[map] Nukes! Strategies and bugs

[WidowMakers]

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.

Not sure how FOW will help now. It would help initially when a player is going for the missile. But you can still see that he owns the Prez and Target.

 

[WidowMakers]

Two ideas I can think of:
1) capping the amount of troops on a spy region (say 25 armies)
2) Letting Sats bombard back at other spies (I don't like that much)

 

[Incandenza]

Not sure how FOW will help now. It would help initially when a player is going for the missile. But you can still see that he owns the Prez and Target.

It's not so much that fog will totally prevent stalemate, but it will make it somewhat less likely, in that fog will almost certainly make actual nuclear confrontation less likely. It's hard to be a sneaky bastard when the opponent can see all your moves.

As far as the map itself, I can see a few different potential options to at least mitigate the chance of stalemate (some of which have already been suggested, which I include here for the sake of completeness):
1. allow spies and/or satellites to bomb opposing spies
2. army cap on spies
3. have a limited nuclear strike if you hold only one of the two key terits

I'm not necessarily in favor of any of these being implemented right away. The map's still only been out for a little over a month, and of all the games I've played, only this current one with cards is a legit stalemate. A couple others came close but ended up being resolved (sadly not always in my favor). If there are other super long-standing 1v1s, I'd be interested to hear about them.

And of course, I've said it before and I'll say it again, you did one hell of a job with the map, wids. Hat's off to ya.

 

[Shepherd]

for starters, nobody is forced to be in the defensive position that Cards describes. If your opponent is always going to have the advantage in cards, then early in the game you punt two rounds and suddenly you have the advantage.

The problem as I see it is that the defensive player only has to hold enough troops on the spy to clobber either the target or the head of state, so the player going after the Nukes has to have twice as many troops just for the odds to be close to even. I don't have a quick fix for that one, and I don't much like the idea of capping what the spy can hold - that would just be frustrating.

 

[rob6483]

I'm FORCED to play "not to lose", and I guess that makes me a jerk, according to a previous poster.

Sorry, Cards, I didn't mean to imply that at all. I just meant that in the right situation, a player could basically hold another player hostage in a game by never, ever taking any chance to try to win. I don't blame you at all for the strategy you are using in that particular situation, but I would assume that if something favorable came along, you would take the opportunity to win. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

As far as a cap on the spies though, I guess I don't understand why Blondo doesn't think it would be workable. It wouldn't have to be a super high cap. Maybe something like 50 troops max on each spy? Again, my thinking is that it wouldn't really start to play into the game until you get into the higher troop counts that shoot the attacker's advantage through the roof. Or am I missing something?

 

[rob6483]

I don't much like the idea of capping what the spy can hold - that would just be frustrating.

Wow, a whole bunch of posts while I was typing that last one. I agree that it could be frustrating, but it would basically be a race at that point, wouldn't it? My feeling is that most of the map is already set up to be a race, with first taking a side of the map, then getting the missle, and then firing the nuke. A cap would basically just put a "time limit" on the last part of the race, wouldn't it?

 

[Cardinalsrule]

The 'solution' that Shep described to my current postion in that game, by skipping a turn, would have prevented this situation, because it would have resulted in Inca winning much earlier. I was playing 'catch up' every round to keep him from getting too many armies and to stay basically even; even with the extra deploy at the end of the 'return' turn I would have fallen behind badly on the deploys and we wouldn't be having this conversation, since Inca would have won in round 8 or 9. So, I can't buy that one as any kind of solution (in this case). Possibly in other cases skipping a turn or not taking a territory would work. I've seen skipping turns help players in larger games, I have a hard time believing it could ever help in a 1v1 game.

Even this though this one game is a stalemate, I'm not going to argue for any changes to the map; I really like it the way it is. How many games have been played on it? Making changes because ONE game stalemated doesn't make sense. I agree with those who favor leaving it alone. And I add my 'tip of the cap' to Wids for this map, its great.

And to Rob6483, no offense taken. I know what you meant. Your point just didn't apply to this one particular game.

Question for the "powers that be" - what would happen if Inca and I both abandon this game; we both awol? Would it just 'go away'? If so, I have to suggest to Inc that we do that and start afresh, a new "rematch" game.....

