Knowing who to attack next when 1 player has a significant lead
This Nugget has been written by krinid on 22 Dec at 5:56AM
Category: Domination
This nugget deals with a recurring problem I see across multiple Domination games: players not knowing who attack next.
What's the object of the game? Domination, of course - and only 1 player can achieve this. Everyone else simply loses and doesn't matter in you're 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th. (Side note: if it is a tournament, there may be a case for aiming to come in 2nd place, see this nugget regarding that: https://www.goldtoken.com/games/nuggets?id=80; this nugget assumes non-tournament play).
So if you're trying to come in 1st place, there comes a time when you must play for the 'global game' and not the 'local game'. The local game means playing moves which help you in the short term. Global game means playing moves that will help you win in the end (ie: to be the 1 and only winner of the game).
This article focuses on playing the local game while ignoring the global game. Example, 4 players in a standard Domination game. Red is winning and if things continue as is, will Dominate (win). Blue, Green and Orange are all significantly weaker so that no one can defeat Red on their own. For the sake of this article, I'll continue to use these colors.
In this case, the WORST thing you can do: Blue/Green/Orange fight each other for local gains. Maybe Blue defeats Green, takes Oceania to get the +2 armies/turn bonus, Green defeats Orange to take South America, Orange gets shafted and is almost out. So this is great for Blue and Green in the local game because now they're getting +2 armies/turn bonus each. BUT the armies of Blue, Green & Orange have been depleted fighting each other, so now Red has an even easier time taking out Blue/Green/Orange territories, and thus Red still wins the global game.
When 1 player (Red in this example) has a distinct advantage, the other players have a choice:
(A) Accept defeat, accept that Red will win, and play out the rest of the game for fun.
(B) Still try to win and focus your forces on defeating Red.
Exception to this guideline - if you can defeat someone and take their cards and thus become a threat to Red, this may be a valid strategy.
Far too often, I see Red winning, and Blue/Green/Orange stand by idly or attack each other instead of Red, because they're afraid of attacking Red, losing, then being knocked out. But compare this to the outcome of reducing your forces by Blue/Green/Orange infighting, then getting rolled over easily by Red. It's still a loss, and you didn't even try to stop it. This is worse.
Another nasty aspect of this is that if you are Blue, being harassed by Green or Orange, at risk of losing a continent, this often prevents you from attacking Red even if that was your plan. Say you're holding Africa, preparing to attacking Red who holds Europe in Western Europe, but Orange attacks you at Egypt from the Middle East. If Orange takes Egypt, now you're torn between attacking Red with no income from Africa and re-taking Africa to restore your income. Either outcome is bad, because you're fighting Orange instead of Red, and you've lost outcome, so now the gap between Red and other players grows. Let's say Orange only weakens but doesn't capture Egypt - this is still bad, because you still have to decide to fortify Egypt to protect against another attack from Orange (reduces the # of armies you can commit to fighting Red) or just ignore the threat at Egypt and hope it either holds as it stands or you can recapture after attacking Red. It'd be much more effective if Orange moves up to Afghanistan and attacks Europe at the Ukraine so both are reducing the lead Red has.
Think of it as a marathon. If Red is out in the lead at 32km, Blue is at 25km, Green at 24km, Orange at 20km, then anything Blue, Green or Orange do to slow each other down or only marginally speed up do nothing to change the fact that Red is in the lead and going to finish first. You need to slow Red down; if you don't, Red wins. It's that simple.
So if you are that Orange player who is harassing Blue, you are part of the problem from a Blue/Green/Orange perspective, and giving Red a free gift to help Red win.
Instead, change your strategy to focus on Red. Remember, your choices are either (A) accept defeat [infighting], or (B) try to win [fight Red]. Once Red is no longer in the lead, then the game reverts back to everyone for themselves.
What's the object of the game? Domination, of course - and only 1 player can achieve this. Everyone else simply loses and doesn't matter in you're 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th. (Side note: if it is a tournament, there may be a case for aiming to come in 2nd place, see this nugget regarding that: https://www.goldtoken.com/games/nuggets?id=80; this nugget assumes non-tournament play).
So if you're trying to come in 1st place, there comes a time when you must play for the 'global game' and not the 'local game'. The local game means playing moves which help you in the short term. Global game means playing moves that will help you win in the end (ie: to be the 1 and only winner of the game).
This article focuses on playing the local game while ignoring the global game. Example, 4 players in a standard Domination game. Red is winning and if things continue as is, will Dominate (win). Blue, Green and Orange are all significantly weaker so that no one can defeat Red on their own. For the sake of this article, I'll continue to use these colors.
In this case, the WORST thing you can do: Blue/Green/Orange fight each other for local gains. Maybe Blue defeats Green, takes Oceania to get the +2 armies/turn bonus, Green defeats Orange to take South America, Orange gets shafted and is almost out. So this is great for Blue and Green in the local game because now they're getting +2 armies/turn bonus each. BUT the armies of Blue, Green & Orange have been depleted fighting each other, so now Red has an even easier time taking out Blue/Green/Orange territories, and thus Red still wins the global game.
When 1 player (Red in this example) has a distinct advantage, the other players have a choice:
(A) Accept defeat, accept that Red will win, and play out the rest of the game for fun.
(B) Still try to win and focus your forces on defeating Red.
Exception to this guideline - if you can defeat someone and take their cards and thus become a threat to Red, this may be a valid strategy.
Far too often, I see Red winning, and Blue/Green/Orange stand by idly or attack each other instead of Red, because they're afraid of attacking Red, losing, then being knocked out. But compare this to the outcome of reducing your forces by Blue/Green/Orange infighting, then getting rolled over easily by Red. It's still a loss, and you didn't even try to stop it. This is worse.
Another nasty aspect of this is that if you are Blue, being harassed by Green or Orange, at risk of losing a continent, this often prevents you from attacking Red even if that was your plan. Say you're holding Africa, preparing to attacking Red who holds Europe in Western Europe, but Orange attacks you at Egypt from the Middle East. If Orange takes Egypt, now you're torn between attacking Red with no income from Africa and re-taking Africa to restore your income. Either outcome is bad, because you're fighting Orange instead of Red, and you've lost outcome, so now the gap between Red and other players grows. Let's say Orange only weakens but doesn't capture Egypt - this is still bad, because you still have to decide to fortify Egypt to protect against another attack from Orange (reduces the # of armies you can commit to fighting Red) or just ignore the threat at Egypt and hope it either holds as it stands or you can recapture after attacking Red. It'd be much more effective if Orange moves up to Afghanistan and attacks Europe at the Ukraine so both are reducing the lead Red has.
Think of it as a marathon. If Red is out in the lead at 32km, Blue is at 25km, Green at 24km, Orange at 20km, then anything Blue, Green or Orange do to slow each other down or only marginally speed up do nothing to change the fact that Red is in the lead and going to finish first. You need to slow Red down; if you don't, Red wins. It's that simple.
So if you are that Orange player who is harassing Blue, you are part of the problem from a Blue/Green/Orange perspective, and giving Red a free gift to help Red win.
Instead, change your strategy to focus on Red. Remember, your choices are either (A) accept defeat [infighting], or (B) try to win [fight Red]. Once Red is no longer in the lead, then the game reverts back to everyone for themselves.
Nugget Votes
This Nugget has received 3 upvotes and no downvotes. You need to log in first to vote on Nuggets.
Nugget Comments
No comments have been posted yet.