The Cheapest Trick in the Book!

[Atreidi]

Ok, here is a question for the pros and to the experienced...
What is the cheapest trick in the book?
When you want to win and want to win FAST without caring for the "quality" or "fun" of the game, what do you do?
What do you consider to be the cheapest easiest way to win?
*without cheating ofcourse*
Is it massing out one unit?
Spell Spam?
Do share!
(On your average game, small/big/huge what is the cheapest trick regardless of settings?

[NTJedi]

Depends on the map size, number of opponents, the nation you're playing, the nation being played by your opponents, game settings, etc.,.

It would be like asking... "What's the fastest way to begin farming on a new planet?" (What planet, what type of farming, etc., etc.,)

[Ballbarian]

Build nothing but tanks as fast as you can and then head straight for the enemy base. Oh... wait, that's a different game. Sorry. :p

[Endoperez]

A double-9 bless with some nations can supercharge your early game and let you conquer one or two capitals before others can react.

[vfb]

Gang up on other nations, take the largest share of the spoils, and avoid being ganged up on yourself.

[Executor]

How bout this, what the cheapest fastest way to make clam holders? Other than buying them.

[vfb]

Well, you've got to spend something, gems or gold, unless you've got the soul stone, and even in that case you're paying up front. Seems like kind of a weird question to me. Do you make so many clams that you can't hire enough cheap indy scouts or commanders to hold them all?

[Executor]

What if I say yes, I don't have any more gold for commander???
I was thinking about the mound king for example, 3 death gems.
Or if I missed any other cheap commander.

[vfb]

Kappa is 1W in CBM, for Yomi & co.

Scouts are 3 for 2F, or 2E.

Have you been Armageddoned again?

[Executor]

Well it would be unwise to tell you everything.

[Poopsi]

Put all your drones to get minerals, and build two more drones. Then spawn an overlord. After that, build a spawning pool and as soon as it is built set your larvae to become zerglings. Attack the enemy resource gatherers ASAP, and AFTER that, focus on their base building.

[Executor]

Starcraft?

[Endoperez]

What if I say yes, I don't have any more gold for commander???
I was thinking about the mound king for example, 3 death gems.
Or if I missed any other cheap commander.

It seems Telestic Animations don't have any misc slots, so they won't work. Hmm...

Black Servants would be just 2 gems more, for more survivability.

Do commanders desert when you can't pay them? If you have access to 30 gp commanders, 2 fire gems can be alchemized to recruit one of them.

[Jazzepi]

What if I say yes, I don't have any more gold for commander???
I was thinking about the mound king for example, 3 death gems.
Or if I missed any other cheap commander.

It seems Telestic Animations don't have any misc slots, so they won't work. Hmm...

Black Servants would be just 2 gems more, for more survivability.

Do commanders desert when you can't pay them? If you have access to 30 gp commanders, 2 fire gems can be alchemized to recruit one of them.

Commanders will not desert if you can't pay them.

Jazzepi

[Atreidi]

Depends on the map size, number of opponents, the nation you're playing, the nation being played by your opponents, game settings, etc.,.

It would be like asking... "What's the fastest way to begin farming on a new planet?" (What planet, what type of farming, etc., etc.,)

LoL, I knew you weregoing to say that! I'll try to re word it. I know it is a very broad question but try to answer the best you can. :)

[chrispedersen]

Small maps: Awake SC or High Dominion Bless.

[AdmiralZhao]

Alchemize 3 fire gems for 45 gold, and use that to recruit 2 scouts. Becomes even more cost effective with the Alchemist's Stone.

More generally, be next to someone when they drop out, and then quickly take the lands of your new AI neigbor.

[TheDemon]

cutting retreats

[AreaOfEffect]

How bout this, what the cheapest fastest way to make clam holders? Other than buying them.

Become LA Ermor. Done.

Ok, here is a question for the pros and to the experienced...
What is the cheapest trick in the book?
When you want to win and want to win FAST without caring for the "quality" or "fun" of the game, what do you do?
What do you consider to be the cheapest easiest way to win?
*without cheating ofcourse*
Is it massing out one unit?
Spell Spam?
Do share!
(On your average game, small/big/huge what is the cheapest trick regardless of settings?

