[map] Nukes! Strategies and bugs

[Cardinalsrule]

I've never seen anyone get mad before because you sent a 'chatter' while they were attacking... I guess he's easily distracted... lol

 

[Incandenza]

I have one question,
what exactly does owning 2 spy agencies + satellite do? (fog of war thingy)
only thing I haven't reached yet
and talking about bad losers:
http://www.majorcommand.com/Games/Game.php?gameid=36167
though I'm glad it's the first one I've come across with

Well, if you hold both spies and the satellite, you get a +1. The satellite itself won't have full functionality until we add a fog-of-war option, which is very much on the to-do list (plus fog of war is awesome).

 

[Dreadnought]

Stalemate in RT Game 036317. Only reason I won the game was because my opponent went to bed. I suggest that if you take all regions on one side your enemy can not use his spies against you anymore.

 

[Incandenza]

I'm starting to think we may need to revise the rules a touch, just because there's no penalty for just keeping a huge stack on your spy, and as the stacks get bigger the player actually trying to win gets totally hosed by attacker's advantage. Maybe opposing spies should be able to bombard each other? That would certainly dissuade people from keeping giant stacks in their spies.

 

[Dreadnought]

That would sadly just make people add stacks next to spies and not really solve the problem. I think my suggestion of invunerability to spy-attac if you hold all regions on your side of map is better and also less time consuming but maybe there are even better solutions to this problem. Just remember that any suggestion should work for all types of settings.

 

[mark]

I like the current system...perhaps that is because I have done pretty well with it so far...but really I like that it matches the actual buildup of nuke forces that the USSR and USA went through (and are still dealing with) during the last half of the last century. In games lasting more than 7-10 rounds it really becomes a numbers strategy. And there is a serious risk required to get to the end game. Even if you can build up enough forces beside target acquisition, the capitol, and on a spy at some point you need to drop enough on the first two and hope the opposite player doesn't get their bonus next round.

It doesn't involve the War Games result (there is a way to win) but it does bring up issues of nuclear build up and use of security forces for espionage. Dreadnought's idea is interesting though....would there be a 'hold it for a round' kind of thing, or if I grab all of the regions am I immediately immune? Seems to me that ends the game....that's a completely different way of looking at this map.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

If you hold all regions on your map for a turn you can already use the nuke... don't see where that would help. If you only have to capture them, not actually hold them for a turn, the person in a 2-person who gets them all first automatically wins.

I'm in a 2-player game with Inca right now, we're in round 19, I believe. He would have won in about round 10 if all he had to do was capture them and gotten 'immunity'. Dread's idea gives another huge advantage to the person who gets the luck of the draw and goes first.

 

[Chilly]

Just wondering, did you guys ever run up against a stalemate in the testing? I'm not saying I am there yet in my game, but I could definitely see how once the playfield gets divided up, good-to-perfect play on both sides could lead to continual bombardment from the spy agencies, preventing anyone from actually launching the nuke.

Potential Stalemate

I would suggest allowing each of the spy agencies the ability to also bombard one of the opposing spy agencies, so that each can attack one and be attacked by one.

^This

I'm starting to think we may need to revise the rules a touch, just because there's no penalty for just keeping a huge stack on your spy, and as the stacks get bigger the player actually trying to win gets totally hosed by attacker's advantage. Maybe opposing spies should be able to bombard each other? That would certainly dissuade people from keeping giant stacks in their spies.

Good idea.

The way I see it, the problem is the goal of the nukes map is to hold both the leader and the target territory for a whole turn. This is counter to the normal winning strategy favoring the attacker. I would propose a couple of ideas:

• Allow the spy agencies to bombard each other. This will prevent people from leaving large stacks there and the size of those stacks might wind up being limited by deployment.
• When a bombardment is successful, instead of putting one troop on it, put 1d(max(0,(8-#aliveplayers)))
• Put some kind of defensive bonus on the leader/target territory. Let them roll three dice, or give them a +1. This will shift the short term advantage to defense on these squares, which will increase the nukes coming into play.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

would you give the defensive advantage to the leader/target from the get-go or just when being bombarded?

I like the idea of giving it from the beginning; I've seen several games where the player with the luck of the drop manages to grab the target 1st round and the +2 every round was overwhelming. Make it harder to get that +2 and more games won't be won so quickly.

