Concur with BD's statements. The other course of action is for 2 of the 3 remaining players double-teaming the 3rd person...this will, of course, lead to bad feelings on the latter's part.

I get quite a kick out of this scenario when being the one double-teamed and the other two players posting messages to the contrary while seeing my territory/bonus shrink as their's expands...this is occurring to me presently in my last game (a tourney finale of My Kingdom) on WF. In one sense, I guess it's the perfect ending...

In the case where the two other players both are attacking you, you should pick one of them (ideally the weakest of the two) and only attack that person.  This swings the game into a state of one player being dominant, and the other player must join you against them or lose.  Of course this is a fine line, you must attack the third player hard enough to show him that he is no longer in a winning situation, but not so hard that the dominant player can then overcome you both.  If the third player is experienced, he will know the point at which he must start working against the dominant player, and equilibrium will be re-established.

Lol, it's too late for that for me...I believed the messaging for too long.

In general, what you wrote is the best course.

One of the easier ways to take your game from "established to dominating" is to think only one move ahead. Instead of taking your turn on what you see take the turn only to prepare for the end of the next turn.

Assuming you're about equal in Bonus, territories, and troops (big one there). Move all the way to the edge of one or two continents without taking them but leave an amount of troops that can easily secure them. Secure, not just take them. The following turn you'll know you can use your equal bonus to clip theirs while gaining one or two more. It's almost like adding fog and it definitely doesn't always work. It really depends on how observant they are because it can help you fly under the radar another turn.

Sun Tzu says: "If you are weak look strong, if you are strong look weak."

"If you are weak look strong, if you are strong look weak."

+1 - Most advanced Risk strategy boils down to this.

ratsy wrote:

So what's the strategy/ies that take a player from an established position to winning? 

Fog or no fog? Very different strategies.

In no fog: it depends on what other players are doing. 

- are you in the lead? if yes, and you can't take someone out of the game then attack only the number #2 guy until he is at the level of the Number #3 guy. this is a well established strategy on risk strategy websites. If you are not in the lead then keep reading.

- are your opponents defensive and building an army? or are they lobsters in a bowl? If Defensive, then you need to be also, wait for someone else to attack. Try and form an alliance against the leader, it usually gets the person you allied with to think about attacking the leader if they previously weren't thinking about that. If opponents are lobsters, you can sometimes win the game without holding a continent (or by only holding a small point one) In these games your opponents are begging you to have the most troops. its simple. Don't hold any enviable continents, only attack once per turn, attack only territories with one troop on them. DO this and I guarantee you will have the most troops in 1-2 card cycles. then start attacking #2.

 

Thats it for now

 

BlackDog wrote:

In my opinion it's just the lack of agression, creativity and understanding of the endgame dynamics that drives players in a heavy passive and often defensive positions which cause stalemates.

There are certainly cases where inexperience and poor play help cause stalemates.  However, I challenge you (or any player here) to to show me an example of a non-fog game on a standard sort of map where you entered the endgame with 3 players of about equal strength and won, and you did not win because one of the other players made a mistake.  I am confident that such a game does not exist in my history.

I believe that three (hypothetical) perfect players entering into the end game in a non-fog game with equal position will always result in a stalemate.  If we take this to the logical conclusion, we can say that as skill level approaches perfection, the change of stalemate in such a situation approaches infinity, and therefore the more experienced the players in such a situation are, the more likely they are to achieve a stalemate.  I am convinced of this due to personal experience, and I would like to think that it is not because of a lack of aggression, creativity, or understanding of the end game dynamics on my part.

Some of you right now are thinking that you play with experienced players on a regular basis, and rarely have stalemates.  The reason you rarely have stalemates is because you rarely reach the endgame phase.  Experienced players rarely reach the endgame phase, because they win before they can reach it!  Lueii, I would modify your statement slightly and say:

It is a lack of aggression, creativity and understanding during the EARLY/MID game that results in stalemate endgames.

I am far worse than either of the two of you, but I don't see any contradiction between what you're saying.

Luieuil's point is that if you are in a 3 person end, a willingness on the part of 2 players to keep rebalancing and whittling down troop totals will eventually result in a position where any mistake will result in an elimination and victory.  (One player cannot unilaterally do this because they wind up weaker than the other two, and the buildup goes back into existence.)  If you're significantly better than the worst (which Luieuil generally has the luxury of assuming), it is in your interest to do this because you're confident that you won't be the one to make that fatal mistake and therefore have a good chance of winning.

When the victory happens, as you say it will be because of a mistake.  But that mistake had a good chance of happening.

I will have to look for an opportunity to try this.  But not, of course, when Luieuil or Black Dog is one of the survivors!  (Because, knowing relative strengths, I'd be confident that I'd make the fatal miscalculation if I tried!)

Though difficult, it is possible for two colluding players to whittle down the 3rd player until they reach a point where the outcome is 50/50. But, each player has to be willing to leave that 50/50 elimination for the other player. I tell my colluder that this really is my intention - to leave him with 50/50. (Because 50/50 is better than a draw or 1/3-1/3-1/3.) But the negotiating, even between two experienced good players, usually leads to attempts at gaining an edge (or preventing the other player from doing so) through the negotiation.

