Advanced Strategy Tutorials wanted

[Badorties]

Are you an officer? Have a certain strategy that you use for winning? Then we want to know!

We are looking for advances strategy tactics for the wiki page. We have a good amount of basic tactics, could use more, but we really want to know what you employ to take it to the next level.

The tactics should relate specifically to MajCom. No "How to win a land war in Asia". Are you an excellent team player? Whats your key to success. Do you use diplomacy creatively? That tactics do not have to be over arching or all encompassing.

One trick I use is when a region I want to take over is surrounded by other regions of mine that all have 3's on them, instead of deploying all my troops on one region and going for a 7v3 or 6v3, I will put a single troop on many regions. This allows me several 4v3 rolls which increase my odds over a single 4v3.

But what tricks do you have up your sleave? Post them here.

If you submit two quality tactics you will receive a bronze tutorialist service award

If for some reason you want to submit your tactic annonymously, then send it in a note to KungFuDuet

 

[TheColonel]

I'm not a very good risk player (yet), but if you really want to learn about the tactics, strategies, and diplomacy of risk than you should read, Total Diplomacy: The Art of Winning Risk, (i copied this from his website) This book is not just about Risk or use of strategy in games. It aims to enhance your personal skills too. In this book, you will find:

The best tactics and strategies to use in Risk

How to learn by example
Understand player’s psychology
How to debate with people and influence them
When it is wise to break a deal or an alliance
How to control your emotions and exploit others' weaknesses
The best strategies to use if you are playing repeatedly against the same players
How to be deceptive and how to recognise deceptive behaviour
The best online strategies
How to negotiate successfully and make cunning deals

His website is http://www.totaldiplomacy.com

 

[AAFitz]

Basic Strategies applicable to all game types:

1. If you are strong, try to appear weak. If you are weak, try to appear strong.

As a strong player, people will want to attack you for fear of losing, so your best defense is to organize your armies in such a way that you seem less formidable, without losing any actual strategic advantage. If however, you are a weak player, you may be seen as an easy target, and you need to use all means necessary to not be pecked out of the game. Experienced players know that attacking the weak player is often a fatal move, IE: let sleeping dogs lie, because while they may very well have no ability to win the game, they may very well be able to influence it strongly, and often that is your only defense as the weak player. So, use the chat if you must, let them know that while youre a nice guy, being bullied wont be tolerated. Delivering this in the right tone is the art of the game. Sometimes youll illicit attack or elimination just for speaking up...but if you were to be annihilated anyways, at least you tried.

I myself will do this even on 1v1 games to varying degrees, though usually I am trying to act in a way to completely discourage my opponent from trying their hardest. If I am winning, I will demolish them in every way to break their spirt as well as their bonuses. If I am losing, I will let them think they have the game won, and have no reason to pay attention to what they are doing. Ill post gg in the chat very often when I have hopes of winning, hoping that that one little act may very well, make them sloppy enough to give me the one opening I need to crawl back from certain death. Now, in any individual game, this may very well be a waste of time, but as an overall strategy, it may just increase your win rate by a few percentage points...and who knows, in say a massive tourney, you may use it, and win 700 points.....

 

[StayPuft]

This is going to sound obvious, but I've seen a lot of players make deals that guarantee an opponent too much space to build and eventually dominate the game. The lesson here, and again, this is self-evident if you ever bother to think about it, is that deals (in particular given the near-universal respect paid to them here at MajCom) are not universal good things, and making poor diplomatic decisions will cost you a lot of games.

To concretize things somewhat: don't make a deal that gives a player in control of North America one vulnerable border to the south, with a very weak south america player. It's a bad idea and the other players in the game will hate you for it!

 

[KungFuDuet]

Thanks for the people who responded to this! I shall start working on the page.

Please keep them Coming!!!!

Note: AAFitz and StayPuft's entry done.

 

[psupat11]

1. Start a turn by looking at the intel tab. Total troops and troops due to a player the next turn may make a difference in your strategy for that turn. Also, look for any opponent with a number of regions that is a multiple of three. If you just take one region from them, they will lost one extra troop next turn. May not be a big deal every turn, but you can make them earn every one.

