3P Stalemates

Alright, lets cut to the chase. Although I'm new to Dominating12, I'd like to think I've played a bit of Risk, both IRL, and on other sites. The thing is, in quite a few games I've seen/played, I seen 3P stalemates which take ages to finish (if they even finish at all). The latest game I played here was one such case. It started off nice and action-packed, and soon a player was eliminated. However, two of us found the third player suddenly substantially ahead courtesy of the aforementioned elimination. Naturally, we formed a temporary peace treaty to focus on our other borders and the looming threat. A couple turns later, I had maneuvered myself into a good position, and I seemed to be on my way to victory. Instantly, the truce was called off (albeit good-naturedly) and so the stalemate continued... The problem lies in the fact that the game was basically a 2v1, except the sides were constantly changing. At one point, when our military strength was more even, no one dared make a big play, for fear of the third player swooping in for the easy kill and win. In this case, we had hundreds of troops stationed on our capitals. And, essentially, did nothing. The minor forays and continent breaking didn't amount to much, because the amount of troops were nothing in comparison to our mega-forts. Off the top of my head, here are some possible tips to reduce this: 1. Escalating spoils as opposed to flat rate or no spoils. 2. Non-capital type games. And the normal gametype to a lesser extent. (Basically any gametype which strongly encourages an aggressively/risky style). And obviously, 2P games. But I was wondering if anyone could provide some help/feedback/opinion about this? Has anyone experienced this issue often? Cheers!

I am now not talking about an increasing card game - and also not about capital- or domination games. (Note that games with a high capped card value it stalemates less often, but it can still happen). I am talking about deathmatch games with fixed cards (or no cards). Yes, this happends quite often - almost always if all the players are (equally) good players. There are a number of ways this game can end anyways: - The game ends in a draw, because a moderator that ends it for you (everyone in the game has to agree). This is bad and shouldnt happen (exceptions are there, but they are few). - Someone suicides because he doesn't like the game anymore. This is bad and should never happen (no excuses). - Someone doesn't like the game anymore and decides to even out the other players and times out (turns neutral). This is also bad, and should never happen, but at least you have a small excuse. So far only bad solutions. - The only other solution that I know of requires some logic thinking: You see, if you over attack someone, you will not win (because 'the third player' wins). But if you never attack, you will also not win (because the game will never end). So what you have to do is to decide amoung all the game members that from now on everyone will play agressively. (Remark: Everyone has to agree, oterwise this doesn't work well). So what you do is this: you don't over attack one player, but you attack both players in the same turn. That way you will keep the game stable, as if it never ends, but you will not get such high troop counts (hundreds of troops at a border). Now the game is just as it was, neverending, stable, ..., but with one difference: the troop counts are really small. Once troop counts are small, a small error can disbalance the game, and a good player can turn it into a win. So then the game is a challenging game again, in which everyone has to pay attention and play well. (Note that having really bad dice will also disbalance the game). I once played a game where at some point the biggest troop count was something like 10 or so, we were super agressive, but it still lasted several weeks before it ended - it was huge fun though. (Bluebird won it because of dice in the end).

Wow, i've been in games with 9 men and those were huge but I can't imaging a troop count of 10! Matty don't get too crazy on us!

Thanks for your reply, Matty! Sounds pretty cool, but the biggest problem is that your solution relies heavily on mutual trust and agreement though, right? It also depends on each player's playstyle. Personally, I enjoy playing somewhat defensively, and don't usually like to gamble a lot on the dice. I suppose, that's part of the problem too... xD Still wondering about capitals though? I'd assume most players would stick to fortifying their bases. I've seen many games where a player is in the lead in terms of military strength, yet is suddenly eliminated due to a sneak attack (esp in fog).

In the past that was true in capitals...the good players would fortifying their caps and wait to kill all players in one turn. Now it is rare to have a cap game go into round 10. I use to say that regions(bonus) was not as important, as placement was and you should never block your cap in...now I see a lot of players doing just that and they have been winning games. But they lose to players that know how to really play if there is more than one of those smart players in the game...they lose to one of them. They play it like they play deathmatches...maybe they should be called 'Stacked Deathmatches"...not capitals.

Just a different perspective for you - by playing defensively and waiting for the other player to attack, you're gambling that the attacker doesn't have statistically-average dice. Which is a greater gamble than simply attacking in the first place. In regards to fixed cards capitals stalemates, there's one solution I've tried. Simply build on your capital, not attacking for cards or gaining land. That way, players have absolutely no gain by attacking you unless you're the last one left. In that time, someone is bound to make mistake and you can swoop in for the kill. Even if no one messes up, it is still very costly to kill a capital without increasing cards, so players will be left weaker near the end.

So speaks a player I was talking about! He has gone up in rank cause of [b]how[/b] and knows who he plays.

