I'm getting annoyed with these 1v1s popping up on Small World with no explanation in the title. The last game I played was just titled "Risk," so I figured it would be the Risk map (small world), but would still be Warlight (considering there is no actual way to play Risk on this game because of the unique card structure to Risk).

What these people are doing are using their 4 picks to take an entire area (Aussie or S.A.) and then building up a super army that moves completely uncontested against the neutral countries with only 2 armies. If you're playing like a real person with say, anything other than that cheese, and instead going for Africa, Europe, N.A., or Asia, you get completely screwed over because they know exactly where you are without fog. Therefore, they just attack you immediately with 27+7 armies a turn (the other areas have too many entry points to possibly defend it) and you lose.

Anyone else think this is a cheap/bannable strategy to get your W/L up??

Your strategy should depend on the game settings. Sounds like you aren't very adaptable and only want others to play in one specific manner.

Fact is, the settings are clearly stated in the appropriate tab and visible for all to see prior to joining the game. Why should valid, equally applied setting be considered cheating simply because you disagree with them?

Were they tweaking bonus values or making similar changes to benefit themselves (or the alert players) then that should be considered cheap. But just playing with template that your strategy is poorly prepared for? Sounds to me like you need to tweak your style.

Just post a link to one of the games where people are " building up a super army that moves completely uncontested " and we will tell you how to counter that :-)

lol do you not read settings before joining a game?

Taking a small defensible bonus early is pretty much one of the cornerstone strategies to winning the game. Even in original Risk this is true.

Think of it this way, the big bonuses give lots of troops, but are hard to complete. The little bonuses are easy to complete, but don't give a lot of troops. If the big bonuses gave lots of troops, but were also easy to complete (and hold), then there would be no point in having the smaller bonuses.

Sorry that you felt this way, but you are a poor sport, and it seems others are in agreement. Better luck next time. Try to read map settings. Thanks, bye.

~Po.

I also didn't realize not posting that a game is a non fog game is a bannable offense. Please clearly state where it says this is against the rules. Thanks =)

~Po.

I think fizzer made the game so that any strategy or anything is completely viable. Don't blame anyone but yourself when you a join a game without reading settings.

Fear not Po... the vast majority of players would side with you in this matter. Just the whining and complaining of a clueless noob (as opposed to the less common smart noob) who got beat.

a game like that gilgamesz

i was already in the middle east when i realized whats going to happen : http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1688769

It is annoying when you join a game and had missed a setting or two that you hadn't seen..

but personally.. when I see *Risk* in the title of the map I expect

Small World
3 base income, + 1 every 3 territories
no fog
R card at 3 pieces with 6 income
1 card max hand size
1 card piece per turn
Optionally: Multi Attack


those are the closest settings I have managed to obtain to specific actual risk..
the R card at 3 pieces with 1 max hand size means at *6* you have to use.. as opposed to risk using it at 5.. and risk ofc' has the possibility of you not obtaining an R card until turn 5, where as this is a guarantee after 3.
6 income on R card is a base amount of one rule-set *4 for infantry, 6 for horses, 8 for cannons, 10 for all* since making the cumulative cards work properly would be utterly impossible even to simulate under warlights rules..
Multi-attack is the closest to simulate the ability to literally capture the world in a turn, as you can in Risk.. albiet the simultaneous turns makes it not quite the same..

No fog is basic for risk.. since just about every risk clone you play has no fog.. and no fog is a basic rule in warlight, if not the default setting..

Perrin, you also need full distribution to simulate Risk. Whether it be manual or random, thats a key aspect.

+1 Richard... I prefer F.Dist with no territory limit if I recall

Alright, so you guys disagree. That's fine. I'll just make my own, normal games for now on. No reason to attack me personally. I normally play Imperial, so I'm only a "noob" in the sense that I'm new to games focused around battle instead of taxation. I discovered a strategy (and the counter) now used by a ton of people in that game, so I'll eventually think of something decent for this one too.

On the one hand, if you enter a game without doing a comprehensive analysis of the settings, you are taking a "Risk"... Ha ha ha ...

On the other hand, the personal attacks were uncalled for, the guy wasn't having a nerdrage meltdown, just trying to get the feel for what is appropriate here and what isn't. You guys poop rainbows or something? I thought not! Be nice, eh?

Devilnis. The personal attack was nothing compared to him attacking me and "threatening to ban me" during gameplay.

If you want me to just lay down and let him run his mouth at me, sure.

~Po.

I felt wronged, but it appears that that's not general opinion. I'll accept that, and I'll accept the loss.

Just think though: maybe if you all had been more welcoming to a new player rather than condescending I would have been more willing to be cooperative myself. I see your tactic as cheap and dishonest, but obviously it's acceptable so I was wrong to yell at you. Sorry.

I didn't mean you specifically Po, I just think people are a bit too quick to pull out the "whiny noob" label. I didn't even look at the game itself, but xDerivative has been polite in this thread as far as I can tell, so I think people could have disagreed with his original proposition more politely in return. Far from being the worst flame thread I ever saw though :)

You have 18 games under your belt and you're walking around like you're some grizzled veteran.

Also you accused people of cheating and called for them to be banned without any shred of evidence (what little you provided seems to indicate they were completely on the level)

Also in all the posts I only count one, maybe 2 personal attacks on you. The rest were simply answering your question (albeit it was an answer you didn't like)

He never said anything about cheating - he said "anyone else think that this is a cheap/bannable strategy to get your WL up?" - That certainly implied that HE thinks so, but he's entitled to the opinion, and requesting the rest of us with more games under our belt to register our opinion on the subject is perfectly reasonable. When everyone disagreed (and rightfully so,) he took it with aplomb. I don't know the guy, and I've never been in a game with him, but nothing he's done or said appears to be worthy of being disrespectful to him as some have. I have been posting in his defense because I feel shame that the WL community can act so cold and unwelcoming, and I wanted him to know that at least some people here don't fault him for posting a simple query.