2. If your opponent has a large army in one territory surrounded by their own troops, avoid attacking a bordering territory so that their troops are "landlocked" on their next turn and they will have to move them via reinforcement at the end of their turn to be able to use them against you.

 

[MTR]

1. This may seem obvious but I have seen a lot of players make this mistake as well as making it a couple of times myself. When you are trying to capture a territory or continent for a bonus, make sure that you will have enough men to protect your borders when you do take it over. There is no point in capturing the continent or territory, and then immediately being overrun by your neighbors. Instead, make sure that you can fortify your borders with enough men, even if this means waiting an extra turn or two.

2.In big games with escalate as a setting, try to set up two bases on opposites sides of the map. This will not let people knock you out when they are trying to kill people for their reserves.

 

[KungFuDuet]

Thanks psupat11 and MTR.

Note: Done psupat11's 2nd entry (First one is already being mentioned in the Basic Strategy Page), and MTR's two entries.

This is great guys! Keep giving us all you got! Thanks!

P.S. You have no idea how much you are helping us.

KFD

 

[ORBOTRON]

I think we need to clarify something here. There is a difference between a strategy and a tactic. Strategy is a more comprehensive "plan of attack". A tactic is a quick technique applied in the heat of battle. An easy way to think of it is a tactic will take one or two turns to implement, a strategy is longer term.

We have two Wiki pages, one for each. What Bado was asking for was Strategies. He mistakenly mixed the word tactic in there a few times, so the confusion is understandable.

 

[Badorties]

I think we need to clarify something here. There is a difference between a strategy and a tactic. Strategy is a more comprehensive "plan of attack". A tactic is a quick technique applied in the heat of battle. An easy way to think of it is a tactic will take one or two turns to implement, a strategy is longer term.

We have two Wiki pages, one for each. What Bado was asking for was Strategies. He mistakenly mixed the word tactic in there a few times, so the confusion is understandable.

I think advanced strategies or tactics would be good here. Basic strategies or tactics can be for the other page.

 

[ORBOTRON]

If you want it set up like that I think it would be a good idea to clearly define the difference between basic and advanced. Also the pages should be renamed.

I gotta say though, it doesn't make much sense. Tactics are inherently basic and strategies are inherently more complex. What would be an example of an "advanced tactic"?

 

[Badorties]

What? you can totally have advanced stategies and tactics.

Advanced tactic? Lets say A borders B borders C. You own A and B. Your opponent has a large stack on C. Putting a large stack on B would instigate the border tension, making them nervous. Putting alarge stack on A, and small one on B would say,"sure you can cross my border but prepare to get taken out once you do". I use this all the time and have notices that when I want to protect a border against more experienced players, they would rather take out a stack then put themselves upagainst one.

 

[ORBOTRON]

ok, well I reckon the names of the pages should be changed to reflect the new structure.

 

[KungFuDuet]

Name changed to "Basic Tactics & Strategies" and "Advanced Tactics & Strategies" respectively by copy and pasting the content.

Yes, we still need some more input!

But somehow, I think Orbo is right (and I had mentioned this before) that strategies and tactics shouldn't really be classed into basic and advanced.

 

[thone]

1. team game tactic - small damage

In team games it is very important to be aware of the sequence of the players playing. Especially when you’re the one who starts. When everybody starts with 12 regions and 4 reinforcements and you can’t complete a command in the first round. Keep in mind that you only need to conquer 1 region to bring back the reinforcements of an enemy. When your teammate is in play, he can do the same with the enemy who is playing behind him. That way your team has already reduced reinforcements of the opponent team with 2. While playing the game, keep this in mind, focus on breaking/ reducing commands and reinforcements of the player who is next.


2. team game tactic - swap troops around

Again the sequence of the players is important. If you have a border with another player, but your teammate has to play before him, you can send your troops to your teammate for 1 turn. And he can give them back. That way you use the same troops on 2 locations. But pay attention on doing this. If reinforcement is path, and the player behind you can break the path, your teammate won’t be able to reinforce you again.