Seriously though, there are so many tricks in this game that they all sort of balance each other out vaguely. Bless strats, awake pretenders, elephant rushes, dominion kills, fear effects + cut-offs, stealthy raiders, broken NAPs, skinshifters, and so-on-and-so-forth. They can all be considered "cheap" to the person who is losing to them. Most of the time it comes down to having the right tools at the right time. Just about everything is fair game. I mean, this is war we are talking about. Though I assume it always to be a gentlemen's war. I myself would not tolerate any form of cheating.

A better question might be to ask what people would do as part of a spiteful loss. Where you can't win a war but still want to inflict as much damage as possible. Its more interesting to know what people will do when they have nothing to lose.

[Meglobob]

Spiteful? How about bane venom charms on black servants sneaking about your opponents lands. Or pillaging any province you take upto a 1000+ unrest and killing the population. Make sure you destroy your lab the turn before someone captures your castle. Taxes upto 200% of course. Lots of other stuff you can do as well of course but there are some of the most obvious.

[Executor]

I think unrest can go up to only 500.
And you need an army to kill and pillage a province, and if you have an army you can maybe defeat the enemy, and if you can defeat the enemy than no need to pillage your own lands.
But yes if you know there's apsolutly no chance of victory and want to do as much damage as possible cause it's a tricky game, cause you can go from 40 lands to just your capital, and again to owning 40 lands, and so on.

[vfb]

Spiteful? How about bane venom charms on black servants sneaking about your opponents lands.

That's not spiteful! That's just good business practice, a friendly boost to the health sector of your neighbor's economy. Keep the doctors and nurses busy and whatnot.

[Quitti]

Ah, vfb, that armageddon comment on the first page cracked me up. Who knows why ;)

Also, unrest is max 500. I know, my capitol has it in Discharge.

But what really annoys people up is a huge van army sitting in their lands, grabbing 15-ish provinces in one turn, then moving out with taxes at 200 to siege all the castles they can horde to. Add in a friendly neighbor of Helheim who's doing the same at exactly the same time to the same target, and you've got a nice economic crumble in one turn.

[Dragar]

There is a strategic purpose to being spiteful - you will very likely play against your opponents again. Who would you attack, all else being equal? A player who goes AI as soon as they are losing, or someone who fights tooth and nail to the end and sows his fields with salt as the enemy army invades?

[vfb]

You're not going to improve your game much by always fighting the guy who goes AI.

I really think it's best to ignore which player is playing which nation, and just base your decisions on the individual circumstances of each game.

[Illuminated One]

There is a strategic purpose to being spiteful - you will very likely play against your opponents again. Who would you attack, all else being equal? A player who goes AI as soon as they are losing, or someone who fights tooth and nail to the end and sows his fields with salt as the enemy army invades?

That's a bit the same as I will never trust that guy that backstabbed me once. :D

[Dragar]

You're not going to improve your game much by always fighting the guy who goes AI.

I really think it's best to ignore which player is playing which nation, and just base your decisions on the individual circumstances of each game.

In a multiplayer game do you try and take out an (in your estimation) easy target first to grow, or fight an equally sized and skilled opponent such that you both fall behind?

Absolutely you have to look at a lot besides the player, but it is almost never irrelevant. I've got a couple of games now where I'm on the way out, but I never want people to think I'm a pushover..

[vfb]

You're not going to improve your game much by always fighting the guy who goes AI.

I really think it's best to ignore which player is playing which nation, and just base your decisions on the individual circumstances of each game.

In a multiplayer game do you try and take out an (in your estimation) easy target first to grow, or fight an equally sized and skilled opponent such that you both fall behind?

I'll fight a larger opponent if I have a temporary or national advantage against him, and leave smaller nations alone if they are not a threat. If I'm at a disadvantage for whatever reason, then I'll do some diplomacy and see if I can get someone else to gang up on my perceived enemy. If there's a nation who is both bigger than me and has a national advantage, and I can't convince anyone else to go to war with him, then I'll be likely to leave him alone, if peace is an option.

The one thing I won't do is attack (or not attack) a nation because of the person who is playing that nation.