In spite of this possibility, I agree with BD's nuanced view.

3-ways in non-fogged "regular" games suck.

Hugh wrote:

Though difficult, it is possible for two colluding players to whittle down the 3rd player until they reach a point where the outcome is 50/50. But, each player has to be willing to leave that 50/50 elimination for the other player. I tell my colluder that this really is my intention - to leave him with 50/50. (Because 50/50 is better than a draw or 1/3-1/3-1/3.) But the negotiating, even between two experienced good players, usually leads to attempts at gaining an edge (or preventing the other player from doing so) through the negotiation.

In spite of this possibility, I agree with BD's nuanced view.

3-ways in non-fogged "regular" games suck.

This is one of the reasons why I'd like to establish a reputation for being honest in such negotiations, so that people are willing to do so with me.

But that said, I tend to err on the side of being too aggressive and preemptively whittling down the leader.  So I am unlikely to get into these draws, even on unfogged 3 way boards.  I clearly need to fix that, even though doing so risks the boredom that you complain about.

If I'm in a 3-player end game where all 3 players are at similar strength, then I feel I've done something wrong. It does happen occasionally, however, and I tend to err on the side of avoiding mutually-assured destruction. I try to do little things to make myself a less attractive target. Maybe I'll completely pull out of my continent. Let someone else think +2 per turn means anything when trades are at 35+. I'll not sit with 4 or 5 cards if I can avoid it. At this point in the game, emerging as the player with slightly more troops than others is basically meaningless. I play to survive... But always leaving an option to attack if a golden opportunity comes.

btilly wrote:

Hugh wrote:

Though difficult, it is possible for two colluding players to whittle down the 3rd player until they reach a point where the outcome is 50/50. But, each player has to be willing to leave that 50/50 elimination for the other player. I tell my colluder that this really is my intention - to leave him with 50/50. (Because 50/50 is better than a draw or 1/3-1/3-1/3.) But the negotiating, even between two experienced good players, usually leads to attempts at gaining an edge (or preventing the other player from doing so) through the negotiation.

In spite of this possibility, I agree with BD's nuanced view.

3-ways in non-fogged "regular" games suck.

This is one of the reasons why I'd like to establish a reputation for being honest in such negotiations, so that people are willing to do so with me.

But that said, I tend to err on the side of being too aggressive and preemptively whittling down the leader.  So I am unlikely to get into these draws, even on unfogged 3 way boards.  I clearly need to fix that, even though doing so risks the boredom that you complain about.

I think trying to whittle the leader down is a very dangerous tactic. It's one that im sure is prudent occasionally, and ive most likely done it before, but i think only rarely. Anyway, it makes me feel like I'm doing someone else's work for little to no benefit. Let the leader be the leader, and be less attractive as a target for him than the other guy/gal.

KillDawg wrote:

One of the easier ways to take your game from "established to dominating" is to think only one move ahead.

This may be a matter of personal taste, but I couldn't disagree more with the above. I am always thinking much, much further ahead than one turn.

soft wizard wrote: If I'm in a 3-player end game where all 3 players are at similar strength, then I feel I've done something wrong. It does happen occasionally, however, and I tend to err on the side of avoiding mutually-assured destruction. I try to do little things to make myself a less attractive target. Maybe I'll completely pull out of my continent. Let someone else think +2 per turn means anything when trades are at 35+. I'll not sit with 4 or 5 cards if I can avoid it. At this point in the game, emerging as the player with slightly more troops than others is basically meaningless. I play to survive... But always leaving an option to attack if a golden opportunity comes.

Well, if you've done it in Wargear Warfare, then yes, something rare has happened. I never wheel and deal on WGWF. (I know this is your main Wargear experience soft wizard!!) It's just unnecessary. But on big Antastic games, these even situations, 3-way or otherwise arise with much greater frequency. Draw seems reasonable to me, but usually not to others.

Hugh wrote:

soft wizard wrote: If I'm in a 3-player end game where all 3 players are at similar strength, then I feel I've done something wrong. It does happen occasionally, however, and I tend to err on the side of avoiding mutually-assured destruction. I try to do little things to make myself a less attractive target. Maybe I'll completely pull out of my continent. Let someone else think +2 per turn means anything when trades are at 35+. I'll not sit with 4 or 5 cards if I can avoid it. At this point in the game, emerging as the player with slightly more troops than others is basically meaningless. I play to survive... But always leaving an option to attack if a golden opportunity comes.

Well, if you've done it in Wargear Warfare, then yes, something rare has happened. I never wheel and deal on WGWF. (I know this is your main Wargear experience soft wizard!!) It's just unnecessary. But on big Antastic games, these even situations, 3-way or otherwise arise with much greater frequency. Draw seems reasonable to me, but usually not to others.

You have perfectly summarized why I like to play different boards.  Strategy varies.  I prefer to enjoy 10 different types of strategy over becoming perfect in 1.