PDA

View Full Version : Overall game strategy/theory, broken?



abafaba
03-04-2013, 04:25 PM
My friends and I have played a few games (only have GvE) and have come to the conclusion that there is never any reason to go for green cards (or coins). We came to this conclusion because the pros and cons of green vs red cards are as such:
green:
defense (block a negative VP)
cure pax pox (cure a negative VP)

red:
offence (cause pax pox, deal negative VP)
victory points for self

The damage to others (their VPs) as well as the victory points you earn for yourself by choosing to go for red cards leads to our conclusions. We feel that if one player goes strong for red cards while everyone else plays neutral (even red and green) the player going for red will always win, and going all green is a guaranteed loss.

I hope that there is a dynamic to this game that we are missing because it is super fun and we like it but we are seeing a lot of the strategy be dominated by simply who gets the most red cards. If anyone has any thoughts on the matter or knows what we are missing please let me know. I am wanting to buy RiR soon so we can play with 5-6 players for our weekly game nights but don't want to do it if this is still going to be a problem.

Stupnick
03-04-2013, 04:53 PM
I am sure quite a few people will disagree with what you stated,

Most of the games I win are because I go green and get on a roll. It is very easy to win going green and counter red. However it simply depends on what cards are available to purchase at the start of the game.

abafaba
03-04-2013, 05:27 PM
Thanks Stupnick for the input I do see that if you were able to dominate the greens and take all the bosses you will get some VP and hopefully counter lots of attacks from the players going red. The math that I am presenting says that the person dominating red will have the same number of cards (close to) and boss cards to the player going green but all the red cards are worth VP making him the winner. Even allowing the green player to block every P2P attack he has to have substantially more boss cards to beat the red player. Are the green bosses "easier" to get(meaning that someone going green will most likely have more boss cards then someone going red)

abafaba
03-06-2013, 11:45 AM
No one else has any input on their strategy? Has no one else ever thought this?

Clavaat
03-07-2013, 03:42 PM
Sorry, this forum is fairly quiet most of the time. Green has so much utility, and that's what makes it strong. If you guys don't ban bat milk, try playing with that monster in. Green has the most deletion, like fairy candymancer. Also yes, it becomes much stronger in RiR.

abafaba
03-09-2013, 10:23 PM
Hey everyone, I found another thread where more people felt similar to myself. They say that going full green is harder to win but still possible depending on the cards on the table. None of them have played with RiR so i am hopping that someone here can chime in to if it makes going green a little more balanced.

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/760116/going-green

Clavaat
03-11-2013, 01:07 PM
Hey everyone, I found another thread where more people felt similar to myself. They say that going full green is harder to win but still possible depending on the cards on the table. None of them have played with RiR so i am hopping that someone here can chime in to if it makes going green a little more balanced.

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/760116/going-green

Posted in February of 2012. Irrelevant.

abafaba
03-12-2013, 12:04 AM
So I am going to be a little more scientific than calling fowl on something because of the date it was written. I do wish you would expand on why it is irrelevant.

My hypothesis was that going green does not have a balanced opportunity to win and that game strategys should reflect this imbalance in the game.

The Experiment: This weekend my buddys and I played a few games. I played as Gabe (plus one token each turn), and my friends played as Annarchy("plus 2 power and draw a card" card), and Tycho (plus one power each turn). For our last game they allowed me to rig the game (I chose all the field cards) so that I could win by focusing green cards, while Tycho went red and Annarchy split red and green. I have attached an image of the play-field (with final scores) where you can see that the game was heavily stacked to favor green cards. Furthermore I had no competition on the boss loots because Annarchy (playing split) only had the ability to buy early red bosses then quickly could not compete in purchasing bosses (final boss distribution seen in image as well), Tycho obviously could not ever purchase a green boss.