 

[Shepherd]

I've played a lot of games on this map and I have yet to see a stalemate. It's probably the most balanced map we have, in that it's totally possible to overcome early bad luck.

Spies attacking spies would indeed discourage folks from just building up and being defensive. I have seen the light and would support this change. Alternatively, the Spy Satellite could be used to attack ("expose") the other player's spies, adding yet another twist and another region players would have to throw troops at.

The other thing that we have discussed is eliminating the rule giving a player a card for a bombardment, but I think that might actually cause stalemates - right now it's luck with cards that tend to win games.

 

[rob6483]

I also like the idea of having the satellite (and maybe require also having both spies) as a way to open up attack on the enemies spies. I agree with mark that at some point someone has to take a risk to try to win. I am currently awaiting a loss any hour against Incandenza for taking that very risk and having things go sour. The only real risk of a stalemate would be in maybe flat rate or escalite rules, but I still think that one or both of the players would have to be intentionally trying not to lose rather than playing to win. Doesn't seem to be a lot of point to such a strategy, but you do have a big advantage in that you can consolidate all of your troops on a single spy while your opponent has to split his over two to try to win. But again, unless you're a jerk, eventually you have to make a play to win.

 

[WidowMakers]

I am not really in favor of changing anything and here is why.

I was involved in a 1v1 game where I had thought I had won easily. Then the other player got enough troops to a spy to bombard my prez.
It then went back and forth for quite a few rounds where we each turned in reserves, reclaimed our regions to arm nukes and then bombarded with spies.

It really became a game of "where and how many troops do I put" each round.
It became very close a few times and I almost lost.

If spies could bombard spies, I would have loaded up my spies and killed his stacks on his spies and it would have been over much quicker.
By NOT allowing spies to kill spies, the game rebalanced and was much closer.
The stranger player gains another advantage if they can kill the only thing that can hurt them, the other spies.

Also we need to get FOW in here too. The sat is ONLY designed to help see what is happening in the other country (and missile) when you are not in it.
It is a surveillance sat and that is all it is for.

As far as the eliminating card for bombardment. I think it should be that a player gets a card any time the remove another player from a region (whether they then occupy it or a neutral occupies it).

This map and its grandfather map have collectively been around for a long time and the GP aspects have been play tested a lot.
NUKES is a new map here and I am not sure that we should really start to change around now.

just my 2 cents

PS - There were also a few other ideas that would require NEW code and rules to be setup. We cannot do this right now so even if they are OK and good we could not implement them. AND... the brief and map are already crowed enough. Not much more room to redo and add new rules unless I redo the brief theme image and reclaim space.

 

[WidowMakers]

On another note. This map had many ideas initially that we wanted to do but it got too complex. I have no problem with everyoen (and I think ti would be a good idea) to make another WAR GAMES style map with maybe more complex features and strategy.

Maybe call it MORE NUKES!!!
lol
I will see if I can find a list of the initial ideas.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I kind of like the idea of allowing the spy satellites to bombard the opposing spies, right now they're really fairly underused and generally ignored. Put them into play more.

Shep, how many rounds would it take for you to consider a game on this map a stalemate?

 

[Shepherd]

Shep, how many rounds would it take for you to consider a game on this map a stalemate?

I've been in games at another website that lasted over two years. Those were stalemates. I have yet to see a game on Nukes go more than a couple of weeks, which is nothing in my book.

With the exception of a couple of games that just went completely south for one player (sometimes it happens), all of my Nukes games have been well-fought, close, and ultimately decisive. I just lost a doubles game when I could only drive the opposing president from 30+ troops to 2; it sucked, but I lost. Being able to attack the spies would add a twist, but I don't think it's a necessary one.

Wids makes a great point about how different the game will be under Fog Of War, once the feature is implemented. It's really going to be a fantastic Fog map - not that it's not good as-is, but it'll be even better. (I say this as a mapmaker who is about to release another map that will be better under Fog... soon, my brothers, soon.)

 

[WidowMakers]

I kind of like the idea of allowing the spy satellites to bombard the opposing spies, right now they're really fairly underused and generally ignored. Put them into play more.

They are underused because the feature that they are supposed to be used for is not coded yet for the MC website. Once FOW is ready, the sats will come into much greater use. They may also need to start with a slightly greater neutral count but we shall see.