Absolutely you have to look at a lot besides the player, but it is almost never irrelevant. I've got a couple of games now where I'm on the way out, but I never want people to think I'm a pushover..

Of course, I agree that the threat posed by (or vulnerability of) a nation depends on who the player is. I just won't base my decisions on that.

[Executor]

Yes you fight stronger players at the begining before they get to powerful, and than you roll over the weaker nations after.
Eliminating the good players early on is much better IMO.

[Executor]

Hm, I just tried something very interesting, but unfortunantly it doesn't work, nice idea doe.
I've put a few charmers with penetration items along with 10 PD, and cast ghost rider on my own army. The mages all aim only the commander since the horsman are mindless but he doesn't stick around after the battle, sadly...

[Lingchih]

Yes you fight stronger players at the begining before they get to powerful, and than you roll over the weaker nations after.
Eliminating the good players early on is much better IMO.

Heh, not always. You can get yourself killed that way.

[Baalz]

Yes you fight stronger players at the begining before they get to powerful, and than you roll over the weaker nations after.
Eliminating the good players early on is much better IMO.

I think Executor is not alone in this feeling. I think I have a high profile because of my guides, in 5 out of my last 5 games I've been attacked at least 2:1 before the end of the second year and nobody was interested in negotiating - the responses I did get indicated I was assessed as a huge threat despite my average performance to that point. I think I'm gonna play my next game under a pseudonym...

[vfb]

Good idea! Or play a Rand game. I think the decision about who to fight should be based on the nations and the circumstances of the game, not on who is playing the nation.

[chrispedersen]

Yes you fight stronger players at the begining before they get to powerful, and than you roll over the weaker nations after.
Eliminating the good players early on is much better IMO.

I think Executor is not alone in this feeling. I think I have a high profile because of my guides, in 5 out of my last 5 games I've been attacked at least 2:1 before the end of the second year and nobody was interested in negotiating - the responses I did get indicated I was assessed as a huge threat despite my average performance to that point. I think I'm gonna play my next game under a pseudonym...

Pseudonyms aren't allowed here.

But instead perhaps, a no diplomacy game. Besides Baalz, you *are* an expert at the game and a known threat.

It sorta like saying "I really hate it that my opponents didn't give me time to crush them"

[DonCorazon]

Yes you fight stronger players at the begining before they get to powerful, and than you roll over the weaker nations after.
Eliminating the good players early on is much better IMO.

I think Executor is not alone in this feeling. I think I have a high profile because of my guides, in 5 out of my last 5 games I've been attacked at least 2:1 before the end of the second year and nobody was interested in negotiating - the responses I did get indicated I was assessed as a huge threat despite my average performance to that point. I think I'm gonna play my next game under a pseudonym...

In MA Chron I was surprised you actually made no diplomatic efforts either before or after being attacked. It was initially 1 on 1, til Nehekara jumped on. In that case though I saw you had a rainbow vs my awake SC, and figured low MR made Ulm attractive to Illithid spam, even with those painful crossbows and bladewinds to mow down my chaff. I would have attacked whoever the player was in that match up. That said I would agree with Executor that generally its not a bad idea to take out a perceived threat earlier but it all depends on the cost/benefit ratio of early action vs. waiting. Usually if I see a rainbow I figure it will hurt more later but there are other circumstances to consider.

I have also seen high profile players try and use their perceived threat as an asset - bullying or seeming more threatening than they really are so it can work as an advantage as well.

[ano]

Whom to attack first is in most cases the question that may cost you the game. The reasons are simple - difference between nations may not be big initially so you need to consider many points before attacking.
Personally I nearly always try to attack weaker (or at best - AI controlled) nations. If I swallow them then I will grow and increase the difference between me and the others.
I will attack a powerful nation/player early on only if I see that he is expanding and growing faster and I can't help it. In this case diplomacy should be used to convince other people that this nation is a threat (and it is almost always true).
One of the biggest mistakes that can be made in MP is failed early attack on someone. This will surely put you to the end of the caravan and most probably cost you the game. Even if you succeed in killing that nation at last you may be too far behind to hope for something so if you see you made a mistake better don't aggravate the situation and suggest peace.

