Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Bank over King's Court?  (Read 5594 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1762
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
  • Respect: +2017
    • View Profile
Bank over King's Court?
« on: August 24, 2011, 10:40:39 am »
0

Just played a Colony game which I think is a nice example of King's Court not being the dominant card. The board was:

Bank
King's Court
Hoard
City
Rabble
Horse Traders
Smithy
Tournament
Wishing Well
Woodcutter

Edit: The game in question:

http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110824-065113-9cbbcdc0.html


My opponent opened Silver/Tournament. I opened Silver/Horse Traders, with the plan that that should get me to $5 often enough to empty the City pile. I bought the last City on turn 12, for a total of 8 Cities. Turn 13 I played 6 of them, resulting in $13, with 2 buys, and the first time I'd hit $7 or more for the game. Normally King's Court makes my first $7+ an obvious choice (unless it's time to buy Victory cards), but I figured with the enormous hand sizes I was now getting, a Bank could pull in some big coin. I would need more buys to spend my money, and I planned on having discardable green cards in the near future, so I bought a Bank and another Horse Traders. Turn 14 I bought another Bank, and a Wishing Well to help me find my Cities.

Turn 16 I played all 8 Cities, my 2 Horse Traders, and my 2 Banks for $9 and $10. I bought 3 Colonies.
Turn 17, 2 more Colonies.

Now my opponent had bought an early Province or 2, and now had Trusty Steed, Princess and Followers, and was regularly King's Courting, usually with either Rabble or Tournament, although once with Followers. He was not doing too badly, and at one point caught up to my score with only 1 Colony left.

But a few turns later, I bought the last Colony, and my only Province, to finish the game 67-51.

So the game was close. It was essentially my 8 Cities, 2 Banks and 2 Horse Traders against his 3 King's Courts, 2 Tournaments and various prizes.

Of course my deck would have benefited from a King's Court or 2. But all it would really do would be to make it even more certain that I could draw my whole (quite large) deck, and I was doing that without them.

The point is, my Cities/Banks/Horse Traders proved to at least match, if not exceed the King's Courts. And had I bought King's Courts instead of Banks, I almost certainly would have lost. Also, when he bought his first King's Court when there were still 6 Cities left, it could have scared me into buying Silvers and Golds so I could afford a King's Court. But I stuck to my guns, and it paid off.

I guess it just goes to show, picking a good strategy and sticking to it goes a long way towards winning games, and sometimes the "4th worst $6+ card" can be a much better buy than the "best $6+ card".
« Last Edit: August 25, 2011, 07:19:21 am by Jimmmmm »
Logged

Superdad

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 161
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: Bank over King's Court?
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2011, 11:29:59 am »
0

I'd be careful drawing that conclusion from this game. First, it's one sample, and in that sample your opponent played a tournament/province game in a kingdom with colonies. I don't think you can conclude that Bank> KC based on that.. it makes no logical sense. All you can conclude from the discussion above is that this is not a board where you want to play tournament/province in a colony game.

It would also be important to know how the 2nd pile was emptied. I have a feeling that your opponent misplayed here. I think cities are very easy to counter. If you are losing the city race, you can get two piles low enough such that the city player will not have a single turn with 2-pile cities. If your opponent emptied the 2nd pile, then all conclusions from the game are invalid, because he made a colossal mistake.

I think the biggest reason that Bank may (*may*) be better than KC here has everythign to do with hoard, which wasn't even mentioned in the dicussion. I think the main reason KC may not be the best strategy is because of no trashing, and the fact that Bank has hoard to support it. However, City and Rabble on the board, I don't know if I'd conclude that the best strategy isn't a KC strategy. KC'd Rabbles can be devastating, and is certainly underestimated.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2011, 11:21:24 am by Superdad »
Logged

DG

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4074
  • Respect: +2624
    • View Profile
Re: Bank over King's Court?
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2011, 12:25:47 pm »
0

Quote
All you can conclude from the discussion above is that this is not a board where you want to play tournament/province in a colony game.

Funnily enough, I thought it was a reasonable option. The best defence against a tournament is buying provinces, so if your opponent is messing about buying cities they are not going to be getting provinces. With hoards and king's courts in the kingdom you have the option to sustain the province rush with either an action heavy or treasure heavy deck. If you leave someone to buy all 10 cities they'll do that by turn 14 maybe in this sort of kingdom. By then the game could be completely lost.

