Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lionel]

I checked some statistics of the best dominion player on isotropic, tat, and i noticed that in the column "win rate with" the best card is bureaucrat.
I used to consider bureaucrat as a bad card, is there something i missed?


here is my source :
http://councilroom.com/popular_buys?player=tat

[Dark Force]

Looks like he's only bought it about 3 times in his life, out of the 1000+ games he's played.  With that small a sample size, there's bound to be a large variance, it doesn't mean bureaucrat is good.

Compare that with his win rate for Minion, a card that he buys >4 of each time it's available.  Now there's a good card!

[guided]

Bureaucrat is a good (though usually not great) card for decks that don't depend on big action chains. I've made it the only action card in my deck on several occasions.

People underrate the card simply because it can be difficult to recognize boards where it's strong. I'm guilty of underbuying it, myself.

[fp]

Bureaucrat is a good (though usually not great) card for decks that don't depend on big action chains. I've made it the only action card in my deck on several occasions.

People underrate the card simply because it can be difficult to recognize boards where it's strong. I'm guilty of underbuying it, myself.

+1

I would say that Bureaucrat is probably the absolute hardest card in the game to gauge. The presence or absence of a specific card on the board is enough to change it from a winner to a loser.

I would also say that Bureaucrat is almost always a net negative in a Colony game.

[philosophyguy]

I can see Bureaucrat working well in Province sets where the dominant strategy is going to be BM, because Silver is usually a good card in that context and Bureaucrat will allow you to gain a critical mass of Silver faster. I can also see it being stronger against Gardens/Duke strategies because seeing Victory cards twice will slow down your opponent's deck.

Does fast trashing help or hurt Bureaucrat? On the one hand it allows you to Chapel away your copper with impunity because you don't need to buy Silver; on the other hand your opponent will probably get rid of their Estates so it won't slow them down as much. I don't know how B turns out in that scenario.

What are some of the other factors that make Bureaucrat more or less useful?

[Agrisios]

What are some of the other factors that make Bureaucrat more or less useful?

It has a nice effect with philosopher's stone and duke. You can buy the duchies first. When opponent joins the duchy race you can still buy provinces later:
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110704-142351-ae6a5dc7.html

But this is very specific.

[philosophyguy]

It has a nice effect with philosopher's stone and duke.

I read the game log, but I'm still confused at how this worked. In a set with minimal draw/cycling, you seem to be really dependent on luck to a) have the Potion show up so you can buy Stones, and b) have the Stone with enough other money to buy Provinces. I see how the Bureaucrat helps you grow your deck faster and increase your average buying power, but your primary buying power is coming from the Stone, and using the B slows down the frequency with which you can get to your Potion or your Stones. Am I missing something?

[Agrisios]

You get many Silvers. Therefore 3+P or 5 for the Duchy/Duke shouldn't be a problem.

Primary goal in Stone decks is the fat deck. You can't play bold stones and chains at the same time. So raw drawing power like Smithy doesn't help much. Of course a Warehouse, Cellar, Chancellor or Navigator would be nice addition, but you can't have them all. You play it out like a garden deck.

In this particular game both players were already full of green cards (4 Duchies/4 Dukes each). It doesn't matter than that I can't buy provinces every turn, but only every second or third. The chances for the opponent to get a province are much smaller. Plus I can buy estates in the turns between still increasing buying power. The last stone could therefore already buy a province allone.

[WanderingWinder]

I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't have been even more effective to skip the Phil Stones entirely.

[DG]

I've won a game with little more than bureaucrats and philosopher stones, but it wasn't convincing.

[Captain_Frisk]

Every card has its day.  B-Crat is one of those that just has fewer days than say.... mountebank.  There's an old strat article over on BGG about B-Crat being better than Chapel in heads up play.  I think someone countered with some simulation results and said "wrong".

I generally only buy B-crats on a final buy where I want to mess with rrenaud's win%s.

[WanderingWinder]

I generally only buy B-crats on a final buy where I want to mess with rrenaud's win%s.

I buy B-Crat fairly often. But as for messing with win %s... I go with copper.

[Silverback]

Sure, Bureaucrat is one of the weaker cards.

So what does it do?
1. The Attack: If it hits, your opponent has effectively only 4 cards in two consecutive turns. This might slow down his trashing. One less card also means a smaller chance to hit double Minion or to activate Conspirators.
2. The Gain-Silver-Ability: You use up your Action to gain a Silver. There are better ways to spend your one free action. However this means, that you don't have to buy that Silver. You can spend your money on something else.
Then it even puts the Silver on your draw pile. You can use it in your next turn. You don't have to wait until your next reshuffle.
Then it also spams your deck with useful, but somewhat mediocre cards (Silver). Sometimes this is good (Gardens, Dukes). Most of the time it isn't.

So I would say, that Bureaucrat is weak, but it's not as weak as people think.

[guided]

Most of the time it isn't.

It only isn't good if it breaks up your draw engine, or (much of the time) if it's a Colony game.