[DonCorazon]

Whom to attack first is in most cases the question that may cost you the game. The reasons are simple - difference between nations may not be big initially so you need to consider many points before attacking.
Personally I nearly always try to attack weaker (or at best - AI controlled) nations. If I swallow them then I will grow and increase the difference between me and the others.
I will attack a powerful nation/player early on only if I see that he is expanding and growing faster and I can't help it. In this case diplomacy should be used to convince other people that this nation is a threat (and it is almost always true).
One of the biggest mistakes that can be made in MP is failed early attack on someone. This will surely put you to the end of the caravan and most probably cost you the game. Even if you succeed in killing that nation at last you may be too far behind to hope for something so if you see you made a mistake better don't aggravate the situation and suggest peace.

I'd agree but its probably safe to see that a failed attack can often cost you the game whether early or late if its a competitive game. Which is why the winners of many games are the ones that always manage to stay on the right side of the dogpile and only attack if they can win quickly and decisively. Usually because they have some temporary edge, be it an awake SC, national match up, or a set of strong allies.

[sansanjuan]

Spiteful? How about bane venom charms on black servants sneaking about your opponents lands.

That's not spiteful! That's just good business practice, a friendly boost to the health sector of your neighbor's economy. Keep the doctors and nurses busy and whatnot.

I find it's possible to have quite a bit of fun even while losing (which I have a habit of ;) ) . Set a goal even if it has little bearing on an inevitable loss... "I'm going to take out Tart #47 but I die".

Another option is to "send all" a message that you are at war with so and so. You never know if he/she has a neighbor looking for the right moment to let loose. With half the opposing army sitting on your Cap they are likely army-lite elsewhere.
-ssj

[AreaOfEffect]

Don, Losing armies, even in the early stages, almost never determines my victory or defeat. Troops are disposable. There loss means nothing to me. Its a loss of magery and gems that always concerns me most. So long as I have land, castles, and mages, I never count myself out.

Baalz, I will grant you that it seems a bit hasty and unwarranted to rush a player simply because they have a high profile. I personally don't mind giving some of the vets a little breathing room, so long they aren't a real threat and I'm keeping up the pace. I suppose I play more for the challenges that others have to offer.

[K]

Cheapest tactic: double-team someone.

Unless it's far into the science-fiction future of the late game, no one can hold off vs. two human opponents.

Second cheapest tactic: take someone's stuff right after they have won a war. Chances are they have just lost a pile of units and are disorganized.

[AreaOfEffect]

Unless it's far into the science-fiction future of the late game, no one can hold off vs. two human opponents.

Untrue. I've done it. I've seen other players do it. In some cases a couple of chump players is not that much harder then fighting one half-decent player. No offense.

[chrispedersen]

Early in the game its not particularly difficult to defend 2:1 or even 3:1.

So long as you have established choke points, and they don't have the type of troops that afford them stealth or flying opportunities.

In the early game, even if you're opponents do have these types of troops, dominant early rush players can quite possibly hold off the determined efforts of two or more opponents.

For example, EA-Mictlan could hold off EA-Yomi, LA-ulm probably with not much difficulty, and probably could win.

That being said it really does suck being ganged up on. It might be cool to have a game set up entirely by Private Message
where the host does not play.

Only vet players allowed. Only the admin would know which players were in the game.

I'd probably be willing to set up such a game. Although I might make it ABM =P.

[K]

Unless it's far into the science-fiction future of the late game, no one can hold off vs. two human opponents.

Untrue. I've done it. I've seen other players do it. In some cases a couple of chump players is not that much harder then fighting one half-decent player. No offense.

Ummm, right. I'll concede that it is not impossible that any number of incompetents can be held off in ideal chokepoint situations in the early game and the ganged-up on player can go on to win.

That doesn't refute the fact that the easiest and cheapest and MOST successful tactic is to simply double or triple-team opponents. I don't care how good you are: as long as your opponents are even half-competent, you will lose or be so crippled by the win that by the middle game you have effectively lost.

Exceptions don't disprove the rule.

[AreaOfEffect]

If we are talking about your chances at victory, well then yes, you will likely be unable to win. Exceptions will exist. Possibly more often then you think. I just didn't like the absoluteness of your quote.