Quote
KC'd Rabbles can be devastating, and is certainly underestimated.
Wishing wells, horse traders, and tournaments provide a good defence to rabbles, although it could certainly come into play depending how the game develops.


Logged

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1762
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
  • Respect: +2017
    • View Profile
Re: Bank over King's Court?
« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2011, 08:44:45 pm »
0

Okay, a few things I should mention.

My conclusion was certainly not Bank > King's Court. Of course, in most cases King's Court is a much more powerful card than Bank. I wasn't even necessarily saying that Bank was better than King's Court in this game. My conclusion was, the way the game was going, given what I already had in my deck, I benefited much, much more from buying a couple of Banks than I would have from buying King's Courts. And also that King's Court was not the dominant card on the board, which it clearly wasn't, since the guy who bought none beat the guy who bought 3.

The second pile to empty was the Colonies, and I don't think either of us ever bought a Hoard. By the time I had bought the last City, I really had to focus on getting Victory cards, and without buying more Horse Traders (or taking time emptying another pile, which, I don't know, maybe I should have done), the extra cash wouldn't really have helped me much. I was doing quite fine with my 7 Coppers, 1 Silver and 2 Banks, while of course discarding to the Horse Traders.

I'm certainly no expert, and I'm certainly not saying my strategy was the best possible one for the game. All I'm saying is I picked a strategy and stuck to it, even when I inevitably started to fall behind early on; and even what is widely considered to be the best card in the game is still very much dependent on what else is in your deck.
Logged

Superdad

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 161
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: Bank over King's Court?
« Reply #4 on: August 25, 2011, 08:49:57 am »
0

And also that King's Court was not the dominant card on the board, which it clearly wasn't, since the guy who bought none beat the guy who bought 3.

This is the sort of thing I was responding to. I don't think you can make that kind of conclusion. It's very likely that KC is the dominant strategy on this kingdom, and just because "the guy who bought none beat the guy who bought 3", doesn't mean anything. You two could have been playing the 2nd and 3rd best strategies - but that doesn't mean the 1st (best) strategy isn't KC.

Quote
... when I inevitably started to fall behind early on; and even what is widely considered to be the best card in the game is still very much dependent on what else is in your deck.

Now this I can get behind. Even if KC is the most dominant strategy on the board, if it doesn't fit your deck, it doesn't fit your deck. If the game ended on 1-pile-strong cities (like you said, the 2nd pile to empty was colonies), then I agree, copying more cities really isn't going to help you as much as getting more money (bank). I just assumed this thread was intended to be deeper than that, because that is kind of obvious.

As an aside, I have a feeling this game was misplayed by both people. If you dive headfirst into cities, you should only do so if you can logically empty a 2nd pile quickly so that your cities are strong. Ideally you do this by getting at least a 6-4 city split, then forcing the 2nd pile with some kind of cheap card you can tolerate having many of (say fishing villages, peddlers, worker village, pawn, etc).

If you can't empty the 2nd pile before the major colony/province pile, then you shouldn't go for cities. I have a feeling this is what happened in this game?



All that being said, I think the only conclusion you can reach with this game is that if your deck is already drawing itself, copying more drawing cards isn't as good as just buying more money. But that conclusion should be inherently obvious.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2011, 08:52:46 am by Superdad »
Logged

Thisisnotasmile

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1493
  • Respect: +676
    • View Profile
Re: Bank over King's Court?
« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2011, 08:55:31 am »
0

If you dive headfirst into cities, you should only do so if you can logically empty a 2nd pile quickly so that your cities are strong. Ideally you do this by getting at least a 6-4 city split, then forcing the 2nd pile with some kind of cheap card you can tolerate having many of (say fishing villages, peddlers, worker village, pawn, etc).

If you can't empty the 2nd pile before the major colony/province pile, then you shouldn't go for cities. I have a feeling this is what happened in this game?

