking you and your spoils and rolling. If that's the case just rate low and take mental note of players name, maybe even foe them? Nothing you can do really

In three-player games I try to hang back and stay out of the fight until they are weak, but you can't start doing that in the middle of the game, you have to from the beginning.

I'm talking about games with lots of players, actually.

Yeah, I guess like Hannibal said the only thing you can really do about irrational players who screw up both your game and their own is to low-rate them and foe them. I guess over time that would have to improve things, since you're gradually filtering them out.

In a case like that, I just go ahead and play Kingmaker. I pick the guy that I want to win (based on my own possibly irrational preferences) and throw all my might against the guy I want to lose.

You can't change peoples minds, or get a faceless opponent on an internet game to see things your way, but you can negatively consequence them for poor decision making. Hopefully, they will see how their mistake affected their game, and make adjustments the next time.

Several strategies:
1. Switch up your game type. The scenario you describe most often occurs in standard flat rate or no cards games, so if you switch to terminator, escalating, assassin, or 1v1 games, the problem won't occur nearly as much anymore.
2. Switch up your opponent. If you go into the calloutssection in the forums there are games with a special password for players of a certain rank or higher. You're less likely to encounter these irrational players in those games. If you still want to play against all levels, try playing more tournament games, because if a player has stuck around long enough to be playing in tournaments they *usually* have a better idea of what's going on.
3. Switch up your in-game strategy. Consider hanging back instead of going for as many bonuses as you can, and build up forces while letting other players duke it out. Use the in-game chat to your advantage, make it clear that it will be a disadvantage to both players if someone attacks you. Anticipate when someone is expanding aggressively and funnel troops away from your borders with them. And just being aware of how your opponents are moving around on the board in addition to looking at your own position can help.

The premise of the question is wrong.

There is no problem with picking one and attacking them. The trick is that if things are equal between the three you identify the player you want to have lose most and attack the other player. Not too hard just enough to through the ballance of the game out. Once youve weaken yourself a little and weakened one other then the one you didnt attack becomes the target as they are stronger. The person you attacked should then join you in attacking the stronger player. You force the game to be unballanced so that you can control who is attacked and by how much. let the other player do more of the attacking of the stronger player (do a bit just dont cripple yourself). Keep some forces in reserve and keep your bonus. The trick is to know when to switch to attacking the other player and keeping the appeal of your self being a target as low as possible. Do things like dont trade high value cards until as late as possible because others will see you as less scary as you have less troops.

The only problem is if the person you attack becomes vindictive and suicides on you. that happens sometimes with low ranked players but you just need to try and convince them to switch and not be upset by your initial attack.

johnnyb1 wrote:Here's a common scenario:

There are three most-powerful players in the game: Player A, Player B, and you.

Basically, you have mutually-assured destruction set up where if Player A attacks you, then Player B will win because you and A are weakened so much. Or if Player B attacks you, Player A will win because Player B and you will be too weakened.

And yet, so many times, you have to deal with Player A or Player B being irrational and not thinking that far ahead, and they go ahead and attack you, which results in both of you getting destroyed. Often the person who attacks you is low-rated, and they don't seem to get the connection that if you throw the game out of balance, it can quickly result in the non-attacked player winning.

So my question is, how in general do you handle this situation of the irrational player?

draw back your troops , suffer an attack and then sit back and watch the other 2 destroy themselves. dont sit there being all strong, act like the weaker player and strike back only if you can finish the game...
in flat rate this means do not even take a card sometimes...

Cosmic J wrote:In a case like that, I just go ahead and play Kingmaker. I pick the guy that I want to win (based on my own possibly irrational preferences) and throw all my might against the guy I want to lose.

You can't change peoples minds, or get a faceless opponent on an internet game to see things your way, but you can negatively consequence them for poor decision making. Hopefully, they will see how their mistake affected their game, and make adjustments the next time.

Well, about rating people low and foeing them: you can if you want to, but it would be a good idea to pm them and let them know why you're foeing them or rating them low. That way, they'll know what not to do the next time. it frustrates me when people rate me low, and I don't even know why.

