Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Mono-bishop implementation  (Read 1959 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ddubois

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +17
    • View Profile
Mono-bishop implementation
« on: August 31, 2011, 07:35:17 pm »
0

Assuming a Province game with no other interesting cards -- i.e, pretend it's Bishop, treasure, and green -- and your plan is to ride Bishop the whole game, what's the optimal strategy?  For instance, are you limiting how many bishops you put in as a percentage of you deck, or do you always just buy Bishop on $4 or $5 every time, with the idea that you'll trash them to each other?  Do you ever buy Gold when $8 is available?  Assuming you generally Bishop green before anything else, when might you deviate to trash a Bishop or a coin instead?

This is an example game where my opponent went all-bishop and lost:
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201108/30/game-20110830-160958-5ab49dea.html

I've had other games where my opponent went all Bishop, and won soundly.  And I honestly couldn't tell you what the key difference was between the two games.
Logged

Fangz

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 260
  • Respect: +12
    • View Profile
Re: Mono-bishop implementation
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2011, 07:45:29 pm »
0

I... can't see going all bishop as being a good strategy. The trouble with bishop is that it accelerates other players, perhaps more than it helps you. I don't think you want more than 2 bishops, maybe even just one.

EDIT: In your log, he lost pretty easily to what's basically big money. If you played a more advanced strategy (e.g. using sea hag) he'd have been in even bigger trouble.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2011, 07:49:00 pm by Fangz »
Logged

tko

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 129
  • Respect: +1
    • View Profile
Re: Mono-bishop implementation
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2011, 07:46:56 pm »
0

I just got beaten convincingly by multiple Bishops last night.  Though I'd like to chalk this loss up to my wife talking in my ear all like "blah blah blah".

http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110830-193945-01ecf6d9.html
Logged

Epoch

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 420
  • Respect: +37
    • View Profile
Re: Mono-bishop implementation
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2011, 07:47:06 pm »
0

I would assume that this strategy would lose to BMU, maybe +1 Bishop.  The amount of deck-thinning you're doing for your opponent sounds extreme.

I would not blindly buy Bishop all the time with $4 or $5.  I'd try to keep my deck no more than 20-25% bishop.  While it may be fine to have Bishop/Bishop/money/money/money, on the theory that you trash the second Bishop, it's a hell of a lot less all right to have Bishop/Bishop/Bishop/money/money, since then the third Bishop is entirely "dead."

I would probably not buy Gold with $8 available unless I got a really early $8 (and I kind of struggle to see how I even could get that).  With Bishop thinning your deck constantly, I'd expect that my "normal" Gold buys would keep me in pretty good money, so Provinces wouldn't need to be deferred for more money.

I presume that I would trash coin over green in cases where the game was very close to ending and trashing my coin would not cause me to go down a tier of green buys this turn, and where trashing the coin nets me more VP than trashing the green.  Example:  Hand is Gold/Silver/Copper/Bishop/Duchy.  I can only buy a Duchy at best.  I can still buy the Duchy if I trash my Copper.  If I trash my Duchy and buy a Duchy, I get net +3 VP, whereas if I trash my Copper and buy a Duchy, I get net +4 VP.

I note that all of this is pure off-the-top-of-my-head, no real play experience, so take it with a huge bag of salt.
Logged

ddubois

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +17
    • View Profile
Re: Mono-bishop implementation
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2011, 07:52:46 pm »
0

Well, I'm having trouble digging up games of mono-Bishop, but here's a game where my opponent went very close to mono-Bishop and it seemed like a really strong strategy:
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110624-125028-7309d43c.html
That may simply have been a function of it being a really good counter to my Baron open however.

If my Masquerade in the earlier posted game had been, say, a Smithy instead, would I have still won?  I've never used the simulator.  What does it say about Bishop-only strategies?

Logged

Fangz

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 260
  • Respect: +12
    • View Profile
Re: Mono-bishop implementation
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2011, 07:55:32 pm »
0

I just got beaten convincingly by multiple Bishops last night.  Though I'd like to chalk this loss up to my wife talking in my ear all like "blah blah blah".

http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110830-193945-01ecf6d9.html

I think the key to this game isn't the bishops, but his control of the nobles pile. The bishops were there mostly to keep control of your curses. Once he split the nobles 6/2 in a card selection with no other sources of draws, he could pretty much do whatever he wanted.

« Last Edit: August 31, 2011, 08:10:13 pm by Fangz »
Logged

tko

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 129
  • Respect: +1
    • View Profile
Re: Mono-bishop implementation
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2011, 08:05:27 pm »
0

I just got beaten convincingly by multiple Bishops last night.  Though I'd like to chalk this loss up to my wife talking in my ear all like "blah blah blah".

http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110830-193945-01ecf6d9.html

I think the key to this game isn't the bishops, but his control of the nobles pile. The bishops were there mostly to keep control of your curses. Once he split the nobles 6/2 in a card selection with no other sources of draws, he could pretty much do whatever he wanted.
Funny, I still hear "blah blah blah"
Just kidding... his huge Nobles lead destroyed me as he was consistently drawing better quality.  I do recall hearing that Nobles is "not so good" in a recent article (not sure where that was) and I also thought it could be a downside as it helps my opponent curse me with Jester.  Part of the problem is I ended it on piles by buying a Duchy when buying a Duke would have made my opponent have to do some tricky math.  Obviously I was not doing any math and had no idea where I was in the game, but then my wife was talking... :)
Logged

Fangz

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 260
  • Respect: +12
    • View Profile
Re: Mono-bishop implementation
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2011, 08:19:12 pm »
0

Quote
Well, I'm having trouble digging up games of mono-Bishop, but here's a game where my opponent went very close to mono-Bishop and it seemed like a really strong strategy:
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110624-125028-7309d43c.html
That may simply have been a function of it being a really good counter to my Baron open however.