Not sure I agree with this. I'll agree that Cities aren't at their best with only one pile depleted, but that's obvious. However, I don't agree that you should not go for Cities unless 2 piles are definitely going to be empty. Do you think that Laboratory is a never-buy card? (I'm going to assume you just said no) Then why would a level 2 City, a strictly superior card, be a never-buy?
Logged

rinkworks

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Bank over King's Court?
« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2011, 11:00:44 am »
0

I concur.  Usually I see the Level 2 City as being the most significant of its power levels.  It's absurdly strong, paling only in comparison to the Level 3 City.  But it seems like, in most games, if you've got Level 3 Cities, you're a stone's throw from the end of the game anyway, so you won't get to use them much.  They let you bring home a game, sure, but the game was likely built on the backs of Level 2 Cities.
Logged

Epoch

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 421
  • Respect: +38
    • View Profile
Re: Bank over King's Court?
« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2011, 12:17:16 pm »
0

Not sure I agree with this. I'll agree that Cities aren't at their best with only one pile depleted, but that's obvious. However, I don't agree that you should not go for Cities unless 2 piles are definitely going to be empty. Do you think that Laboratory is a never-buy card? (I'm going to assume you just said no) Then why would a level 2 City, a strictly superior card, be a never-buy?

I think that there are two different cases worth considering:

1.  Cities exist on the board with another pile which is going to be depleted quickly (like, say, Fishing Villages, or Curses in the case of a Cursing attack).

2.  You plan to deplete the Cities pile, with, potentially, not a lot of help from your opponents.

The first, in my mind, makes Cities a lot more attractive than the second.  Sure, your once-activated Cities are great once they happen, but buying the pile down to nothing is a huge opportunity cost during which time you've got overpriced Villages (and Villages are a pretty bad card unless they're activating some kind of engine, which in this time period they're probably not).
Logged

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1762
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
  • Respect: +2017
    • View Profile
Re: Bank over King's Court?
« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2011, 08:24:08 pm »
0

If the game ended on 1-pile-strong cities (like you said, the 2nd pile to empty was colonies), then I agree, copying more cities really isn't going to help you as much as getting more money (bank). I just assumed this thread was intended to be deeper than that, because that is kind of obvious.

As an aside, I have a feeling this game was misplayed by both people. If you dive headfirst into cities, you should only do so if you can logically empty a 2nd pile quickly so that your cities are strong. Ideally you do this by getting at least a 6-4 city split, then forcing the 2nd pile with some kind of cheap card you can tolerate having many of (say fishing villages, peddlers, worker village, pawn, etc).

If you can't empty the 2nd pile before the major colony/province pile, then you shouldn't go for cities. I have a feeling this is what happened in this game?


All that being said, I think the only conclusion you can reach with this game is that if your deck is already drawing itself, copying more drawing cards isn't as good as just buying more money. But that conclusion should be inherently obvious.

If I thought I was being particularly deep or insightful, I would have posted in Articles. But all I was really doing was "reporting a game". I'm sorry if what I was saying seems obvious, but I'm still learning the game - I didn't know Dominion existed until last month. In my limited experience, King's Court is usually a must-buy, and if your opponent gets a couple before you do, it's not looking good for you. I just thought it was pretty cool that I won without needing a King's Court.

Maybe I shouldn't have spammed the Cities. Maybe the best strategy in the game did involve a King's Court.  Maybe my opponent didn't play very well. Maybe I got lucky. Maybe a better player would have smashed me with Courts. Maybe not. But I'm not disputing any of that. I just thought it was a good game.
Logged

kn1tt3r

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 585
  • Respect: +278
    • View Profile
Re: Bank over King's Court?
« Reply #9 on: August 26, 2011, 05:15:13 am »
0

One a board like this, if my opponent goes for Cities I'd never every buy one myself and let him limp along with a crappy deck of $5 villages as long as possible.

Maybe this is a board for a simple Smithy/Money approach, possibly even with Hoards for a Province rush. Especially if I see my opponent trying to empty the City pile on his own.
Logged

Superdad

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 161
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: Bank over King's Court?
« Reply #10 on: August 26, 2011, 08:51:44 am »
0

Not sure I agree with this. I'll agree that Cities aren't at their best with only one pile depleted, but that's obvious. However, I don't agree that you should not go for Cities unless 2 piles are definitely going to be empty. Do you think that Laboratory is a never-buy card? (I'm going to assume you just said no) Then why would a level 2 City, a strictly superior card, be a never-buy?

kn1tt3r above echoes my comments on this. Sure, 1-pile cities (2 cards/2 actions) ARE strong. If they started that way, then for sure I'd say go for it.