 

[Incandenza]

I see what you guys are saying, and I'm not proposing that we change the map right this second... but, well, allow me to demonstrate:

http://www.majorcommand.com/Games/Game.php?gameid=36011

To summarize:
We're currently in round 37.
I'm currently up by almost 100 armies.
I have a 3-set that will allow me to cash for 100 more, putting me, in theory, in a perfect position to win.
And even if cardinals doesn't have a 3-set, if I go all-in and try and hold premier and target with appx 236 armies each, you know what my chances are of actually holding one?
3.3%

Now, you could perhaps argue that escalating cards are a poor choice for the map. You could also argue that most games that get to the nuking stage work themselves out, which is true. But there's no end to this game unless one of us decides to grasp at a 3.3% (at best) shot at victory.

Obviously having fog of war will mitigate some of these issues (although not all, since it'd be a simple matter of snagging the satellite to obviate the whole concept), but I've played too many games now where a substantial lead going into the nuking stage simply evaporates thanks to attacker's advantage, and once the game progresses a bit it becomes basically impossible to have even a 50/50 shot at winning with a bold play. I may have said this before, but we're incentivizing people plopping a stack down on the spy and basically playing for a tie, and unless they brick really really early, it's a workable strategy (not a winning one, of course, but one that keeps the game going in hopes of, I dunno, misdeploys or missed turns or power outages or angry spouses forbidding any time spent on that damn risk site, etc).

What really sucks is that there's basically no strategy at this point, because Wellington himself couldn't overcome the attacker's advantage with large numbers. If you assume A) that cards has no set and B) he'd place all his 13 troops on his spy, you'd need 286 on each terit to have even a 50/50 shot, when the best I can manage is 236. Now, I'm a fair hand at this game, and I'll roll the dice on long odds if need be, but there's something deeply demented about potentially being 200 armies up, and yet needed 100 more to even have a 50/50 shot at a win. No sane person would take a 3.3% shot, I've got better odds that cards eventually says "fuck it" and AWOLs (not by much, but 3.3% is a hell of a low bar).

I freely admit, again, that this game is an outlier. But it's an outlier of our own design. Say what you will about the "tactical nuke" loophole used on the original Arms Race map, but it had the effect of breaking stalemates and incentivizing movement, rather than stasis.

 

[rob6483]

angry spouses forbidding any time spent on that damn risk site

I am SO glad someone else has this problem!

Reading through Incandenza's thoughts, I had a new thought of my own. Although it's possible somebody mentioned it before and I'm just "borrowing" their thought. What if there were a cap on the number of troops you could put on each spy? It would make it more worth the effort of taking both spies, and it would prevent the stalemate situation. The biggest downside I can think of is it would make defending perhaps too easy, but if the cap were high enough, it would really only come into effect very late in games that would likely end in stalemates anyway.

None of this is meant to suggest anything along the lines of "CHANGE THE MAP NOW!" I can certainly understand that a lot of work went into each of the maps on the site, and I have a lot of fun playing all of them just as they are! Just food for thought.

 

[Blondo]

A high cap wouldn't fix it. Imho you create a crapshoot.
Because in most situations you can take Target n Premier/President and keep enough troops on spies to bombard your opponent. So the cap would only be reached when the Chinese tell you what to do in escalate, when the Americans close Guantanamo in escalite and when Belgium wins the World Cup in flat rate
In that case the only thing of importance is: how hot are your dice.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

Interesting posts today...
(pssssst - I have a 3-card set also) lol

Regarding the game that Inca and I are in:
I have to say that I've come to the conclusion that the game is essentially a stalemate, Inca is going first and so gets the (small) advantage of getting to turn in first, but I have the defenders advantage of only having to bombard one site. My only (very small, as Inca has pointed out) chance of winning is to turn in a 3-card set when he has 4 cards and hoping that 1) he has 2-pair, and 2) he has a really bad dicerape when bombarding me. I'm FORCED to play "not to lose", and I guess that makes me a jerk, according to a previous poster. His chance is slightly better, he has to turn in a 3-card set and hope I don't have one (2 in 3 chance, where my chance of him having 2-pair is 1 in 3) and then hoping for me to have a terrible dicerape. Either way, odds are long that this game will still be going on at this time next year.

I agree with Inca that this game is an 'outlier', but I'll be glad when FOW is released to prevent this situation from occurring again.