1 on 1 style vs FFA style

[KGB]

LPhillips,

That's a tough one. Especially since the 3rd player you targeted to eliminate quickly isn't dying as expected. Sometimes that happens. The worst thing you can do though is raze those cities since you *need* them so you have to avoid doing that.

Not sure what map you are on in this game that's low on gold. But one thing I *always* do in every game is take a look at my income/upkeep level. Right around the time the game transitions from initial expansion to middle game (Where all cities are owned, ruins virtually all gone) you have to manage your gold. This is 1 part of the 4 parts of the game I mentioned. The key point is when your positive income reaches +50 or less. Managing from this point on involves ALWAYS having 1000+ gold in your account and ideally 1500+. You now stop buying heroes (regardless of allies) and maintain this gold for 2 reasons. First and foremost is because this lets you run a large deficit of income/upkeep so you can continue to produce masses of men long after other players can't. The second is so you can upgrade walls when necessary on your defensive front to L3/6 to cause the attacker to use large numbers of men to attack with the hope of bankrupting him. Many players blunder here by buying heroes until they are broke. Don't make that mistake because running out of gold is an absolute death sentence.

If the game is as bad as you say, there is little you can do but suffer the attacks. My only advice is to continue to attack 1 of those 2 players with most of your men. Your only chance is to let one them get big and then convince the other to ally with you. In the meantime level up what heroes you have left.

Strach,

Managing the political game in FFA is one of the hardest things to do. You can't be sure who even speaks English to respond. Other times players harbor grudges from prior games etc. Best thing to do is honor your agreements, don't treachery allies etc so that players know what they are getting when they deal with you. When you want to break an alliance, give fair warning, don't just attack. Reputation is 50% of your political game. Fair dealings are remembered and rewarded. So is being known for being a strong/weak player as players often want a strong ally. Sometimes you literally have to bully someone into an alliance by telling them 'if you don't ally with me, I'll relentlessly attack you until we are both out of this game and neither of us can win'. I don't recommend that one too often though and if you make that threat, you best carry it out so that in future games they know you mean business. The other thing to do is in the early game send all your neighbors a message asking about future alliances. Many players are happy to have an early ally long before it's clear you are the player leading the game.

KGB

[Pillager]

Yeah.. wheeling and dealing in the political realm has won me a few games...but it certainly can't be relied upon. But, I agree with Stratch...if you are playing against competent players, expanding like a cancer can be a liability.

Don't get me wrong, you need to expand....but I find that it often pays to expand at a calculated pace.

[kenc80]

LP I consider myself a pretty fast expanding player as well. you are killing me in the 1v1 because your hero stacks are so dang balanced. you have at least two heroes with stacks that have archon+devil+dragon+demon and some other assorted nasties. i have no answer for those stacks at all. those are the strongest stacks ive ever had to fight against.

As for FFA strategy, I try and expand as fast as possible and make an alliance with one neighbor and try and destroy the other neighbor. I know there is fear of fast expansion leading to an alliance against you but really I dont worry about that because usually enemies simply cant coordinate a widespread attack like that. I mean that requires like 4 or 5 alliances just to do. Much better to expand as fast as possible and punch out a neighbor. Especially if its not someone like KGB, Tyrannicide, LP or some other super strong player.

In fact for the first time ever, im in a game where every remaining player has agreed to gang up on the strongest player and ally together until he is taken down. my point is that this rarely happens and is more rarely properly executed. btw...im rather looking forward to it because someone in this thread is about to get served a gigantic, massive can of buttkicking by the whole map

anyways, so yeah i try and expand fast. like has been debated elsewhere, with the surrender conditions leaving castles neutral it benefits you to expand fast in my opinion because almost always there will be a newbie near you that needs to learn how to fight!

Strach - as an aside I consider Piranha to be someone who is always always always negotiating. Not surprising he has turned the tables against you in that 8 kingdoms game. In fact, he may be the most political player ive fought against. good luck!

[LPhillips]

Kenc80:
There really is no answer to stacks like that. The only thing you could do is to suicide a pile of Demons+Devil(+Archon?) against them, and even that expensive mess isn't guaranteed to do any good. I think that is whence KGB's desire for poison units and such derives.

And thank you for the compliments. It's really nice to be so highly regarded in spite of my small experience.


All:

In our example, it will only get worse as the heroes get stronger. And if these promised super-movement abilities and such are added on top of heroes' current powers, I see the game becoming a "clusterf*".

For instance: Right now, the only thing stopping a ridiculous rampage is the fact that Devils don't fly, and that I think flying around the back would in this case be more a cheap abuse than a strategy. Imagine the ability to fly any stack, or the situationally equivalent (or even superior) movement abilities that have been promised. I think Beta4 is going to be a mess to balance.

