Hacker News Reader

Comment by AQXt | Hacker News Reader

The first part of the article can be summarized as:

1. Initiate as few attacks as possible

2. Let your enemies break up each other’s continents;

3. Take only one country per turn

The problem is that it doesn't explain which country to take, and how to attack without being attacked -- which is what makes the game difficult.

But, then, the article suggests something new (at least for me):

1. Find a way to grow in strength by taking lots of countries (but not taking a whole continent)

2. Make sure you get lots of cards for bonus armies

If this is a good strategy, I have always played it wrong -- because I've always tried to take whole continents.

View on HN

Yeah and all that didn't require systems theory, wasn't even that useful with systems theory or as an example of systems theory.

> If this is a good strategy, I have always played it wrong -- because I've always tried to take whole continents.

Its not a great strategy, because it doesn't work. If you are taking only one country a turn and keeping only a small connected corr of reinforced countries with the rest weak, then anyone playing a “grab lots of countries quickly" strategy is going to steamroller your weakly defended territory, and if you are only taking one country per turn, you’ll never recover from that.

A thick shell/thin-core strategy can work (especially if it is “talr Australia, then expand a bubble out in Asia), and otherwise looks a lot like the strategy this recommends, but you just have to accept that if a strategy can work, people are likely to recognize it; you can't reliably avoid balancing feedback unless you are playing against inexperienced players or naive AI.

(Also, contrary to the article, IME while Australia is frequently taken early on, its also a major balancing feedback trigger.)

"Also, contrary to the article, IME while Australia is frequently taken early on, its also a major balancing feedback trigger."

It turns out that in any decent game with decent opponents, players learn what works and adapt. ;-)

At least in my meta, the main reason why Australia tends to get left alone once consolidated is that defending it is comparatively easy that anyone who tries to take it out without first consolidating an overwhelming advantage will be so crippled by the effort that they'll invariably lose the game. So Australia devolves to being this game of "chicken" between the other players.

I think it assumes you have more than 2 people playing, and the other people haven't read this article. Which...doesn't sound like a sound strategy to me.

It's a good strategy against those that don't know it. Basically, you are biasing towards consistent growth and avoiding spreading yourself too thin.

> If this is a good strategy, I have always played it wrong -- because I've always tried to take whole continents.

Continents are great, but only if you are in so strong a position that everyone thinks you are never going to lose it before next turn anyway.

I often play against bots in yura.net Domination. These bots seem hardcoded to gang up on players (both bots and humans) whenever they manage to take a continent. It doesn't help that continents that are worth holding are usually difficult to defend. I learned quickly to never hold onto continents, especially with increasing cards. When you are strong enough to hold continents, you have pretty much already won the game.

Taking the Americas was always the ideal way to win. Only three borders to defend. The Asia strategy hardly ever worked.

Then there's my personal favorite once you know you can't win: "Turtle up" in Australia to drag the end game out for no reason other than spite.

Take a least one country each turn is the "get lots of cards for bonus armies" strategy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com