Very good point. I agree sometimes I can't remember or think what I did wrong, but sometimes people are sensitive and just speaking can get you low attitude points. =(

Granted I am probably more inline with being an irrational player than a rational one But, in most games and from what I have seen in this one thus far, if you tend to your own actions and don't focus on what may or may not happen you will succeed. I mean if you reinforce the proper areas even an "irrational" player will likely attack the poorly defended player. Maybe idk im a n00b

Thanks for your insights!!:D

shieldgenerator7 wrote:

Cosmic J wrote:In a case like that, I just go ahead and play Kingmaker. I pick the guy that I want to win (based on my own possibly irrational preferences) and throw all my might against the guy I want to lose.

You can't change peoples minds, or get a faceless opponent on an internet game to see things your way, but you can negatively consequence them for poor decision making. Hopefully, they will see how their mistake affected their game, and make adjustments the next time.

Well, about rating people low and foeing them: you can if you want to, but it would be a good idea to pm them and let them know why you're foeing them or rating them low. That way, they'll know what not to do the next time. it frustrates me when people rate me low, and I don't even know why.

I'm sorry shieldgenerator7, it wasn't my intent to suggest that we should give them low Rating scores, or to foe someone. Rather, I meant to consequence them in-game. I would never give a bad rating for something like that - one man's strategy is another man's fun, or experimentation, or improvisation. I would be hard pressed to come up w/ an objective reason to give someone a low rating on an internet game... there's just too much about my opponents that I don't know.

that's alright. I've never played you, so what I said about those people doesn't apply to you. I just picked your post to quote because the wording was the best for what I had to say.

Cosmic J wrote:In a case like that, I just go ahead and play Kingmaker. I pick the guy that I want to win (based on my own possibly irrational preferences) and throw all my might against the guy I want to lose.

You can't change peoples minds, or get a faceless opponent on an internet game to see things your way, but you can negatively consequence them for poor decision making. Hopefully, they will see how their mistake affected their game, and make adjustments the next time.

lol I would just throw the win to the higher ranked player, take less of your points

Right I am a newbie and Irrational by this thread, this has just come up in a game I'm playing... I attacked someone next to me after I cashed in my spoils to remove a large stack.... (e.g. 17 troops where most regions had 1-3)

I just can't get this into my head why would I ever let my opponent build a large stack that borders multiple of my regions... I'm asking for trouble and to lose regions is to lose zone bonuses..

Can someone put this into very basic speak, why I'd should not attack someone who is clearly going to do something with that large stack...

I'm of thinking that the tactics of building the large stacks is the irrational bit. It's going to be alarming to the neigbouring opponents. So the irrational person in my mind is the person building the large stack and is NOT expecting to be attacked...

In my mind that large stack is provocation.. Keep them smaller under the radar or off my borders?... until you have to..

Perhaps I need a mentor...

Without knowing the game number I can't give a explanation to your case..but best idea is too "encourage" them to attack someone besides yourself. IE: build up more forces bordering them then an opponent. Placement is key in all styles also, from terminator ( to be in a position to take out the weak ) to it not being possible for 1 player to easily take you out ( spread your force a little)..always make yourself.appear stronger then you may be, or weaker. While also making sure you can't easily be eliminated..it dosent always work but a smart player won't take out 4 of youe 5 regions if they can't reach the fifth, because another player will eliminate
you and take your points and/or spoils. So usally a smart player will leave you alone for the time being, giving you time to build back up and reposition/evauluate the battlefield

Also don't always assume your opponents are rational or intellagent. Often newbies stack all troops in one region to make themsleves appear strong..thinking it improves their chances with rolls not considering region count, although a lucky 3 stack can eliminate their dozen.. best I've found is leaving 2-4 each region..those stacks can really hurt a large one, enough of those can quickly eliminate a player with minnimal regions stacked w large numbers

In the situation described...lots of players but 3 great powers...i would suggest trying to minimise your borders with them so that they fort towards each other. =Only match them, stack behind and you'll often find all the offensive troops aren't facing in your direction. Thus, when the starting gun fires, you are invariably the 'lucky' chap who sweeps up.

3 player games can be tricky. It has just as much to do with personalities as it does strategy.