If you will consent to give me any number of silvers I might care to name on, say, turn 5, I will happily name an extremely large number.

[chwhite]

Bureaucrat is not the worst card around, but it's probably hanging around the edge of the bottom 10 overall.  There are two big problems with Bureaucrat:

a) $2 virtual money (which is what most comparable attacks give- and this attack is one of the weakest) is a lot more flexible than Silver.  A Silver-based deck can buy lots of Duchies and Dukes, it can even get a few Provinces, but it basically precludes you from action chains.  And it can't even get Provinces if hand-reduction attacks are around.
b) It gives you no benefit whatsoever this turn- and you're not going to draw that Silver because you can't really action chain in a B-crat deck.  Sure, on the deck is better than in the discard, but nothing this turn hurts, and the next-turn benefit is not actually that good- the Silver takes a spot in your hand, it's not a duration like Caravan or Merchant Ship, where you get the benefit (here, the silver) in addition to your regular hand.   

That being said, I do love Bureaucrat when Dukes are around.

[Captain_Frisk]

Most of the time it isn't.

It only isn't good if it breaks up your draw engine, or (much of the time) if it's a Colony game.

If you will consent to give me any number of silvers I might care to name on, say, turn 5, I will happily name an extremely large number.

I would love to see a graph of win probability based on # of extra silvers added to your deck at the start of the game..  For sure, if # of silvers was say: 100, your WP is 100%, because you'll just buy nothing but provinces and duchies for the rest of the game - never reshuffling.

And for sure, 1 or 2 silvers would be better than not having them them.

I just have a suspicion that there is some point in there where it isn't a positive thing by bloating your deck, or at least a local minimum. If I was to guess, I would expect it to be in the 5-10 range, where it puts your deck into a situation where it can't reliably buy a province, but it also takes forever to get whatever good cards you want into your deck  (10 silvers would mean that you can't draw your first buy until turn 5.

[WanderingWinder]

Most of the time it isn't.

It only isn't good if it breaks up your draw engine, or (much of the time) if it's a Colony game.

If you will consent to give me any number of silvers I might care to name on, say, turn 5, I will happily name an extremely large number.

I would love to see a graph of win probability based on # of extra silvers added to your deck at the start of the game..  For sure, if # of silvers was say: 100, your WP is 100%, because you'll just buy nothing but provinces and duchies for the rest of the game - never reshuffling.

And for sure, 1 or 2 silvers would be better than not having them them.

I just have a suspicion that there is some point in there where it isn't a positive thing by bloating your deck, or at least a local minimum. If I was to guess, I would expect it to be in the 5-10 range, where it puts your deck into a situation where it can't reliably buy a province, but it also takes forever to get whatever good cards you want into your deck  (10 silvers would mean that you can't draw your first buy until turn 5.

I think in a big money game, no colonies, you always want more silvers. You only need 4 to buy a province. Once you start throwing in some key actions, you start not wanting them so much, but if you could really pump the silvers in, it would be really good. For instance, what's the number X such that if bureaucrat gave X silvers instead of one, it would be dominant? I'm quite sure it's well less than 2.

[DG]

I don't think anyone has mentioned the number of players yet. In a 4-player bureaucrat game there's the chance that the same estate goes back onto your deck every turn as different opponents play their bureaucrats. I haven't played bureaucrat 4-player for a long time but I seem to remember that it was quite different from two player.

[Mean Mr Mustard]

My main issue with this card is that it is basically -1 action -1 card and does not improve your hand.  I recall having used it with success against a couple of top players by rushing treasure when it became immediately obvious that they were planning an engine that would take awhile to get off the ground.  By the time they were firing the game was effectively over.

Not nearly as good as bmu/masq or bmu/envoy but I do think when my opponents saw me open bureaucrat they decided I must be a poor player and they could afford to take the time to make a beast of an engine.

[guided]

Not nearly as good as bmu/masq

I actually rather doubt this.

I won't argue with you on Envoy.

[WanderingWinder]

guided, is that a matchup thing? 'cause BMU/masq generally beats BMU/envoy. And actually, I'd think it has a better matchup, too...

[guided]

I've never seen simulation results for BMU/Masquerade. Maybe it's stronger than I think it is?

Masquerade's not a card I imagine being all that great in a single-action deck. Without having studied the situation, I feel like I'd rather have a Smithy.

[Mean Mr Mustard]

It is actually very good; yes, it effectively draws two less cards but each use improves future hands.

[Geronimoo]

BM/Masquerade will beat BM/Smithy 53-42. It's even better than the mother of all Big money decks: it beats BM/Envoy 49-46.

