So, my general policy is that if tactically and strategically things are even I go after the best player in reach as they are the biggest threat to my victory.

But, now for my global rankings I see that if I let the weakest player alone and they happen to pull the win my global rankings get slammed.  I lost 71 points from one 12 player game alone. 

Rankings wise I'm wondering if it's better to take out those who would hurt my ranking the worst and leave the toughest until last, because even if they win a little more often the point damage will be half or a third what it would have been otherwise.

Thoughts?

Risk vs Reward. Plain and simple. 

You risk losing the game, leaving the better players in; but you risk losing the points and have a better shot at the game taking them out.

I tend to focus on stronger players if there are equivalent options.  Often I think this strategy leaves me in a top position.  However, the minute I sense that a weaker player is stronger than I am, I abandon that strategy and just play for position.

Interesting question.  In games where elimination, and gaining the cards of the eliminated player, is critical, I find that the weakest players are often as 'dangerous' as the best.  Some players are so unfamiliar with a board, on unskilled, or disinterested, that that will weaken themselves to the point where they give themselves on a 'silver platter' as an elimination option for the other players, who then go on to either run the table or gain a sustainable advantge..  On some boards, I have lost for this reason as much as skilled gameplay by a high ranked player.  So, I would look to eliminate both the best and worst players - all other things being equal.

itsnotatumor wrote:

So, my general policy is that if tactically and strategically things are even I go after the best player in reach as they are the biggest threat to my victory.

I do nothing...they attack each other, then I have the numbers and take out the remainder.  I prefer to play in second or third "place" (as long as they are relatively close to first) for most of a game until the only time it matters to be in first, at the end.

For the most part my strategy is normally to appear weaker than I am, be stronger than I appear, let other's fight for me.

I'm in a game now where it's down to 3 players left. One is weak, one strong as a player). It just so happened the strong player took out a player on his previous turn and proceeded to end his turn with 2/3 of the map. Now, it was my turn next and I had a 3-card set and, if I chose to go after the weaker player, I had a slight chance of KO'ing him for his 3 cards. Sets being about 20 units, I didn't figure it was worth the risk. I chose not to cash and instead made a small effort to break up a bonus of the strong player...rolled poorly and failed to achieve that. I publicly posted a note wishing the weak player luck in his chances of evening the game up. Said weak player proceeded to attack me (mostly), breaking up 1 of my 2 bonuses and leaving 2/3 of the map and all bonuses to the strong player intact. He ended the turn with 13 units protecting his 1 bonus when he could have used these troops to pummel thru a group of singletons or two-spots to break up a couple large bonuses on the strong player.

How would you have played it?

Assuming for argument's sake that the "stronger" player is ranked higher than you, and  that the stronger player is probably going to win the game.  It's possible the weaker player's thinking is similar to that described in this thread.  He is probably going to lose, so better to lose to the stronger (on paper) player so as not to lose as many points.  By attacking you, and with lucky rolls, maybe he figured he had a chance to run the board, depending on your card holdings etc (is the game fogged?).   Regardless, his worse case scenario is to lose to you.

Game is not fogged...and I had way too many troops for him to take me out (both of us had a good amount of troops bordering eachother in a section away in a corner away from the rest of the board. I was caught offguard by another player (who had a good amount of troops, bonus) getting booted just before the strong player taking out the #4 player (thus, we went from 5 to 3 just prior to my turn).

M57 wrote:

Assuming for argument's sake that the "stronger" player is ranked higher than you, and  that the stronger player is probably going to win the game.  It's possible the weaker player's thinking is similar to that described in this thread.  He is probably going to lose, so better to lose to the stronger (on paper) player so as not to lose as many points.  By attacking you, and with lucky rolls, maybe he figured he had a chance to run the board, depending on your card holdings etc (is the game fogged?).   Regardless, his worse case scenario is to lose to you.

I would guess that a more likely theory is that many weaker players feel that being second to last to die is worth something, on a moral level if nothing else.

If you think about subtleties of which person you want to lose to, you're probably not a weak player.  And in my experience weaker players aren't aware of the idea of running the board.

Incidentally this thread has given me an idea for how someone could cheat in the rankings.  Have 2 accounts.  One of which has a low rating and will play anyone.  The second plays lots of 1 vs 1 games with the first, and wins all of them.  The first account therefore keeps a low rating and more easily picks up rating points.  The second would get an insane rating.

btilly wrote:

Incidentally this thread has given me an idea for how someone could cheat in the rankings.  Have 2 accounts. 

Yes, this is considered cheating...

One your first point, I fear that you may be right btilly.

I just wonder what would have been the best play for me. Yertle, I get the sense from your earlier comment that you would have played the turn similarly to the way I did.

Yertle wrote:

btilly wrote:

Incidentally this thread has given me an idea for how someone could cheat in the rankings.  Have 2 accounts. 

Yes, this is considered cheating...