Results: 60vp for Gabe, 53vp for Annarchy, and 75vp for Tycho. I have shown an instance where green should have won (by a lot) and yet I was closer to loosing to a split player than I was to beating the red focused player. It could have just been back luck that I lost but I clearly had every advantage that the game could offer me (after playing we found that the table could be even more stacked but that is not important because this is already heavily stacked toward green and not a standard random deal).

Conclusion: The math boils down to this. The essence of the game is not balanced red vs green cards when it comes to victory points. Someone playing green has a much lower chance to win (not saying it is impossible). I have demonstrated that even with a rigged field that the victory point lean of the game still favors players focusing red cards. Therefor a standard strategy for winning would be to go strait for red cards and power.

I hope that someone can detail (like this) a game instance where a player focusing on green cards has won.

image of game set up
http://i1306.photobucket.com/albums/s565/Ashton_Santee/20130311_180411_zps317e048c.jpg

Stupnick
03-12-2013, 06:29 AM
So I am going to be a little more scientific than calling fowl on something because of the date it was written. I do wish you would expand on why it is irrelevant.

My hypothesis was that going green does not have a balanced opportunity to win and that game strategys should reflect this imbalance in the game.

The Experiment: This weekend my buddys and I played a few games. I played as Gabe (plus one token each turn), and my friends played as Annarchy("plus 2 power and draw a card" card), and Tycho (plus one power each turn). For our last game they allowed me to rig the game (I chose all the field cards) so that I could win by focusing green cards, while Tycho went red and Annarchy split red and green. I have attached an image of the play-field (with final scores) where you can see that the game was heavily stacked to favor green cards. Furthermore I had no competition on the boss loots because Annarchy (playing split) only had the ability to buy early red bosses then quickly could not compete in purchasing bosses (final boss distribution seen in image as well), Tycho obviously could not ever purchase a green boss.

Results: 60vp for Gabe, 53vp for Annarchy, and 75vp for Tycho. I have shown an instance where green should have won (by a lot) and yet I was closer to loosing to a split player than I was to beating the red focused player. It could have just been back luck that I lost but I clearly had every advantage that the game could offer me (after playing we found that the table could be even more stacked but that is not important because this is already heavily stacked toward green and not a standard random deal).

Conclusion: The math boils down to this. The essence of the game is not balanced red vs green cards when it comes to victory points. Someone playing green has a much lower chance to win (not saying it is impossible). I have demonstrated that even with a rigged field that the victory point lean of the game still favors players focusing red cards. Therefor a standard strategy for winning would be to go strait for red cards and power.

I hope that someone can detail (like this) a game instance where a player focusing on green cards has won.

image of game set up
http://i1306.photobucket.com/albums/s565/Ashton_Santee/20130311_180411_zps317e048c.jpg

Well, what you believe is a focused green board is actually skewed towards red. There are lots f red attacks, and no good early green advantage cards in there.

Stupnick
03-12-2013, 06:31 AM
Oh and you do realize when you random the boards you don't have to have the same number of red and green stacks.

Clavaat
03-12-2013, 10:42 AM
You gave no indication of your strategy. Did you use bat milk as the text says? If so, you should have been drawing your entire deck almost every turn. Also, bat milk makes pad pox irrelevant. Don't blame the game for poor strategy. You are new to the game, don't judge things until you have played a lot more
The reason the bgc quote was irrelevant was because they had about a month to discuss things, we.have had over a year. You play, you learn. Green is stronger than Red depending on the board and vice a versa. Gold is vastly more powerful than both.

Joolz
03-22-2013, 05:16 PM
I've played a couple hundred games of the original and expansion and I can tell you green is just fine. Green excels at deletion and card drawing which are very powerful tools for a card game. Red has pvp attacks and victory points on all their cards. The VPs that red cards are off-set by the fact that green bosses are worth more (7 VPs) than the red bosses (5 VPs).

As an aside you missed one of the best cards in the game, Fairy Candymancer, when setting up your dream board. I'm guessing you don't play with Bat Milk's errataed rules, that card is abosultely insane when played with it's printed text.