Try it yourself (just some small modifications to the _Single Masquerade):

Code: [Select]

<player name="BM - Masquerade">
   <buy name="Province">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Gold"/>
         <operator type="greaterThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="0.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Duchy">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInSupply" attribute="Province"/>
         <operator type="smallerOrEqualThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="4.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Estate">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInSupply" attribute="Province"/>
         <operator type="smallerOrEqualThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="2.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Gold"/>
   <buy name="Masquerade">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Masquerade"/>
         <operator type="smallerThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="1.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Silver"/>
</player>


[DStu]

It is actually very good; yes, it effectively draws two less cards but each use improves future hands.

What it also surprisingly good is BM-Courtyard. Does not beat Envoy though, but Smithy by a small margin

[Geronimoo]

Actually, BM - Courtyard is probably better than BM - Envoy.

This bot is on par with the BM - Envoy, but since the simulator doesn't put cards back optimally, Courtyard is actually better!!! (using a random opening, Envoy still beats it easily in a forced $4/$3 opening)

Code: [Select]

<player name="BM - Courtyard">
   <buy name="Province">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Gold"/>
         <operator type="greaterThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="0.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Duchy">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInSupply" attribute="Province"/>
         <operator type="smallerOrEqualThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="4.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Estate">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInSupply" attribute="Province"/>
         <operator type="smallerOrEqualThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="2.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Gold"/>
   <buy name="Silver">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Silver"/>
         <operator type="equalTo" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="0.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Courtyard">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Courtyard"/>
         <operator type="smallerThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="1.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
   <buy name="Silver"/>
   <buy name="Courtyard">
      <condition>
         <left type="countCardsInDeck" attribute="Courtyard"/>
         <operator type="smallerThan" />
         <right type="constant" attribute="2.0"/>
      </condition>
   </buy>
</player>


[DStu]

This bot is on par with the BM - Envoy, but since the simulator doesn't put cards back optimally, Courtyard is actually better!!! (using a random opening, Envoy still beats it easily in a forced $4/$3 opening)

My feeling was that it is quite clever in putting cards back. As far as I have reduced the rules (buy highest card and put back whatever allows you to still buy highest card) you don't want to change these very often, perhaps pass on a duchy for estate in endgame when its safe and can lay back a gold for next turn. But overall I think that is a very good heurisitic at least for BigMoney

PS:

using a random opening, Envoy still beats it easily in a forced $4/$3 opening

But from this it also follows that Courtyard beats Envoy on 5/2-opening.

[Deadlock39]

I could be wrong, but I played around with BM-Courtyard once, and I think 2 Courtyards gave the best results.  This does however bring up questions about optimal play because the simulator always puts back the highest treasure that preserves the current turns buy, but if you have the opportunity to put your other Courtyard back, that is frequently the better move (especially if you are returning a copper instead).

Edit: I checked it with the single Courtyard strategy, and it does appear to edge itself out (about 46.5% to 45%) if you add a second Courtyard.  I think it could do slightly better if it prioritized putting Courtyard back, at least over Copper and Silver.

[guided]

Is the Envoy/Smithy player passing cards to Masquerade intelligently?

I guess I can believe those results but I wouldn't be surprised if there's some error in the AI.

[chwhite]

I'd expect Masquerade to be the single best card in the game for a One Action + BMU strategy.  Adding a second Masquerade might improve the numbers as well, though I'm not as sure as I once was. 

Envoy might also be close, but I hate playing Envoy strategies.

[WanderingWinder]

I'd expect Masquerade to be the single best card in the game for a One Action + BMU strategy.  Adding a second Masquerade might improve the numbers as well, though I'm not as sure as I once was. 

Envoy might also be close, but I hate playing Envoy strategies.

Not even close. Ambassador, as well as the premier curse-givers outperform pretty drastically. So does Wharf, as well as a couple others.

[chwhite]

I'd expect Masquerade to be the single best card in the game for a One Action + BMU strategy.  Adding a second Masquerade might improve the numbers as well, though I'm not as sure as I once was. 

Envoy might also be close, but I hate playing Envoy strategies.

Not even close. Ambassador, as well as the premier curse-givers outperform pretty drastically. So does Wharf, as well as a couple others.

Oh, duh.  Yeah, the top-tier attacks are in fact better.  I can believe Wharf, but if you take away the 5/2 opening it's probably close.

[Octo]

One of the dangers with masquerade (one of my favourite cards btw) is in the late game when you start risking having to pass a good card, and so in holding back on the masq you're losing the +2 cards and hold a dead card too. I think this card also plays a little differently if everyone is getting it, not just yourself - often I'm the only one, and it performs amazingly, but if everyone has a go it's just not the same.

Regarding bureaucrat, friend of mine trounced me with this recently, or at least he attributed it to that. I was sceptical, hence the reason for me reading this thread. Personally my favourite use for this card is as an attack to put on the table with new players because it isn't too much of a ball-buster like Witch or something which can put people off sometimes. Bureaucrat has more strength in a game with mixed VP cards though (Great Halls, Nobles etc) which I don't think has been mentioned yet.

I think I'm going to give it a go a bit more.

(Though whoever above said 2xCourtyard BMU - that sounds awesome, need to try that first!)