Are there more advance beginner strategies than just demilitarized zones and a few allies? Have an odd game where 4 players A,B,C and D arranged relatively vertically. A and C squeeze out B then double fund D. D gifts a few troops to C to help him fight me. C not doing so well then gives up a territory to D when C is losing to me in that section and D takes over the fight. Is that typical how games go? First time I seen early funding and double funding. The funding then gets even crazier as people are getting funded left and right. A, C and D territory colors never change so I am guessing they are in an alliance. I'm also fighting A as well as C at the same time. Everyone is fighting multiple people so it isn't really a big deal to me. I'm just curious what kind of early game political strategies people use.

I would say that the diplomacy of this aspect is a thousand times deeper than the gameplay and strategic elements. Those are (for the most part) straight-forward and, yes, there are some clever things that can be done, but it shouldn't be too difficult to more-or less master that part of the game. But the diplomatic relations that go on... Those are infinitely more complex and mysterious

Every game I play is a new experience and a new adventure into the unknown. Even when I've had a strong ally for the entire game, very dependable, a "bosom buddy" or whatever you want to call it, there still sometimes comes a twinge of concern near the end... "Will they get greedy and stab me in the back for that #1 spot? Why does he have so many drills right there?" etc

I think some things are generally true though:

1. The 4 hours of time before the game allows the first launches are actually a critical time for the game.

It is a very important time to communicate with those around you and tentatively start to create relationships, understandings, plans, etc. You can't ally with someon that you never talk to, and I think (just a guess on my part) that your chances of having a true ally diminish with time as they may already ally themselves with others as time goes on.

2. Courtesy and diplomacy will trump a snatch-and-grab style.

I'm not the most experienced player in the game but I think, after the games I have played and also talking with others, that this is true. Let me illustrate:
Recent game I had, there was a patch between me and pink above me of 4 factories tightly clustered together and all 4 of them had double shields. It was a highly strategic and powerful spot. Pink and I were about equidistant from it but my arrangement was slightly advantageous to his. I tried to talk to pink to arrange a peaceful opening but it seemed that he didn't reply. I felt snubbed and decided that I was going to slam him, hard. I felt 90% confident that, with the right opening, I could end up with all 4 factories and then I would probably be able to crush him. I even talked to 2 others about how pink had snubbed me, I was going to crush him, and who was with me? They were with me. So the game started and I had my aggressive opening. Right at this time, subs already launched, pink opens dialogue and with some simple and frank diplomacy he talked me down and we arranged a peaceful opening. We went on to be great allies and dominated the game. It is about to close in 24 hours with us as the top 2 players.
Could I have crushed pink at the opening? I'm pretty sure, but that would have set off a chain of diplomatic dynamics that are difficult to predict.

I'm pretty quiet in the beginning. I haven't used those 4 hours well. I tend to just chill and attack whoever starts a war with me to the death. I look at players profile and see how many games they won, whether they are level 1 and level 2 and look at which places has double shields, where my factories are, if they started a war how easy would it be for them to reinforce versus me. I haven't played any rank. 4 to 5 games in. Was wondering if there was a meta or general strategy. I just started listening http://blog.subterfuge-game.com/post/13 ... cast-day-0 to try and get an idea what people do. Starting to wonder if a 0 hour attack against a enemy queen is possible.

A Queen attack at hour 0? The only way I see that happening is total cooperation with everyone along their border and a ton of resources. With no specialists I'd imagine the only way to pin down a queen would be to force her to move and then have an ally intercept her at the her destination.

Cant imagine the gamble would be worth the number of troops required.

I usually try to make some form of communication with almost all of the players before game start. If i plan on invading a player right off of the bat or want to keep the option open sometimes i won't bother, but for the most part i think it gives me a much better general picture of how the start will play out, also i think players will be at least a little less likely to betray or attack me if i've made some sort of friendly communication.

pmoney wrote:I usually try to make some form of communication with almost all of the players before game start. If i plan on invading a player right off of the bat or want to keep the option open sometimes i won't bother, but for the most part i think it gives me a much better general picture of how the start will play out, also i think players will be at least a little less likely to betray or attack me if i've made some sort of friendly communication.

This is definitely the truth. People tend to attack the quiet players more than the friendly players (key word being "tend"). I *always* message everyone in the game, and always make peace with everyone on my borders.
Even though not everyone honors those agreements, well, neither do I. But there's a slight psychological barrier to attacking someone that you promised not to attack. So, by having someone agree not to attack me, I'm making it a little bit harder for them. Not only that, but it also makes it harder for would-be-attackers to rally support against me, since more people will think well of me than would have otherwise. It's rare that I get ganged up on from the start.
Ever since the exhibition game (which was so kindly brought up), I've found myself making 3-way alliances wherever possible. They're crazy powerful with enough trust.

