This tactic has been used against me in a couple of games, and I'm not sure how I feel about it.

In two player games on WarGear Warfare, when I am slotted to go second, my opponent will play quickly up until the point they have 4 cards.

Then on their 5th turn, they will place their units and attack as normal,  but won't fortify, instead letting the clock run out.

Since they didn't end their turn, they don't receive a card, ensuring that I get to 5 cards first and have to trade first.

The larger bonus they then get is a big advantage on a board like WarGear Warfare.

My question is,  is this a bug or an excellent use of strategy?

Not sure how I feel.

This is in a real-time game, I hope?  Interesting, but it should be effective only against inattentive opponents.  You can just do the same thing on your turn, and then they'll be forced to complete their turn on the next orbit or be booted.

so do their attacks actually get recorded as happening then? if they don't end the turn does it actually happen?

NewlyIdle wrote:

This is in a real-time game, I hope?  Interesting, but it should be effective only against inattentive opponents.  You can just do the same thing on your turn, and then they'll be forced to complete their turn on the next orbit or be booted.

 

This.  Plus since they don't end their turn they don't get an additional card for that turn.  So, in effect, they end up a card behind even though they get the larger bonus.  If the card increment is +5 then it might be worth it but otherwise it wouldn't seem to make sense.

Right..short-term gain for long-term pain (unless the sets don't keep escalating).

AttilaTheHun wrote:

This.  Plus since they don't end their turn they don't get an additional card for that turn.  So, in effect, they end up a card behind even though they get the larger bonus.  If the card increment is +5 then it might be worth it but otherwise it wouldn't seem to make sense.

But not taking a card is the whole point, not a side-effect.  I've often skipped a card intentionally myself, though I do it by not taking a territory rather than timing out.  You only do it once, to trade places in the turn-in sequence with your opponent.

Think of it this way: in a two-player game, if sets progress by 2 (4,6,8...), being the second to turn in means you get 2 extra units for your set *and* your opponent gets 2 less.  It's a 4 unit swing, and you gain it for each pair of sets from then on.  After 10-12 orbits, when you've each turned in 3 sets, you got 6+10+14 = 30 (+6 vs what you would have had) while your opponent got 4+8+12 = 24 (-6 vs what he would have had).  Your unit count advantage over your opponent is +12, and the cost in theory is the value of the one card you gave up (1 1/3 unit).   In practice, of course, the real cost is whatever positional advantage you give up by not taking a territory.  If you need to crack an opponent continent, or complete one of your own, you may not get a chance to skip a card.

In games with more players, the unit count advantage is multiplied by however many players follow you in the seat order.  And it is usually easier to find a spot where you can afford to skip taking a territory.

But that's what makes this time-out ploy interesting:  you can have your cake (territories) and eat it, (skip a card) too.  Leaving aside whether it is an ethical play, it is certainly worthwhile if it works and your opponent doesn't follow suit!

That's pretty clever !  I would say it's "legal" and since there is a slight risk vs reward aspect to it then it may be a strategy that helps or could ultimately hurt the player doing it.

I have seen card skipping as an effective strategy in larger WGWF games, but in 1v1, without question it is not something you want to do.  It is MUCH more important that you have a set to turn in rather than getting an extra 2 or 5 armies.  I wll at times decide not to turn in cards until my opponent does but will never intentionally prevent myself from getting a card.  A lot of these games are won by turning a set in without your opponent being able to reply the next turn with a set of their own.  The extra bonus developed in a scenario like that can carry you to a victory.  So you dont want to avoid getting those precious cards.

to add detail, I've only seen this in realtime games.

The key to the strategy is indeed that in standard WarGear Warfare, the card increment is +2 AND the game tends not to go beyond a card payout of 10 units or so (so going from 1st to 2nd in "card turn order" isn't that important),   It usually ends long before this.

Even more important in this case, the person turning in cards second is usually able to get the SA or Australia bonus, and defend it with units, meaning they have an advantage for at least the next couple of rounds before someone has a bonus again.  This is often enough to win the game.

This strategy would be nullified if timing out took into consideration the fact that you had taken a territory (and thus had earned a card). Then a player would have to choose between giving up not just a card, but a whole turn worth of attacks. As it stands now, you can attack, gain territory and reverse the card order.

Perhaps it is smart, maybe I'll start using it.

It may be "legal" Yertle, but it most certainly is not "ethical.". In essence, the player is tricking the engine and is having it both ways as NI points out. Smart, yes - but unethical. The rules for any card-involved game are that, if you take a territory, you get a card.

Thingol wrote: It may be "legal" Yertle, but it most certainly is not "ethical.". In essence, the player is tricking the engine and is having it both ways as NI points out. Smart, yes - but unethical. The rules for any card-involved game are that, if you take a territory, you get a card.