I'm personally not a big fan of the whole choke point thing by the way. In most cases I'd rather out maneuver my opponent then hold him in some Mexican standoff. That's why my castles are more likely to guard magic sites then they are to guard a worthless canyon. If an opponent uses castles at choke points against me and the castle doesn't protect anything worthwhile, I generally move on. It always surprises them that I don't behave exactly like the AI.

[Executor]

I'm personally not a big fan of the whole choke point thing by the way. In most cases I'd rather out maneuver my opponent then hold him in some Mexican standoff. That's why my castles are more likely to guard magic sites then they are to guard a worthless canyon. If an opponent uses castles at choke points against me and the castle doesn't protect anything worthwhile, I generally move on. It always surprises them that I don't behave exactly like the AI.

If you're being double, triple, 5 vs 1 teamed ( :) ), it's best to sit back in your forts and wait until the enemy tries to storm you. After that, you make a counter offansive.
Or/and hold the line on one side, while eliminating the weakest enemy on the other side. Always try and concentrate all the fire power you can spare on one single enemy.
Works best from my experience, and I had a lot of those situation.

[archaeolept]

I've prevailed in a 5 v 1 set-up; but, in general, of course, being double teamed should at least knock you out of the running.

[Zeldor]

Baalz is right, being a vet gives you a red flag. There will surely be other ones that will do diplomatic attempts to try and organise smth againt a vet :) Well, unless you are llamabeast :)

Also behaviour in old games means a lot. If you tend to go AI when things start to go bad, you may be sure that you will get attacked only for that reason in one of the next games. It's really basic psychology. And invader will prepare nice big show of fireworks, to try and convince you to go AI and let him win fast. Same goes the other way round - someone who fights till the end has smaller chances of being attacked, unless he is really outnumbered.

Executor:

I have a practice in that now. I somehow got into me vs. everyone else situation. Some people went AI, including those that had to be my vassals and blockers from other players. I wasn't really prepared for that and it will be tough job. Map really doesn't promote small controlled fronts [and there were some bugs that complicated my situation].

[Baalz]

In MA Chron I was surprised you actually made no diplomatic efforts either before or after being attacked. It was initially 1 on 1, til Nehekara jumped on. In that case though I saw you had a rainbow vs my awake SC, and figured low MR made Ulm attractive to Illithid spam, even with those painful crossbows and bladewinds to mow down my chaff. I would have attacked whoever the player was in that match up.

heh, I did negotiate extensively...with Nehekara. He reversed his position at the lat second to attack me instead of you because he decided MA Ulm was a bigger threat than MA R'yleh long term. I (apparently correctly) assumed there was no point in negotiating with you...;)

[Executor]

I've prevailed in a 5 v 1 set-up; but, in general, of course, being double teamed should at least knock you out of the running.

I think I'm the winner here, 9vs1.



Executor:

I have a practice in that now. I somehow got into me vs. everyone else situation.

Me and you both my friend.


Err, Baalz, correct me if I'm wrong but you gave me an ultimatum, you won't do diplomacy with me unless I attacked Don Corazon, and I did try and contact Atlantis in order to revise my option but he went AWOL, and as strong as Nehekhara is, going solo against Rlyeh from the start would result in a total disaster, or a very long and hard victory that would probably cost me the game.

[DonCorazon]

I (apparently correctly) assumed there was no point in negotiating with you...;)

Not necessarily. I probably would have had less fear fighting Ulm in the endgame than Nehekara - with its high MR units and amphibious capability, not to mention Executor is no pushover :)

[Ironhawk]

Yeah double teaming someone probably is the cheapest and easiest trick in the game.

About players being attacked becuase of thier reputations tho: thats just par for the course. If you have won a lot of games that means you are more dangerous because you are more like to win the current one. I definitely target high profile players over low profile ones when the opportunity arises.

However, it should also be said that high profile players are probably the most resistant to double-teaming just because they generally have great diplomacy.

[Meglobob]

I have been ganged up on 6-1 more than once. Must be my winning personality.:)

I agree with K, you can win vs 2 - 3 opponents but you will end up so far behind, that its a hollow victory.

[AreaOfEffect]

I think it highly depends on what the wars cost you. Once you consider that, the number of opponents doesn't really mean anything.