Blotto's Game

Anyone interested in playing some variation of this against another person moderated by myself? Less people required than mafia makes it less viable during site slowdown periods but smaller player count requirements of alternate games fill a kind of niche that is opened.

A minimum of two would be needed but I have some interesting ideas I could pursue if there are at least four interested.

/in

[Insert catchy advertisement slogan here]

[Repeat catchy slogan here]

This kind of stats bores me but alright, I will try it just because this forum is overloaded with mafia which honestly is quite a crap game in my opinion.

Mafia is one of those scenarios where being too smart or too dumb both make it agonising to experience, it is much more enjoyable if you think on the level of the other players and 'vibe with them'. I believe I am too smart for it but I accept others saying otherwise about me.

I have consistently forced out the mafia or gambited hard to nearly carry my whole team as mafia myself enough times on other sites to know I am good at the game itself. It's a chore to cope with people who either don't understand anything close to game theory or alternatively who think they know it all.

For instance if the immediately obvious thing to do is force a claim, first ask yourself why that's the norm of that setup and why that's scummy or towny in the mind of the enemy to do or not do.

Another thing people don't understand is how to fake reads. I have rarely met another player who pretends to have reads, not to troll but to gauge reactions and then read based on the reactions. There's so many levels to mafia that most barely understand. In this website they add on the other layer of themes where if you take the theme too seriously it actually backfires more often than not. The one time theme genuinely mattered, I hardcarried one of my first games on this site (DART) and drafterman who had been fighting me the whole time got destroyed by my forcing of a dynamic in the theme that I believed was true and lost a cc vs 'thehammer' who had been AFK all game purely because of who each claimed and what I believed made sense to be the investigative role given what other characters appeared to be vs their role.

He tried his level best but unfortunately for him the godfather got eliminated or whatever it was and basically the one hope they had. I may have remembered this wrong, it's possible drafterman didn't do the cc but anyway, in that game Danielle went harsh af on me and it became hostile and toxic and was a reason I quit. I even townread her hostility correctly but it still reminded me that mafia is less about logic and more about blending in with the crowd. 

You can't be a weird genius and thrive in mafia unless you enjoy toxic verbal spars. I don't enjoy them, I just endure them.

so we all PM you our combo of numbers that add up to the total? What's the range, 1-5 or 1-9 or what?

Basically yes, but I have an idea for making it a bit more interesting assuming you both agree. I would like to make a sort of round-based system. The specific steps would be as follows:

1) Start with ten "zones" that resources can be added to and allow each of you to allocate ten "armies" as per the standard game in secret via PM to me.

2) Once armies are allocated I announce how each player allocated armies and show via some visual aid (likely paint/imgur combo or something like that) BUT the game does NOT immediately end.

3) After reviewing the new position each of you can allocate nine additional armies in secret to the same ten zones, again all via PM.

4) I reveal the new position (now with 19 armies from each player on the board). Each are allowed to review the new position then allocate eight armies for the next round, then review and add 7 then review and add 6 etc.

5) Scoring could be based on controlled zones in last round or points could be given every round.

I think an iterative Blotto game like this would be more interesting because it would be less luck based, involve more strategy, and games would last longer than standard one-round variation. Please tell me what you each think.

I got no clue how the positions work, I only understood when the wikipedia gave an example of 2,2,2 for the 6 total.

Let me set up a visual aid that may help. Will post when done.

i have no exp with this game but I'm willing to try any strategy game.

CATCHY SLOGAN:

Play Colonel Blotto!

The tactical lotto!

Most highest totals:

That is our motto!

Imgur explaination:

Assuming you both understand and agree to face each other I will draw a picture for a new game.

but isn't 222222222... just the consistent broken strategy here? Are you going to set some kind of rule to stop that? 

Well, that pic was just an example but I see your point. In response:

1) 2,2,2,2,2 is potentially strong but not unbeatable (3,3,2,2,0 would beat it 2-1 for example).

2) I am in fact planning on possibly discouraging that strategy by starting round one with a few armies assigned already by me (in a fair and symmetrical way of course)

Agreed

The multi-round approach also discourages the even deployment strategy.

how so?

Also I didn't know 0 was a possibility, the Wikipedia page definitely didn't support 0 being a possibility.

Ah, makes sense that you wouldn't think of that then. Yes, abandoning a zone is possible.

There are definitely some strats that are better than others, that is undeniable, but none are unbeatable.

If you think there is an unbeatable strategy even in the multi-round setup I describe in post 7 feel free to test it against oromagi if you wish.

The starting board is as follows:

Oromagi is RED CIRCLES and RM is BLUE RECTANGLES. 15 armies are already deployed for each of you, you will each deploy 55 more over the course of the game.

If you cannot access this pic for any reason please tell me.

Deployment rules are:

1) You can place armies on any of the ten zones.

2) It IS permitted to place zero armies on a certain zone for a round.

2) Once placed, no armies can be moved between zones

3) Both players are allowed to see the new board after each round

4) Ten armies are placed by each player during round one. Nine are places during round two, eight during round three and so on.

5) IMPORTANT - Final winner is determined ONLY by number of zones controlled after final round. Zones controlled between any other rounds are IRRELEVANT for final victory score.

You each have TEN shapes to deploy for round one. You each have FOURTY-FIVE shapes that can't be deployed this round but can be deployed in subsequent rounds. Please submit actions via PM now.

Both players have submitted actions. The new board:

Lighter shades are new deployments, I have also added score tracking for each separate zone.

Let me know if you think I made any mistake.

You each have NINE shapes to deploy for round two. You each have THIRTY-SIX shapes that can't be deployed this round but can be deployed in subsequent rounds. Please submit actions via PM now.

/in

Nice to have you! If a fourth shows up I will start a new thread with you vs them, if nobody shows up by tomorrow night we will see if one of these two are willing to face you. Feel free to tag anyone you think might be interested.

if both players are smart it's entirely luck-based depending on the last few moves.

The only reason Oromagi and I haven't done identical moves so far is because I reversed the game theory to make it interesting aiming for a backwards tie at worst.

The idea is still a work in progress and this first game is mostly a proof of concept since to my knowledge no kind of iterative Blotto's game like this has been rigorously tested before.

Different variations exist that we may or may not be able to try, for example giving one player more resources but giving some other advantage to the other player such as giving them some limited info on the first guys movements or giving them triple or quadruple points for winning a zone etc. If more people express interest I am happy to hear suggestions on how to possibly make future games more fun.

Both players have submitted actions. The new board:

If I had done anything more correctly in the round where we had 8 and 7, Oromagi would have forced a tie. This is what I knew.