[KGB]

Those kinds of stacks are only really possible in 1-1 games where both sides end up with 30-40 cities. Typically in games where there is also an abundance of gold from ruins. In those games you have to expect and prepare for such stacks. I often buy Archon Production in such games simply to counter strong heroes. Devils are nice but are far less necessary than an Archon is. Also in such games I never pillage my Ghost/Wolfrider cities. It's amazing how even the mightiest of hero stacks gets laid low by 4 Ghosts + 4 Riders

Once in a great while you might get that in a FFA game but it probably isn't that big a deal to worry about.

Also in Beta4, the Demons power won't be to ignore city walls (that's going to the Sandworm) so that will tone down the Demon a lot. Plus Elves will be much cheaper so it will be possible (and probable) that players will be buying LOTS of Elves for such stacks. Then factor in the Eagle also has anti-air bonus too making it a hunter of flying hero stacks (or at least a weakener). Assuming the Ghost cost comes down to the 900 range where it belongs and that's another hero killer.

KGB

[LPhillips]

Yes, critical hits are really powerful. I'd actually be mildly worried by the possibility of stacking too many ghosts into a city, making it literally suicidal to attack at all. I'm aware that many such situations exist and it is always best to just go around. Has anyone been known to abuse them to that extent?

The stacks mincing Kenc80's army are something along the lines of Hero+Dragon+Archon+Devil+Unicorn+Demons/Griffins/fodder. I use them only offensively, and sit them out of range of all counterattacks until they're ready to strike. In cities if possible, of course. I generally back them up with a stack or two of fodder to occupy the city and provide cushion from counters. Sometimes two or more of these hero stacks wind up in the same city and provide cover for each other.
About the only possible counter is to make a suicidal rush with multiple stacks when they are in the open (suicidal because you won't be able to retreat after moving that far). If the atmosphere gets strong enough, I'll play the hero-shuffling game. That's how I managed to break Ezras' defenses. Lots of fun. Or in a 1v1, just move several decoy level-1 heroes into range and hope the enemy goes for one.

That all comes from experience in one FFA on West Illuria. Kenco and I are playing there now. The map isn't just rich; it's silly. I'd like to see something in between that insanity and the common poverty. For now it's ridiculously fun because you can build stacks like that and have epic battles. Ezras slammed me with some really tough stacks during that FFA even while on his last leg, making it a very fun map.

[KGB]

I played once on West Illuria and I'd never play there again. It's about the only map I won't play on.

The map is ridiculous as you say, especially since it was a 1-1 game and if I recall correctly we both had 10+ heroes and 30+ cities on turn 15. It was just literally a race for the endless L3 ruins and collecting heroes/allies.

Absolutely no skill involved on that map at all. Just comes down to the luck of the ally offers and the luck of your starting spot (get one of the bad ones and you are screwed).

KGB

[strach]

KGB - it's an important thing you say about always having that spare 1000 of gold in the late stages of game.

but I would like to know your opinion (since I see that you have enough time and penmanship to write a microessay on every warbarons problem): do you ever implement this "balanced development" strategy (as opposed to the maximal develompment strategy, which you seem to favour)?

at least in 2 games I had some serious problems because I outstripped my opponents in city and army number, and they all allied against me - now I'm much more careful and try to pay more atention to some less "visible" elements of the game. what I mean that 20 cities and 80 armies is often worse that 15 cities with better walls and better situation on the map; and the same goes with armies.

the other thing is that "maximal development strategy" (correct me if that's a wrong phrase) - always makes you "spread to thin" - which is usually hide by the fact that you have strongest armies at your boarders/frontlines (and many players try to fight with you on your boarders which is a often mistake - like in our game on westeros where I lost my hero heading to your boarder, while I should have been more patient and attacked your weaker cities).

[LPhillips]

I'm beginning to see the balance problems in West Illuria. The start points are unfair. But we will see ruins become non-freebies soon, and the tweaked income per castle is a great feature that I would like to see in other maps. It's about time to make some of my own

Unfortunately, MOST of the maps are unbalanced or the outcomes rely on luck. I've been very pleased with Hexagon, but at the same time there are few enough cities and low enough income that a single hero offer can determine the whole outcome. Gvegas places players in such a way that a full map means some players are sandwiched between others and some are not. Westeros' starting points are incredibly uneven, to the point that I find my position untenable often as early as turn 10. Unclaimed Lands is very, very unbalanced because of terrain-themed units' natural differences in strength. Of course some classics like Bull Run have very nice balance. I have high hopes for the map I'm in a test game for now, but the city count is again very low.

I think West Illuria would be quite a balanced map for a team game divided vertically. I thought about taking the idea and redesigning it without the ruins (the income is quite high enough). Regardless, it's fun to play with high income and incredibly powerful armies.

