Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Doc, the Weasel

Combat Question: Never engaging a front

Recommended Posts

Definitely. If someone plays a strong card you can't trump creating more fronts to try and overwhelm it's combat value and not lose troops is a valid strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, why would any side honour an agreement such as this? When the last card is played from the other side, why not kill it without any possible repercussions? You're already at war, else you wouldn't be fighting.

"If you do that I'll make war twice on you!"

 

Btw, this is a good example of a modified prisoner's dilemma. If both agree you both win, but one side has the potential to cheat on the last card. And if you know that why would you not cheat on the second to last card etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that the combatants would say 'Righto lets not engage on any fronts' because someones still going to lose. I'm saying you don't HAVE to engage on a front when laying a card you can always open a new one and sometimes it can be a tactically strong move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scimon said:

I'm not saying that the combatants would say 'Righto lets not engage on any fronts' because someones still going to lose. I'm saying you don't HAVE to engage on a front when laying a card you can always open a new one and sometimes it can be a tactically strong move.

Sure, but if the unit you're playing has the strength to kill an opposing unit without taking wounds, I can't see any tactical reason to not do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smoo said:

scimon said:

 

I'm not saying that the combatants would say 'Righto lets not engage on any fronts' because someones still going to lose. I'm saying you don't HAVE to engage on a front when laying a card you can always open a new one and sometimes it can be a tactically strong move.

 

 

Sure, but if the unit you're playing has the strength to kill an opposing unit without taking wounds, I can't see any tactical reason to not do it.

You want to win a battle against opponent A to reap the rewards. They have opponent B staring down their capital, so you want to leave opponent A's army intact to defend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doc, the Weasel said:

 

You want to win a battle against opponent A to reap the rewards. They have opponent B staring down their capital, so you want to leave opponent A's army intact to defend.

Well played, sir!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...