Luck in 2 player escalating spoils endgames
Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:25 pmIt seems like when you get into an endgame where it's just two players, and when the number of troops due is at least 60 (I'm using world 2.1 map as a reference), there is almost no skill involved.
Assuming that initial troops and territories are equal, and both players have 2 spoil cards, the player who goes first will almost always win. The only hope the second player has is if he gets to turn in with 3 cards and his opponent has to wait until 5 cards to turn in. If the opponent survives and gets to turn in at 5 cards, then we go back to square 1 where the player is at an insurmountable disadvantage.
If you are just half a spoil card behind, it does not matter how well you play if your opponent gets to turn in every time he starts his turn with 3 cards, while you get to turn in every 4 cards. To put things in perspective, a player who knows the basic strategies of the game will defeat the World Champion 99% of the time, if in this situation he gets to turn in every time he gets 3 cards, and the World Champion has to wait until 4 cards to turn in each time he turns in.
I play a lot of chess, which has no element of chance. And in poker, which has a lot of variance, in headsup play where we have a pro vs a novice, usually the pro will win the headsup match a large percentage of a time, unless a specific set of cards are dealt during a single hand. But the odds of having a specific set of cards dealt for a particular hand are very low compared to being able to turn in every 3 cards 3 turn-ins in a row, compared to your opponent having to wait until 4 cards 3 turn ins in a row.
Conclusion: It seems like there is almost no skill involved given these initial conditions, and compared to other competitive games, the luck factor towers over the skill factor.
What are your thoughts on this?
Assuming that initial troops and territories are equal, and both players have 2 spoil cards, the player who goes first will almost always win. The only hope the second player has is if he gets to turn in with 3 cards and his opponent has to wait until 5 cards to turn in. If the opponent survives and gets to turn in at 5 cards, then we go back to square 1 where the player is at an insurmountable disadvantage.
If you are just half a spoil card behind, it does not matter how well you play if your opponent gets to turn in every time he starts his turn with 3 cards, while you get to turn in every 4 cards. To put things in perspective, a player who knows the basic strategies of the game will defeat the World Champion 99% of the time, if in this situation he gets to turn in every time he gets 3 cards, and the World Champion has to wait until 4 cards to turn in each time he turns in.
I play a lot of chess, which has no element of chance. And in poker, which has a lot of variance, in headsup play where we have a pro vs a novice, usually the pro will win the headsup match a large percentage of a time, unless a specific set of cards are dealt during a single hand. But the odds of having a specific set of cards dealt for a particular hand are very low compared to being able to turn in every 3 cards 3 turn-ins in a row, compared to your opponent having to wait until 4 cards 3 turn ins in a row.
Conclusion: It seems like there is almost no skill involved given these initial conditions, and compared to other competitive games, the luck factor towers over the skill factor.
What are your thoughts on this?