[KGB]

Strach,

(since I see that you have enough time and penmanship to write a microessay on every warbarons problem):

Fast typer

Do you ever implement this "balanced development" strategy (as opposed to the maximal develompment strategy, which you seem to favour)?

No. I always strive to occupy as much as I can as fast as I can. There is an old saying that goes like this: "The things that come to those that wait are the things that are left by those who got there first".

Being first to cities mean you can potentially plunder for gold. Large numbers of cities also means you generate more income per turn which means more heroes, more allies, the opportunity to upgrade your production in cities etc.

Now, in Beta4, that may change. The reason is quests. Quests to occupy/plunder/raze cities, especially if there these quests are for nearby cities (as they were in DLR) will become very important. In which case you'll want to expand slower in order to get more quests which will yield rewards. But right now there is no reason not to expand like wildfire.

at least in 2 games I had some serious problems because I outstripped my opponents in city and army number, and they all allied against me - now I'm much more careful and try to pay more atention to some less "visible" elements of the game. what I mean that 20 cities and 80 armies is often worse that 15 cities with better walls and better situation on the map; and the same goes with armies.

As you become more experienced you'll learn to handle these allied attacks against you. I'd estimate in 90% of my FFA games I end up being the victim of a 2-1 or a 3-1. I've learned how to handle those situations and now I can generally easily defeat a 2-1 against me unless the 2 have way more cities/armies/heroes/gold and often can handle a 3-1 as well.

Besides, I expect to lose a couple of cities from over expanding. Those I expect to lose are those I've plundered leaving little for my opponent. Sometimes I simply raze them entirely when I take them. When self raze is added there will be even less for my opponents to get.

the other thing is that "maximal development strategy" (correct me if that's a wrong phrase) - always makes you "spread to thin" - which is usually hide by the fact that you have strongest armies at your boarders/frontlines (and many players try to fight with you on your boarders which is a often mistake - like in our game on westeros where I lost my hero heading to your boarder, while I should have been more patient and attacked your weaker cities).

I forgot it was your hero I killed there early in the game. You made the mistake of advancing a hero without scouting. NEVER EVER do that. It's the most common blunder I see players make. In fact I make my living off it.

It you want to do the fast expansion there are 2 things you must absolutely do:

1) Win the scouting war. By this I mean you need 2-3 cities making bats (Fog of War obviously). You should be flooding the map with scouts everywhere. Expect to lose most of them. I never have any bats return home. They fly till they die. Their only job is to locate enemy units/heroes and keep track of them (and raze anything they find that's empty). Kill enemy scouts as soon as you find them. Win that war and your enemy is blind. Once they are blind, their heroes will blunder and you'll be set to pounce.

2) Have strong defense in cities only as appropriate. Otherwise a 1-2 units is fine. The object here to assess what your cities defense is meant for:
(A) to defend vs. bats, lone enemy units
(B) to defend vs. good non-hero stacks
(C) vs. hero stacks

For (A) all you need is 1-2 Lt Infantry/Hv Infantry types. Having more accomplishes nothing as even 32 1-turn units won't beat a good non-hero stack (Siege/Spiders/Medusa/Pegasi). WAY too many players try and place 4-8 men in every city.
For (B) you'll need bonus units (Pegasi/Medusa) or city specialized units (Spider/Minotaur) and at least 8-12 total men. If an enemy hero is nearby a city, don't put up a type (B) defense. Raze it (Beta4) or support it with a hero stack or Ghosts or just leave it empty. But don't let the enemy hero get gobs of experience taking such a city.
For (C) you need a hero stack of your own. Or Archons/Devils in the city. Or multiple Ghosts (3+).

So in your 20 city, 80 men example, most of your cities should have 1-2 men in them. Only a couple should have more than that near the front lines. So you'll then have a ratio of about 80% of your armies on offense and 20% on guard duty. If you win the scout war you can do this because you'll never be surprised in your back cities (which you won't be doing to be in Westeros since I won the scouting war).

The other thing is when enemy stacks come toward you, don't hunker down in your cites. Go out and attack when possible. For example if an enemy stack (non-hero) of 8 units moves toward 3 of your cities and you have 12 men total there, don't put 4 men in each city. That's a waste of time since the 8 stack will definitely beat one of those cities. Instead send out 8 men to meet his stack and hopefully kill it. Or at least bring it down to 1-2 men left. Then your 4 remaining men might be able to finish it off or at worst put 1 man in each city and win a 50/50 battle.

LPhillips,

It's true many maps aren't perfectly balanced. But as long as they are close. Hopefully if the neutral production gets balanced better some more maps may become playable. Right now there are 5-6 decent maps to play 1-1 games on where the map is big enough that perfect balance isn't so important. But I agree all the smaller maps are pointless to play on because with say only 20 total cities it's 75% luck based of hero offer + neutral production.

Changes in Beta4 may make more/less maps balanced.

KGB