Cheers for the replies guys, much appreciated! It's really nice to hear other opinions on this! Thorpe - In my opinion, the reason why players who block their capital off win the game is that other players don't see them as a threat and thus ignore them. This allows the player to build up, wait for an opportunity, and swoop in at the end for victory. It's all about perception, and how you play that. Whereas, if you're capital is open (i.e. you can attack from it), opponents WILL notice the high troop count and react to it. Unless, you go fog-mode... LifeInPixels - Exactly! :) The problem is when all 3 remaining players know how to play, and just stay on defense. No one is willing to attack, because the cost will be too high, and the 3rd player will swoop in for the win. In this case, it is less risky to play D as opposed to go all out aggression. So everyone just waits behind their mega-forted caps and the stalemate continues...

In the games in the past, I would never block my cap in or unblock a cap of another player if they were big...(I call them dead armies), If a players cap is blocked in, they can only get me with their trade-in and/or bonus armies. I keep my cap stronger than that. The only time I would unblock a cap is when I was ready to kill and I wanted that player, I unblocked, to weaken the other cap(Baiting them), or stop another player from attacking, cause that unblocked player could come in and kill them. As a standard ..."never unblock another players cap" [b]It takes skill to know when...who...what...and why. [/b] I just can not understand players that play by "their seat of their pants", "Hail-Mary", "Had to do something", "Luck". Or any-one that says "caps" is luck...[u][i]if all play it like "Stacked Deathmatches"[/i][/u] ...yes it is more luck than skill.

Well Thorpe, the big question with caps... should you play so that you have the highest statistical chance of victory, or play "properly"? (by which I mean don't attack another capital unless you know that on that turn you will be able to win, by increasing cards or what not) It seems that players want other players to do the latter... only attack when they can be sure of victory. It makes it easier to plan out your moves and know when to turn in your cards, etc, so that there are not weak caps left over from a failed kill. The problem is, sometimes this isn't you best chance of victory. Sometimes, you will be in a position where you know that you won't have a next turn, because the cards are getting high and people have plenty of them. Statistically, your best chance is to attack, say, 20 on 30 and hope you can kill him. If you fail, the player after you has a 95% chance of victory because of the weak cap from your failed kill, but still it's your best option. Why is this type of tactic frowned upon so often? Isn't this truly playing to win? This is why I feel like caps games involve a lot of luck. If players truly played so that they had the highest statistical chance of victory, the game is all about who takes their turn before you.

With the card trade-in as it is now, you are correct in everything you say and is better with that thinking...but as it was before.."Cannot trade-in after a kill unless you have 5 cards"...it brings more skill into play than luck. Longer games with cap games and better game play = more fun.

[quote=ProStrategos - Oct 25, 12:48 AM]Thanks for your reply, Matty! Sounds pretty cool, but the biggest problem is that your solution relies heavily on mutual trust and agreement though, right? It also depends on each player's playstyle. Personally, I enjoy playing somewhat defensively, and don't usually like to gamble a lot on the dice. I suppose, that's part of the problem too... xD[/quote] There is the chat too - if one player does not want to play like this, it's easier for you to set up the other player to attack specifically this player, and then he will have to join you :) But yes, at some point all player should realize that if they ocntinue stacking they will never win (and that the game is extremely boring). So play a bit [b]risk[/b]ier and the game will be much more fun. Also, it might actually end at some point :)

[quote=Matty - Oct 26, 04:59 AM]There is the chat too - if one player does not want to play like this, it's easier for you to set up the other player to attack specifically this player, and then he will have to join you :) But yes, at some point all player should realize that if they ocntinue stacking they will never win (and that the game is extremely boring). So play a bit [b]risk[/b]ier and the game will be much more fun. Also, it might actually end at some point :)[/quote] All good points! I'll try this out when I next have this kind of stalemate. Although, by keeping the troop count low, as you mentioned, luck will have a much bigger impact on the game... :/ Oh, and I just came up with an idea while typing this: perhaps all players could agree to place, say 50% of their total troop count OUTSIDE their capital? This would increase the incentive to go for the kill and simultaneously give the killer a substantial force to fight off the 3rd player? Would that work?

Any advice on this scenario? A three player death match, each player has equal reinforcements (+-1) and the cards are fixed at 8. It is to the point that there is at least 100s on each border and the card bonus is not good enough to have a major effect on the game. Also note that each player is playing very defensive So not invade others territory just killing small areas for the card. Advice?

Fixed cards is impossible to come up with a solution that works in each game. The best advice is to poke a hole in one player and hope the other player tries to break that hole wide open. I've heard it called a "finesse" move, where you try to limit damage to yourself while weakening player 2 in hopes that player 3 is enticed into a fight with 2. If you have bad dice though, then you are now the target. The best strategy here for increasing card troop bonus is exploit the turn order. If blue and yellow are your opponents and blue is next to go, then you want to weaken yellow. Don't weaken blue, as he can get his or her draft and fortify the damage you just did before yellow can use that weak point. Also, if you attack the next guy in order they could revenge strike you right back. You don't even have to break a region, you could attack a strong border down to a weak border that is shared with the other opponent and hope that THEY finish the job. Best case, it starts a border war with them while you build in the mean time. Not sure if this would work as well with fixed cards though. Bottom line - you won't win without the other player's action. So you can dictate that action, or you can sit and outwait them and hope when someone does something stupid it is not at your expense.