Forum
Advisor Blog
Reviews
Strategies
Ideas
strategy: Large single stack vs couple of small stacks
|
Thomsi wrote
at 8:55 AM, Thursday March 29, 2007 EDT
One game, in my first turn, i was faced with having one isolated 5-stack and on the other end of the board, 2 2-stacks, only severed by one opponent's territory, which had just one die on it. There was no chance of connecting the large stack with the minors, and i was in doubt on which strategic plan would have the greatest change of succes; create a 3-territory with the small stack in one corner of the field with a risk of getting diminished or wiped away, or 'spread out' the large stack in a saver corner with a lesser risk of getting attacked, but leaving 2 isolated stacks on the other side.
Which strategy would you choose and why? Side note: i chose for the first option and in the end i finished second. Bear in mind that this result was obviously also subject to a number of other factors in the game. |
Replies 1 - 3 of 3
|
Eiskrem-Kaiser wrote
at 10:03 AM, Thursday March 29, 2007 EDT If I knew the answer to this question, I would rank 1st ^^
|
|
JKD wrote
at 10:37 AM, Thursday March 29, 2007 EDT There's usually enough wild attacks so that you'll have a decent chance to connect.
Anyway, what I do is take the small stacks and 1) Try to take as many land as I can with them (to increase chances of the 5-stack gaining a die) 2) Manipulate the game by attacking people such that they'll wipe each other out while I build up. I can do that by either making my opponents equal size so that I can eventually be stronger, or I just screw everyone over except one player and hide on my other end of the map for 2nd (but you have to watch out for alliances when you're small and hoping for 2nd/3rd). So after doing weird attacks I set-up so the small stacks shall either be completely wiped out or completely ignored, and then I end turn and see which happens. If wiped out I now have a 6-stack and have seen everyone's gameplan, if left alone I try to be patient, hope to connect and get reasonable dominance. If that doesn't work then you're probably in a case where it's best to just play for dominance, even if it means 7th position. I've never tried that yet though so not sure how well it works. |
|
Grunvagr wrote
at 10:53 AM, Thursday March 29, 2007 EDT Some games you simply cannot win. The quicker you accept that fact, the sooner you will start to climb up in elo.
In this situation, you should start the game, realize you have poor position and simply strive for a top 4 finish with a +0 point gain. The more often you salvage a crap start to a neutral point outcome, the better off you'll be. Especially if you take your good / decent starts and consistently finish top 3 with them when you are lucky enough to get them. What I would do in this case is try to link the two low stacks then stop. You are gaining 3 dice on the resupply over 4 territories, not bad. The only time I would suggest a long link that involves 5v4s and 4v3s along the way is if it is a run on the outer edge of the map. A run through the middle and even if you succeed... you'll get torn to shreds. But if you fail and you tried to connect on the outer edge, you might not get attacked by someone and if so, you might slow-build a little empire on a edge, then take a corner, etc. |