 

[Shepherd]

cards, the move I suggested only works early in the game when sets aren't worth much... giving up an 8-troop set won't end the game. I've done it.

Capping the spies just means the spies become useless once sets of cards are worth more than the combined maximum capacity of the two spies, which means the first guy to turn in a set that tip the balance wins. May as well throw out all strategy and flip a coin.

How about this: each spy can only hit ONE of the two key opposing regions in question: CIA hits Premier, NSA hits Target; KGB hits President, GRU hits Target. The basic pay of the game remains the same, but it keeps the spies from being all-powerful. It becomes a shell game between the two sides to position enough resources in the right places. Strategy triumphs.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

Shep, the sets aren't even relevant to what I was talking about. If I had done what you suggest, I would have been hopelessly behind in the number of troops on the board and the amount of deploys earned. He would have wiped me off of the USSR (which he did anyway), and been able to keep me from wiping him from the US. So, as I said, the game would have been over LONG ago. I, as I said, LOVE this map, but, the nature of 1v1 games (first turn advantage) is just as strong here as any other. The 'luck factor' is quite strong on this map. I've lost 1v1 games on this map simply because of 1 bad turn, never being able to catch up to my opponent in deploys. The ripple effect is just too strong. I've also won games for the same reason. Quite simply, using the strategy you suggest in a 1v1 game on this map would have resulted in a rout. (It might possibly work against a lesser player, but not against Inca. Out-strategizing him to that extreme is never going to happen.)

I do like the idea of only allowing each spy to bombard certain territories on the other map. But, as I said, to make changes simply to avoid the extreme outlier stalemate situation isn't really necessary, IMO.

 

[Dreadnought]

How about this: each spy can only hit ONE of the two key opposing regions in question: CIA hits Premier, NSA hits Target; KGB hits President, GRU hits Target. The basic pay of the game remains the same, but it keeps the spies from being all-powerful. It becomes a shell game between the two sides to position enough resources in the right places. Strategy triumphs.

In my view a very good suggestion that solves the problem without altering the game or map that I love. Also in my view a solution is necessary as stalemates do happen, and when they do the game is basically won by the player without a wife/partner/kids or for that matter a life outside majcom.

 

[Blondo]

That's a nice solution but makes spies a lot less powerfull and makes a comeback pretty hard (although I agree that in some cases spies being able to attack both crucial regions makes them too strong and will cause some stalemates).

Imho stalemates are inherent to this map (and strategic games in general). I would allow for stalemates to occur naturally but offer a way out.
A way out is: add an offer stalemate button (opponent free to decide if he wants to accept; put a limit on the times it can be offered per game because some may abuse it only to bother players). If someone really doesn't know or doesn't want to know they're actually in a stalemate you can add a forced stalemate button too (can be the same button which doen't need to be accepted and ends the game in stalemate after x rounds once it's activated). There are only so many rounds such a small map should last once 1 player remains on each side.

Prolly will be a very complex button
E.g. - during any game (on any map?) you can offer stalemate 3 times max. (can be rejected by opponent; and he can't be bothered more than 3 times). Don't know if it has been discussed on this forum but I think an offer stalemate feature would be handy.
- forced stalemate should only be available later in the game (e.g. 2 players left on each side need a decent amount of rounds to ...). Once activated you'll have x rounds to end the game or automatic stalemate. There're several ways how forced stalemate could or should be activated; 1 better than the other.

 

[VetaBANNED]

I think they should just change the map so it doesn't stalemate - although I would be naive to think other maps can't stalemate. The difference between other maps and Nukes however is that other maps don't usually stalemate between 2 players.

 

[Shepherd]

A simpler solution than having a button on which both players must agree (it would be frustrating if I wanted to call a game and my opponent refused) would be to give an option at set-up to put a round limit on games; hit the limit and no points are distributed, period. For most maps this wouldn't be an issue - and it wouldn't work for some game types like Mercenary - but on a map like Nukes a cold war could end in a natural stalemate. If I knew that the game was going to be over in round 30, I might take a chance in round 28 that i wouldn't otherwise take. It would also give a slight advantage to the player who goes last, thus mitigating the advantage that player 1 usually has on this map.

This, to me, makes a lot more sense than changing the map. I'm in the semi-final round of a tournament game on this mp, and it's beginning to look like my first stalemate on this map... which means it will hold up the tournament. If the game was called after "x" rounds we could call the game and try again.