The problem is, if someone dives headfirst into cities and the opponent doesn't follow, and there is no likelyhood of a pile emptying before cities, then the city-diver is looking at having $5 villages for a LONG time. Once the city finally empties, sure it's great to have an upgraded Lab for $5, but until then, your deck is pretty terrible.

So no, I don't consider Lab to be bad, but I also don't equate Cities to $5 labs + 1 action, because against a good player they will spend a LONG time being $5 villages.

Don't get me wrong, on the right board, cities can be a linchpin card and whoever wins the city-split will likely win the game. I just don't think it's true on this board, since there is no other pile that is likely to empty quickly to power them up very fast. Now... if both people were fighting over fishing villages at $3 to get access to cities, then that is an entirely different story.


@Jimmmmmm, I apologize if my earlier responses were cheeky in any way. I did not intend them to be so. I quite value your posts on these boards.
Logged

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1762
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
  • Respect: +2017
    • View Profile
Re: Bank over King's Court?
« Reply #11 on: August 26, 2011, 10:52:39 am »
0

@Jimmmmmm, I apologize if my earlier responses were cheeky in any way. I did not intend them to be so. I quite value your posts on these boards.

It's all good. You've given me some more things to think about. I think from memory I went into this game having been smashed by Cities a few games earlier, so my mindset was to not lose the City race, and yes, maybe I should have put some more thought into whether that was the best option.

However, my point in this thread was not to talk about Cities. King's Court gets a lot of love, and Bank not as much, and both are rightly so, I think. I just wanted to show an example of Bank being a far better buy than King's Court in that specific situation.
Logged

Superdad

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 161
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: Bank over King's Court?
« Reply #12 on: August 26, 2011, 11:19:37 am »
0

More specifically to elaborate on Bank... I'm really not a big fan of it myself. I'll buy it, sure, but I will pass on it quite frequently. Things that will make me buy bank:

+Buys on board
Heavy drawing (i.e. tactician)
Good alternate treasure that I will be filling my deck with: most notable is probably Venture, Hoard and Harem


I find people buy bank at really weird times, such as in province games without any +buys. They then get a $14 hand and buy a single province with it.
Logged

rinkworks

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Bank over King's Court?
« Reply #13 on: August 26, 2011, 11:27:42 am »
0

Bank is also sometimes an easy card for building up Fairgrounds.  Well, easy if you have a $7 hand at some point and aren't ready to hit the Fairgrounds pile yet.  I realize ANY card helps build Fairgrounds, but Bank is one of those cards where I don't feel like I'm sacrificing deck power to do it.  It might not be superior to Gold in all situations, but it's seldom dramatically worse.
Logged

zorch

  • Herbalist
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
  • Respect: +1
    • View Profile
Re: Bank over King's Court?
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2011, 11:00:14 am »
0

Looking over older posts, here.
I know woodcutter is generally a weak card, except perhaps in a Garden game.  However, here is looks like a viable alternative to Horse Traders.  Both cards are :
 - terminal
 - good at getting you to 5 coin
 - provide +Buy

But Horse traders seems more resilient in a curse game, or where there are relevant attacks.  HT seems like a .. ok... defense against Rabble (you will get one of the green off the top), but it requires you to pitch 2 other cards. Where as, in a higher quality / money deck, Woodcutter seems like it has more upside...
 - if you haven't greened in a BM stragtegy, you can be drawing higher quality treasures, and still get +Buy
 - it combines ...ok with KC if you want to try that (although a BM +X strategy probably doesnt want KC)
 - You can try spamming them a bit as your deck grows if hit low money turns at 3 / 5 you can afford to take 1 or 2 cities (you opp is not trying to drain the stack... 2*WC + Village is a lot better than 2*HT plus village.

So, if you want to try a BM + X variant on this board, powered by Hoard.... would you really prefer the HT, with WC available, against the threat of a late Rabble?
 
(Not trying to evaluate KC / Cities.. just the opener where you start HT and ignore WC for whatever reason.... )
Logged

Thisisnotasmile

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1493
  • Respect: +676
    • View Profile
Re: Bank over King's Court?
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2011, 11:09:26 am »
0

HT seems like a .. ok... defense against Rabble (you will get one of the green off the top), but it requires you to pitch 2 other cards.

If it's just drawn you a green card, you only need to pitch 1 other card.
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.074 seconds with 21 queries.