People who leave 2s and 3s in Escalating

[72o]

Don't you hate them?

[MeDeFe]

Is this about ratings or number of troops on territories?

[Funkyterrance]

Don't you hate them?

Control freak?

[Chewie1]

So,etimes its a good tactic

[Swimmerdude99]

Don't you hate them?

If NONE of their territories are 1s and they have 6+ territories then yes.

[rhp 1]

I guess the point can be made for your argument.. However, it does get a bit tiresome when people believe there is only one legit way to play a map on particular settings/map/# of players/etc.. that said, in the games that I assume you're talking about, yea.. I dislike them slightly.. and Swimmy's assessment is pretty much an accurate guideline...

[Timminz]

I hit 2's and 3's on principle.

[ManBungalow]

I think of leaving 2s/3s all over the board like anti-carpet bombing.

Cover the map with an inch deep layer of your troops and make a lot of noise.

But when a carpet and an anti-carpet collide, they annihilate and form a high-energy annoyed particle/CC user.

Hell, I've been known to do this even when I'm winning the game. And when it's not an escalating game.



Hey, maybe only AoG will actually understand the reference in the image. And even then, it's not funny.

[Metsfanmax]

Is this about ratings or number of troops on territories?

Does it matter?

[rhp 1]

Is this about ratings or number of troops on territories?

Does it matter?

depends.. most top players in esc game subscribe to the theory of leaving 1's and building stacks... this makes it easy for everyone to card and go for a kill and a run.. basically comes down to timing, luck, cards and being able to see multiple kills to run a board... perfectly legit strat, used by many...

[maxfaraday]

Yes.

[tzor]

Don't you hate them?

No, but it depends on what part of the game we are in. In the early part of the game I'm looking for "easy pickings" when you are only getting 3 troops a turn, a X on 1 is so much easier than an X on 2 to get that extra territory and card without loosing troops in the process. So I prefer 1's and look on those who have 2's and 3's as "wise" ... at least at that stage of the game.

I haven't done the math in the case of the large troop invasion. I suspect that it's a wash and not worth the bother.

But it's not worth hate over. I reserve that for the dice.

[Dukasaur]

Sometimes they're just being stupid, but other times there are legitimate strategic reasons for it.

[72o]

Most of the time they're just being stupid. I'm having an argument with one such logic-denier right now. He claims that "this is war" and "why should he help others", which is dumb. He claims my strategy is not smart and is too luck-dependent.

I mapranked he and I on 6,7, and 8 player escalating games. He is -156. I am +2466.

[Metsfanmax]

Most of the time they're just being stupid. I'm having an argument with one such logic-denier right now. He claims that "this is war" and "why should he help others", which is dumb. He claims my strategy is not smart and is too luck-dependent.

I mapranked he and I on 6,7, and 8 player escalating games. He is -156. I am +2466.

I too agree that engaging in an argument with someone who you feel is stupid is a productive use of time.

[72o]

Most of the time they're just being stupid. I'm having an argument with one such logic-denier right now. He claims that "this is war" and "why should he help others", which is dumb. He claims my strategy is not smart and is too luck-dependent.

I mapranked he and I on 6,7, and 8 player escalating games. He is -156. I am +2466.

I too agree that engaging in an argument with someone who you feel is stupid is a productive use of time.

Well, I happen to have won the lottery with this particular character, and am in 16 different 8 player escalating games with him simultaneously due to some unfortunate tournament scheduling and group assignments.

[Metsfanmax]

Most of the time they're just being stupid. I'm having an argument with one such logic-denier right now. He claims that "this is war" and "why should he help others", which is dumb. He claims my strategy is not smart and is too luck-dependent.

I mapranked he and I on 6,7, and 8 player escalating games. He is -156. I am +2466.

I too agree that engaging in an argument with someone who you feel is stupid is a productive use of time.

Well, I happen to have won the lottery with this particular character, and am in 16 different 8 player escalating games with him simultaneously due to some unfortunate tournament scheduling and group assignments.

Well, I kind of have to agree with him. I think people just assume that it's in your best interests to give other players card spots. I don't think it's been demonstrably proven that this actually helps you. This isn't something that can be answered by logic, it's something that can be answered by empirics.

[72o]

Most of the time they're just being stupid. I'm having an argument with one such logic-denier right now. He claims that "this is war" and "why should he help others", which is dumb. He claims my strategy is not smart and is too luck-dependent.

I mapranked he and I on 6,7, and 8 player escalating games. He is -156. I am +2466.

I too agree that engaging in an argument with someone who you feel is stupid is a productive use of time.

Well, I happen to have won the lottery with this particular character, and am in 16 different 8 player escalating games with him simultaneously due to some unfortunate tournament scheduling and group assignments.

Well, I kind of have to agree with him. I think people just assume that it's in your best interests to give other players card spots. I don't think it's been demonstrably proven that this actually helps you. This isn't something that can be answered by logic, it's something that can be answered by empirics.

