Being relatively inexperienced player (Goko rating about 4500) and looking to improve my play, I registered here and thought to ask for feedback regarding some my games. So, hello all
In particular, I've been having some interesting sets recently where various alt-VP strategies were rivaling or overwhelming traditional Province-based ones. Since I have little experience playing alt-VP sets, it's quite probable I've erred in various ways in these games. Any feedback is welcome.
Game 1: FeodumHamlet, Smugglers, Steward, Feodum, JackOfAllTrades, Tournament, Cultist, Ill-Gotten Gains, Knights, Saboteur
http://dom.retrobox.eu/?/20140213/log.516d5f8be4b082c74d7bcbbc.1392325344542.txtBefore this game, I used to underestimate Feodum. Not any more - as I got completely trashed here without ever coming nowhere near contesting my opponent. We both opened Jack of all Trades/Steward, and while my opponent trashed consistently and got his first Province ASAP, I got carried away, abandoned trashing and opted for Cultist. With his thin deck, opponent connected his Tournament and Province relatively quickly, got Trusty Steed and started pumping more and more silver into his deck with each play. In the end, each of his 8 Feodums were 9 points worth.
So, is Trusty Steed/Feodum right way to go here? Is some Province plan quick enough to stop it? Would Feodum still be right way to go without Tournament on the board?
Game 2: Duke/Silk RoadsCandlestick Maker, Doctor, Horse Traders, Silk Road, Smithy, Cache, Duke, Haggler, Margrave, Stables
http://dom.retrobox.eu/?/20140222/log.515c0c7ce4b093d38b19b125.1393098007619.txtThis set, as it seemed to me, heavily favoured Duke strategy - Horse traders, Cache and Silk Road should all go splendidly with it. I opened HT/Silver and started gaining Caches and 1 more HT, while my opponent basically went Big Money + Margrave. Despite winning by relatively narrow margin (76-70), my opponent would have probably won if he bought Silk Roads instead of Dukes and Estate (T18).
My gut feeling is that Duke is best possible strategy here and that Province player should not have come so close. So, did I misplay my game? Started greening too early? Gotten too few Horse Traders? Or am I wrong and Province-based strategy is viable here?
Game 3: Duke/Silk RoadDuchess, Chancellor, Coppersmith, Sea Hag, Silk Road, Bandit Camp, Duke, Explorer, Haggler, Border Village
http://dom.retrobox.eu/?/20140222/log.515c0c7ce4b093d38b19b125.1393097338461.txtWe both opened Sea Hag/Silver and went for Duchies with some Haggler support. I started buying victory cards earlier, while my opponent took his time to buy 3 Bandit Villages - whose Spoils enabled him to snatch some Provinces later. It turns out that his Provinces ensured him insurmountable lead. On my last turn, I bought the last Curse to 3-pile the game, as I couldn't know the score and feared it would only get worse for me it the game went on. I ended up losing with four points.
Any improvements here on my general plan or its execution? Was Bandit Camp really the way to go here?
Game 4: GardensFool's Gold, Moat, Storeroom, Bureaucrat, Gardens, Navigator, Harvest, Journeyman, Mountebank, Grand Market
http://dom.retrobox.eu/?/20140226/log.515c0c7ce4b093d38b19b125.1393445555446.txtThe question here was - whether to go for Mountebank and/or Grand Market or Storeroom/Gardens. My opponent went for former, I decided to try latter. Game ended on turn 22, with Gardens, Storerooms and Estate pile empty. Though I won by a small margin, I'm convinced I would be toast with better play from my opponent. Had he snatched more than 1 Gardens from he, I would have lost. Had the game lasted 1 turn longer, I would have lost. Had my opponent not helped me empty Storeroom pile, I would have lost. Had he ignored Grand Market and Fool's Gold and went straight for Money + Mountebank or Money + Journeyman, I'd probably lose convincingly.
So, was Gardens really the best option here? Should it win the game against Mountebank player? Or did I somehow misplay my hands?