I should note that this is something we'll probably want to implement down the road anyway as develop maps with objectives that must be met within a set number of turns.

 

[SureShotBANNED]

good suggestion shep

 

[WidowMakers]

Even though Sheps idea is great and I think that should be an option that is allowed on some maps and on all tournament games, it does not fix the issues here and now.

From what i have heard this is not a problem on all games (not even most).
So here is where we are now

OPTION #1 - Leave the map how it is and maybe make some game or site changes later to help resolve these few issues
OPTION #2 - Change the map in some way.​

What are we looking to do now?
If OPTION #1 is the best then we are done and can move on until those issues are fixed
If OPTION #2 is really needed then lets focus on that and not things we cant change right now.

Sound good?
WM
------------------------
P.S.I am in the camp that will play a game for 300+ rounds until the other player gets tired and AWOLS. And if they don't then so be it, lets keep going.
------------------------
P.S.S. I think we need to start a thread (I am sure there is already some floating around) on how to fix stalemates.
Here are a few ideas that I have heard
1) Ramp up reserve amounts - Exponentially increase reserves allocated after round X (regardless of reserve setting originally)
2) Stalemate Button - Game is deleted and another duplicate is started after round X ( no points from first game are lost or gained)

 

[Incandenza]

Yes, I agree that we need to discuss stalemates generally. It is interesting however that this is the only map where a 2p game can get stalemated.

Personally, if we're going to tweak the map, I'd be in favor of either A) allowing each spy to only bombard one key terit or B) allowing some kind of strike while holding the entire missile and one key terit. However, I do think it wise to do nothing for the moment and see how more games play themselves out. I'd be curious to know how the number break down in 1v1s, what % of games actually make it to the nuking stage, and from there how many of those games are actual stalemates.

 

[VetaBANNED]

That's a good suggestion Shep - but I'm going to be frank. Unless there is a SEVERE disparity in luck between 2 players on a flat rate Nukes match neither player will ever exceed the necessary amount of troops to hold all positions necessary to win the game - so long as the other player constantly maintains their spy facilities. If force is changed to fixed I'd imagine that this is even more likely to result in a stalemate (even without perfect gameplay).

There is also a problem raised by this solution as it concerns tournaments - are you really going to redo a game with the same settings that may just as likely result in a stalemate -- and if you change the settings, how is that fair to other players who prefer those settings but lost? It just seems to me like the map at current cannot function flawlessly under certain settings. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that - for now I would just avoid any Nukes game with flat rate reserves.

Last thing and I think this is important: I love the feel/the dynamics of the map when played on escalation - I think it truly captures the cold war dynamic, ultimately there is a huge build up between players and one eventually wins by drawing reserves faster (yes it's pretty much luck by this point, but that is the nature of the map). So kudos to the game designers, not knocking the map at all - I rather like what they came up with.

Edit: I guess I forgot to post this before. I agree with WM's assessment. I like the idea of a round limit imposed by game settings (as opposed to a stalemate button) but if you do add a stalemate option then it seems rather appropriate to also add a forfeit option, as was discussed many times before. Both, it would seem, are in the same vain.

I think you could also put some sort of warning when making games with certain settings that they can result in stalemates (kind of like what Settlers of Catan does on the iphone).

 

[Blondo]

The idea of a round limit imposed by game settings was what I meant with 1 of the ways forced stalemate could or should work.

I'm a fan of max. freedom and letting players decide when they're better informed (not always the case when joining a game).
If both players are heavily invested and want to play 300+ rounds let them. If it's not consensual, someone is being held "hostage", offer a way out.

I would argue that something like having 3 chances to offer non-binding stalemates by pushing a stalemate button once; or force stalemate by pushing it 3 times would allow players to express their volition better (pushing it 3 times would end it in round X unless round X is just around the corner, then round Y, etc.). Also I wouldn't mind a forfeit button.

And I agree for trny's with stalemates there should be a tie-breaker (maybe a quick RT game or something else that doesn't take up too much time).

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I, as I said before, am in favor of leaving the map as-is. I do like the idea of a stalemate button, or pre-determined round limits.

 

[CHICO]

is there a way to ern medles on this map like the others ??