I'm going to echo RoadKiehl on the power of 3-way alliances; Having three people helping each other towards ensuring getting of you get a medal is a powerful motivator. With three people you'll be able to gather intel on the majority of a map early on. It's great for specialist gifting (a real show of trust), and if you're the weaker member having x2 funding is SWEEEET!


It again shows that communication, trust and diplomacy are the three strongest keys in the game -- not triple kings or pirate-nav-assassin combos (although those do help)

There is a strategy that I have yet to see anyone use. I believe its extremely effective.
Firstly you need a very trustworthy alliance. One of them, A, will be the main force, while the other, B, will be carried by A.
At the very start of the game you get A to send drillers to all but 1 of B's outposts while B sends all of his drillers to the nearest dormant ones. A's drillers will arrive at B's outposts and B will let A take over them. Once B's dormant outposts have been secured, B lets A take those as well, while B retreats back to a single outpost.
The idea is that A practically gets twice the number of specialist hires (because B gifts specialists to A as well). Global abilities will be twice as effective. While A is completely dominating the game, he starts to let B take back a few outposts and mines. The attack of others must be carefully planned and B's revival must be precisely timed, but it should happen in such a way that A and B get 1st and 2nd.

It would be even more powerful if this happened with a triple alliance. (3x specialists, 3x global ability effectiveness)

Of course, as I said, this would require an enormous amount of trust from player B, but if all goes to plan, it is well worth the sacrifice B made at the start.

tw2000 wrote:There is a strategy that I have yet to see anyone use. I believe its extremely effective.
Firstly you need a very trustworthy alliance. One of them, A, will be the main force, while the other, B, will be carried by A.
At the very start of the game you get A to send drillers to all but 1 of B's outposts while B sends all of his drillers to the nearest dormant ones. A's drillers will arrive at B's outposts and B will let A take over them. Once B's dormant outposts have been secured, B lets A take those as well, while B retreats back to a single outpost.
The idea is that A practically gets twice the number of specialist hires (because B gifts specialists to A as well). Global abilities will be twice as effective. While A is completely dominating the game, he starts to let B take back a few outposts and mines. The attack of others must be carefully planned and B's revival must be precisely timed, but it should happen in such a way that A and B get 1st and 2nd.

It would be even more powerful if this happened with a triple alliance. (3x specialists, 3x global ability effectiveness)

Of course, as I said, this would require an enormous amount of trust from player B, but if all goes to plan, it is well worth the sacrifice B made at the start.

1. I would be *shocked* if this ever actually happened
2. You'd definitely be accused of multiboxing, or at least having a multi-game deal, both of which are against the code of conduct. While I don't think you are actually suggesting that, I know, as a passive observer, that I would be forced to conclude just that from your actions.

roadkiehl wrote:

tw2000 wrote:There is a strategy that I have yet to see anyone use. I believe its extremely effective.
Firstly you need a very trustworthy alliance. One of them, A, will be the main force, while the other, B, will be carried by A.
At the very start of the game you get A to send drillers to all but 1 of B's outposts while B sends all of his drillers to the nearest dormant ones. A's drillers will arrive at B's outposts and B will let A take over them. Once B's dormant outposts have been secured, B lets A take those as well, while B retreats back to a single outpost.
The idea is that A practically gets twice the number of specialist hires (because B gifts specialists to A as well). Global abilities will be twice as effective. While A is completely dominating the game, he starts to let B take back a few outposts and mines. The attack of others must be carefully planned and B's revival must be precisely timed, but it should happen in such a way that A and B get 1st and 2nd.

It would be even more powerful if this happened with a triple alliance. (3x specialists, 3x global ability effectiveness)

Of course, as I said, this would require an enormous amount of trust from player B, but if all goes to plan, it is well worth the sacrifice B made at the start.

1. I would be *shocked* if this ever actually happened
2. You'd definitely be accused of multiboxing, or at least having a multi-game deal, both of which are against the code of conduct. While I don't think you are actually suggesting that, I know, as a passive observer, that I would be forced to conclude just that from your actions.

Yes, being accused of multiboxing would definitely be a problem
But of course the Devs could confirm otherwise because both players would probably have played different number of games and/or this may be their first game with each other and/or by looking at their chat for evidence that the players thought of this idea after the game started.