If my Masquerade in the earlier posted game had been, say, a Smithy instead, would I have still won?  I've never used the simulator.  What does it say about Bishop-only strategies?
The main problem with the latter game is you going Bishop as well. Deck thinning helps him a lot - the ideal situation is to get to Bishop - (3 treasures adding up to 7 or more $) - something else each turn. Then you can just keep buying provinces and trashing them. You buying a bishop meant he can get rid of those coppers a lot quicker. He only got ahead in the last few turns, where you did a number of big mistakes. Turn 22... you bishop a province and buy a duchy.... why? Turn 21... you buy a gold with a single province left.... why? Etc.

In the other game, you should have still won if you went smithy instead of masquerade. In fact you'd possibly have won more easily.

Quote
Funny, I still hear "blah blah blah"
Just kidding... his huge Nobles lead destroyed me as he was consistently drawing better quality.  I do recall hearing that Nobles is "not so good" in a recent article (not sure where that was) and I also thought it could be a downside as it helps my opponent curse me with Jester.  Part of the problem is I ended it on piles by buying a Duchy when buying a Duke would have made my opponent have to do some tricky math.  Obviously I was not doing any math and had no idea where I was in the game, but then my wife was talking...

I disagree strongly with Nobles being not so good. Nobles is a great card, and isotropic stats seem to agree with me.

Nobles is especially important in that game, anyway, because it is the only source of +cards, and +action. Getting a higher chance of being cursed by jester isn't that bad either. I'd rather take the curse than let my opponent grab a copy of my $6 card that I worked hard for!
« Last Edit: August 31, 2011, 08:27:46 pm by Fangz »
Logged

ddubois

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +17
    • View Profile
Re: Mono-bishop implementation
« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2011, 09:09:26 pm »
0

[q]Turn 21... you buy a gold with a single province left....[/q]
I knew I was about to reshuffle and I wanted to maximize my chances of being the first one to hit 8 and by the last province.  I figured I was behind by enough that buying a Duchy wouldn't help, and given how much I lost by, it seems like that decision is vindicated.

Turn 22 is pretty terrible though. My thinking was that I didn't want to eat a gold because then I wouldn't be able to afford Duchy, but I should have sucked it up and bought an Estate.  I could have gained 5 point instead of 2, in a situation where the Gold was certainly not going to come around again.
Logged

chwhite

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1065
  • Respect: +436
    • View Profile
Re: Mono-bishop implementation
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2011, 09:15:19 pm »
0

I had a game earlier today where my opponent built up a 7-3 advantage in Cities, I went heavy into Bishop while he ignored them, and I won handily with the entire margin being Bishop points (the provinces split 4/4).  At the point where your opponent will just be drawing their entire deck anyway (and there was no +Buy except for Cities which never hit Level 3) then letting them chuck the Coppers they need to buy Province while you rack up the chips is really no big deal.  That game also featured a rare example of Outpost being useful.

...

Nobles is a great card.  People seem to think it's weak because Theory called it the second-worst $6-plus in his recent rankings, and, well, he was dead wrong.  It's a Smithy with points attached that *also* gives you the ability to use it for actions if you have to.  (It's better when used as a Smithy, but its flexibility is a big point in its favor, say if you're chaining Nobles or it's the only way to make double-Goons happen.)   Way better than Harem, which is merely Silver with points attached- clearly a lower level of functionality.  The two should have been switched, and (granted, these numbers are far from perfect) Councilroom's win stats bear this out.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2011, 11:13:38 pm by chwhite »
Logged
To discard or not to discard?  That is the question.

ddubois

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +17
    • View Profile
Re: Mono-bishop implementation
« Reply #10 on: September 01, 2011, 01:34:27 pm »
0

I consider Outpost to be +buy, especially in situations where you are drawing you're whole deck every turn.  It sounds like perhaps your opponent's mistake wasn't ignoring Bishop, it was ignoring Outpost?

Logged

matt979

  • Steward
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 29
  • Respect: +4
    • View Profile
Re: Mono-bishop implementation
« Reply #11 on: September 01, 2011, 02:10:55 pm »
0

Assuming a Province game with no other interesting cards -- i.e, pretend it's Bishop, treasure, and green -- and your plan is to ride Bishop the whole game, what's the optimal strategy?

With those exact parameters, I think there is no optimal strategy. You need some other way to trash, because the bishop-based trashing helps your opponent trash just as quickly.

I love bishops, but I love them even more when an opponent buys/plays one very early and helps me trash.

Yesterday I happened to play a bishop game (n.b. I don't claim to be any good, and this was multitasking during an on-line fantasy football draft) that seemed to come out well against a superior player:

http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110831-181148-f0ab86d5.html

In hindsight I wouldn't have held onto any Colonies: Even if it made sense to buy (with $11+ and only one buy, it probably did make sense), I'd have probably preferred the 5 VP + better deck going forward.
Logged

ackack

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 302
  • Respect: +19
    • View Profile
Re: Mono-bishop implementation
« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2011, 02:18:59 pm »
0

I consider Outpost to be +buy, especially in situations where you are drawing you're whole deck every turn.  It sounds like perhaps your opponent's mistake wasn't ignoring Bishop, it was ignoring Outpost

Particularly in a City deck. Outpost is so money with powered up Cities.
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.145 seconds with 21 queries.