3. team game tactic - focus one player

When you’re playing 4 against 4 on a small map. Where almost nobody has the chance on taking/completing a command. Try to focus on killing one player by assaulting him with the entire group. If you do so, your opponent team loses 3 reinforcements. Make sure they can’t do the same.


4. single game tactic - secure a command with many borders

When you have a command which has 5 regions. 4 of them border regions of other commands (and other players) and 1 being in the center of you command. And you have 8 troops to defend this command (8 + 5 (1 for every region) in total). You can chose to put 2 extra troops on every region that borders the hostile regions. But its sometimes better to put 8 troops on the center spot. and leaving only 1 on the border regions. When they break your command, you can easily complete it again with those 8 troops in the center. And many players will hesitate on breaking, because then they open up the route for those 8 to pass towards them.


5. 1 vs 1 single game tactic - breaking command or taking series of regions defended with 1

Sometimes players are to focused on completing a command. They have a command that gives them 2 bonus regions and secure it with 10 on each entrance. Leaving many regions with only 1 troop defending it. When you have a stack of 12 troops next to that command (after deploy). Sometimes you can do more damage taking a series of regions defended with 1. The chance of breaking the command that is secured with 10 is rather small, but taking over 6(9) regions with your 12 troops is much larger.



I typed this quickly. I hope you can use it
If needed i can create some screenshots.

 

[ORBOTRON]

Nice thone! Very well laid out also.

 

[ORBOTRON]

But somehow, I think Orbo is right (and I had mentioned this before) that strategies and tactics shouldn't really be classed into basic and advanced.

Not a big deal, we can discuss it more in the Wiki Bar if you want, but as long as the names are changed I'm willing to compromise.

 

[mapguy]

Name changed to "Basic Tactics & Strategies" and "Advanced Tactics & Strategies" respectively by copy and pasting the content.

Yes, we still need some more input!

But somehow, I think Orbo is right (and I had mentioned this before) that strategies and tactics shouldn't really be classed into basic and advanced.

I will go along with the Boss here. For instance, A "basic" tactic is- DO NOT ATTACK WITH LESS THAN 4 troops. But in an "advanced" tactics section it would teach you that in some cases it may be your correct move to do just that. A player must first learn and understand the why of things when it comes to the game. In other words the "BASICS". Only then can he be able to fully comprehend the advanced stuff.

 

[theycallmesquirtle]

I couldn't think of anything "advanced" that I used in my strategy at first, I usually keep myself restricted to sound, rational thinking and strategy, and try to keep my emotions out of the gameplay. I try not to poke any bears with sticks (although why the bears would have sticks baffles me, personally) and as AAfitz noted I attempt to apear weak when strong and a threat even when weakened. My group of friends has referred to me as a cancer, claiming that if not fully eradicated from a board game I will always come back and break you again in the turns to come. Anyhow, other than the whole "Rule number one: don't lose. Rule number 2:break the enemy Rule number 3: Hold sets and win" mentality that i usually have, I have thought of a tactic that could be considered to have finesse, a truly advanced and situational tactic.

When two people agree on a diplomatic agreement and reinforcement type allows for flexibility(path or anywhere reinforce) the first person in the turn order almost always gets the better end of the deal. The way Majcom treaties are set up, the end between the end of the last player in the rotation's turn and the start of the first in the rotation's turn. In otherwords, at the start of a round. So player 3 could be forced to guard their border against a potential threat from player 1 at the start of the next round, whereas player 1 would be able to leave that border unguarded for the round before the treaty ended. The last round of the treaty is, however, one-way in that the second player in the rotation must guard his borders whereas the first is free to pillage as he so pleases without fear of any border incursions. I have always taken this into account but never before verbalized it, and perhaps many have not picked up on this finer point of diplomacy: The first person in the turn order gets a full extra turn of protection and freed up armies. They also have easier renewal options if the time comes to do so, whereas players following them do not have the option to renew on the last turn, they must plan two turns ahead of time if the believe the treaty to be advantageous in the turns to come, and even then Player 1 can deny them and decide for himself on the next turn, adding that aspect of continued uncertainty for the following player in the turn order.

 

[ORBOTRON]

Nice one squirtle!