+1, the timeout ploy is definitely an angleshoot.

To SG's point, I disagree that you "never" skip a card in a 1v1 game.  Of course game conditions may preclude being able to make the play, especially in 1v1 games, but I find that they often provide an opportunity to do it.  If they do, the cost is very small - before the first sets are turned in, a card is only worth 1 1/3 unit.  I usually do it in orbit 4 or 5 if I already have a 3- or 4-card set, so I'm not risking the opponent turning in early when I can't respond.

In a lot of maps I find that units are more valuable early on then they are later, so being the first trade in isn't too bad.  Although, in a battle of attrition I could see how this strategy could be employed.  Unethical? Maybe, but as NewlyIdle pointed out you could just do the same thing in return if it mattered that much to you.

Lol, now that we know it is possible...I think that pretty much noone knew this was possible before this thread.

I never knew it was possible... at first it bugged me because it exploited mechanics (and drags the game out).  But then... if you have 4 cards and don't want your 5th - depending on the map it can backfire greatly. 

1. If your opponent has a trade-in @4-cards they may be about to trade-in anyways, plus they are now a card higher in the card set. 

2. You didn't fortify - in vanilla risk-type boards this can set you behind 2 units stuck back where they aren't attacking/defending. 

3. In 2-players, fewer armies sooner is often better than more armies later.  even 4 units on first trade-in could mean reducing your opponent's income by certain amount, or allow you to completely clear out your opponent's armies from around a continent bonus.

4. If someone uses this on you, nothing prevents you from doing the same thing back to them.

If it is unethical (and though on the one hand I'm on the fence about it - I think the argument that you can't do it in a F2F game is a strong one), the fix is simple -- ask tom to make it so that if you take a territory you get a card when your turn ends, no matter how it ends.

NewlyIdle wrote:

To SG's point, I disagree that you "never" skip a card in a 1v1 game.  Of course game conditions may preclude being able to make the play, especially in 1v1 games, but I find that they often provide an opportunity to do it.  If they do, the cost is very small - before the first sets are turned in, a card is only worth 1 1/3 unit.  I usually do it in orbit 4 or 5 if I already have a 3- or 4-card set, so I'm not risking the opponent turning in early when I can't respond.

I agree that a card is worth 1/3 of the current trade-in value.  This in itself can be very valuable.  However, I feel that cards have a second, and more important, purpose - to increase the probability that you have a set to trade-in on your turn.  In many cases the ability to trade-in a set of cards can be the difference between winning and losing.

Imagine a scenario where your opponent just traded in a set of cards and captured extra territories or a continent that gives them a significant advantage in bonus.  You need to respond quickly to put the position back on an even keel - you need a set of cards.

In this scenario imagine also that in the beginnig of the game you intentionally prevented yourself from getting a card.  If you now have 2 cards, you have 0% chance of having a set.  That extra card would have given you about a 33% chance to have a set.  If you have 3 cards, the extra card would increase your odds for a set from about 33% to about 66%.  If you have 4 cards, the extra card would increase your odds for a set from about 66% to 100%.

My summation point is that cards are most important because they significantly increase your odds of having a set to turn in when you need it.  This is often the difference between winning and losing on boards with escalating trade-in values.

M57 wrote:

If it is unethical (and though on the one hand I'm on the fence about it - I think the argument that you can't do it in a F2F game is a strong one), the fix is simple -- ask tom to make it so that if you take a territory you get a card when your turn ends, no matter how it ends.

Not sure about your last idea M. It has been discussed before but I can't find the thread. The problem is that too many players would let themselves skipped in order to be a pain, especially in RT games.

Toto wrote:

M57 wrote:

If it is unethical (and though on the one hand I'm on the fence about it - I think the argument that you can't do it in a F2F game is a strong one), the fix is simple -- ask tom to make it so that if you take a territory you get a card when your turn ends, no matter how it ends.

Not sure about your last idea M. It has been discussed before but I can't find the thread. The problem is that too many players would let themselves skipped in order to be a pain, especially in RT games.

This is a good point.

The other way to approach it is to acknowledge that it's a legal strategy.  There doesn't even seem to be broad consensus that it's a strong tactical play in the first place.

M57 wrote:

If it is unethical (and though on the one hand I'm on the fence about it - I think the argument that you can't do it in a F2F game is a strong one), the fix is simple -- ask tom to make it so that if you take a territory you get a card when your turn ends, no matter how it ends.

This is very simple to do if the consensus is that it's a good idea. It does change the game dynamic slightly for realtime games - although I don't see any major downsides.

I don't play any RT games, so I may be missing something -

I don't think it should be changed to give the card anyways - I can envision people allowing their timer to run out every other turn since they would only be losing the fortify -