As well it should be!

btilly wrote:

Incidentally this thread has given me an idea for how someone could cheat in the rankings.  Have 2 accounts.  One of which has a low rating and will play anyone.  The second plays lots of 1 vs 1 games with the first, and wins all of them.  The first account therefore keeps a low rating and more easily picks up rating points.  The second would get an insane rating.

If someone did this outright, I'm sure it would be discovered. Once a player's rating starts to become 'noticed', it's simply a matter of looking at their 'games list' or their 'opponents' tab.  It may work just fine at lower levels, but you'd have to be much more subtle about it once it starts to "matter" to other players.

btilly wrote:

M57 wrote:

Assuming for argument's sake that the "stronger" player is ranked higher than you, and  that the stronger player is probably going to win the game.  It's possible the weaker player's thinking is similar to that described in this thread.  He is probably going to lose, so better to lose to the stronger (on paper) player so as not to lose as many points.  By attacking you, and with lucky rolls, maybe he figured he had a chance to run the board, depending on your card holdings etc (is the game fogged?).   Regardless, his worse case scenario is to lose to you.

I would guess that a more likely theory is that many weaker players feel that being second to last to die is worth something, on a moral level if nothing else.

If you think about subtleties of which person you want to lose to, you're probably not a weak player.  And in my experience weaker players aren't aware of the idea of running the board.

Incidentally this thread has given me an idea for how someone could cheat in the rankings.  Have 2 accounts.  One of which has a low rating and will play anyone.  The second plays lots of 1 vs 1 games with the first, and wins all of them.  The first account therefore keeps a low rating and more easily picks up rating points.  The second would get an insane rating.

Yeah, I've run into this a few times lately. Where people were celebrating at how their play got them to lose last, when they could have been working with other weaker players to take down the eventual victor. 

Yertle wrote:

itsnotatumor wrote:

So, my general policy is that if tactically and strategically things are even I go after the best player in reach as they are the biggest threat to my victory.

I do nothing...they attack each other, then I have the numbers and take out the remainder.  I prefer to play in second or third "place" (as long as they are relatively close to first) for most of a game until the only time it matters to be in first, at the end.

For the most part my strategy is normally to appear weaker than I am, be stronger than I appear, let other's fight for me.

Probably the best strategy, but it can backfire if you're too obvious about letting two others kill each other off, and they decide to do something about it. 

Thingol wrote: One your first point, I fear that you may be right btilly.

I just wonder what would have been the best play for me. Yertle, I get the sense from your earlier comment that you would have played the turn similarly to the way I did.

From the sound of it ya, I would have probably played similarly.  I think there is the most strategy in knowing when to go for the elimination and knowing when to keep other's alive, sounds like you did the right thing if the bonus wouldn't have well covered what it cost you to make the elimination...which then I would just chalk the other person's moves to not having a good strategy (although at times I know my moves I think are a good strategy and actually thought out but turn out to just look dumb and really hurt myself and the other person).

itsnotatumor wrote:

Probably the best strategy, but it can backfire if you're too obvious about letting two others kill each other off, and they decide to do something about it. 

True, although I think it is very tough to lay off attacking the leader and trying to be the one getting the most bonus troops.  I think this goes for both newer player and experienced players, ie this is the strategy that I use and I still find it difficult to do at times 

Yertle wrote:

Thingol wrote: One your first point, I fear that you may be right btilly.

I just wonder what would have been the best play for me. Yertle, I get the sense from your earlier comment that you would have played the turn similarly to the way I did.

From the sound of it ya, I would have probably played similarly.  I think there is the most strategy in knowing when to go for the elimination and knowing when to keep other's alive, sounds like you did the right thing if the bonus wouldn't have well covered what it cost you to make the elimination...which then I would just chalk the other person's moves to not having a good strategy (although at times I know my moves I think are a good strategy and actually thought out but turn out to just look dumb and really hurt myself and the other person).

Been there. =D

Yertle wrote:

itsnotatumor wrote:

Probably the best strategy, but it can backfire if you're too obvious about letting two others kill each other off, and they decide to do something about it. 

True, although I think it is very tough to lay off attacking the leader and trying to be the one getting the most bonus troops.  I think this goes for both newer player and experienced players, ie this is the strategy that I use and I still find it difficult to do at times 

I think that's why I like fog. You're never always sure who the leader is.  Like Batman! But, uh... different.

Going back to some of the earlier posts, to play any game for stats seems petty to me and fake.  A player should play to win the game...period! I've recently played several games where it's clear that several players are going out of there way to attack me and I think this playing for stat's sake lends itself to playing AGAINST a player instead of playing TO WIN.  This, combined with my usual shitty dice (getting knocked out an Invention game without even making it til my second turn and not having moved a single unit out of my capitol; in another game, a player starting a game with a 20-0 run against me with no dice advantage) makes it almost impossible for me to win a game.  That kind of combination drives folks into early retirement and I don't think we should be encouraging players to play to a statistical advantage.