Such as the map rank stats I posted above. His strategy loses more points than it wins. Mine would make me a brigadier if that's all I played.

[docstretch]

Where your strategy works for you, it doesn't make it the master strategy that all should follow or get off the site. If we all played the same, would it be any fun? Just play the game and have fun.

[72o]

Where your strategy works for you, it doesn't make it the master strategy that all should follow or get off the site. If we all played the same, would it be any fun? Just play the game and have fun.

Well, there's a reason it's the strategy taught by the Society of Cooks. Actually the best escalating games are the ones where everyone plays this strategy, as they are adept at identifying opponents' opportunities and blocking them. The worst ones are the ones where a noob cashes for 15 and crashes a 12 stack to take South America for a +2 bonus, because it leaves the person whose stack he crashed with a low troop count, and leaves the next person to play with an easy elimination.

[Metsfanmax]

Such as the map rank stats I posted above. His strategy loses more points than it wins. Mine would make me a brigadier if that's all I played.

That's not real evidence. First, there are more things that affect escalating strategy than just how you deal with leaving open card spots, and if you're better than him at those other things that would affect the outcome. Second, there's a large element of luck in this game, and that would only tend to wash out over many games, so if you or your opponent haven't actually played that many 6+ player escalating games, it's hard to draw a conclusion from it. The bottom line is that you need more than a two person sample to answer this question.

[72o]

Such as the map rank stats I posted above. His strategy loses more points than it wins. Mine would make me a brigadier if that's all I played.

That's not real evidence. First, there are more things that affect escalating strategy than just how you deal with leaving open card spots, and if you're better than him at those other things that would affect the outcome. Second, there's a large element of luck in this game, and that would only tend to wash out over many games, so if you or your opponent haven't actually played that many 6+ player escalating games, it's hard to draw a conclusion from it. The bottom line is that you need more than a two person sample to answer this question.

Ok.

Edgron is an SoC teacher, so I know he plays "correctly". He is 909 for 3863 for +4450 points. He's probably just really lucky.

Actually the whole SoC academy squad must just be really lucky.

dhallmeyer is 519 for 2070, for +5553.
bruceswar is 775 for 2786, for +9311.

Please provide examples for people who leave 2s and 3s all over the board and their maprank in 6, 7, and 8 player escalators for comparison.

[BigBallinStalin]

@72o, Mets, and whoevs:

I've always wondered about the marginal benefits/costs of leaving 2s on the board compared to the marginal benefits/costs of leaving 1s on the board (with the tradeoff of having a more concentrated, thus effective, force)...

Based on 72o's quantitative evidence (which is very small), it seems that the concentration method is superior to "the 2s/3s" method. With qualitative evidence--i.e. if we asked the big shots about it--I'd expect that they'd support varieties of the concentration method too.

But perhaps there is someone out there who uses the 2s/3s method and garners a lot of points on 6+ escalating games... (If someone provided this existence proof, then we would have more reason to support Mets doubt on 72o's claim.

[Funkyterrance]

@72o, Mets, and whoevs:

I've always wondered about the marginal benefits/costs of leaving 2s on the board compared to the marginal benefits/costs of leaving 1s on the board (with the tradeoff of having a more concentrated, thus effective, force)...

Based on 72o's quantitative evidence (which is very small), it seems that the concentration method is superior to "the 2s/3s" method. With qualitative evidence--i.e. if we asked the big shots about it--I'd expect that they'd support varieties of the concentration method too.

But perhaps there is someone out there who uses the 2s/3s method and garners a lot of points on 6+ escalating games... (If someone provided this existence proof, then we would have more reason to support Mets doubt on 72o's claim.

I agree that the sample group is rather small at this point.

[Metsfanmax]

@72o, Mets, and whoevs:

I've always wondered about the marginal benefits/costs of leaving 2s on the board compared to the marginal benefits/costs of leaving 1s on the board (with the tradeoff of having a more concentrated, thus effective, force)...

Based on 72o's quantitative evidence (which is very small), it seems that the concentration method is superior to "the 2s/3s" method. With qualitative evidence--i.e. if we asked the big shots about it--I'd expect that they'd support varieties of the concentration method too.

But perhaps there is someone out there who uses the 2s/3s method and garners a lot of points on 6+ escalating games... (If someone provided this existence proof, then we would have more reason to support Mets doubt on 72o's claim.

I agree that the sample group is rather small at this point.

Right. I don't necessarily doubt the method, I'm just being properly skeptical since all we have is fairly anecdotal evidence at this point.

As I pointed out, it is hard to properly extricate the main variable here from other relevant factors, such as inherent skill of the player. Still, I imagine that if you found some equally high rated players who used this method and lost their 6-8 player games most of the time, that would be better proof. But the fact that no one at high levels uses the method would not necessarily be proof, even if it's strong circumstantial evidence.