Print

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

[arcee]

Not sure if this should be here or somewhere else (feel free to move) as it's not a log... from a live 3-player game vs R and P. The board was:

King's Court

Stables
Duke

Coppersmith
Militia
Jack of all trades

Chancellor
Village

Vineyard
Alchemist

R opened Potion/Silver, P Coppersmith/Village, me Jack/Silver (play order R, P, me).  I was planning on getting 2 Jacks and Dukes, not sure if Alchemist is better.

In executing the strategy I alternated between Duchy and Silver at $5 the first few times, and bought Gold over Duchy until I had 2 Gold.  I bought the second Jack on the first time through the deck (too soon? did draw them together a lot).  R was buying Alchemists with one Stables, P was working on a Coppersmith engine with stables/village/KC/Coppersmith. P did buy a Militia at some point, so Jack was helpful against that.  But I kept my final Estate with Jack after a Militia hand so I could trash it, only drawing $4 total and thus missing a Duke or Duchy, perhaps that was an error.
P's engine took too long to get going, but once it did it was pretty nice - draw enough cards by KCing stables, buy Province by KCing Coppersmith, Chancellor, or Militia.  The game ends on R's turn as he buys the final Province.

Final result: R 41 (3 Estate, 6 Province, 1 Vineyard[2.0])
Me 40 (3 Province, 5 Duchy, Duke, 2 Estate)
P ?? (3 Province, some estates)

Without a specific log I guess it's hard to answer when I should have bought Duchy vs Silver/Gold, but I'm curious if the strategy was good, and also if I should be contesting Provinces (often with alternate VPs I do not, here the opposing engines didn't seem that they'd get too clogged by having to buy all Provinces).

A superficial analysis - if I don't buy Provinces I lose 18 points (22) but gain 14 (36) from Duchy/Duke/Duke and the game is not over, my enemies probably split them.  Say R gains 12 points (52) , I gain 13 (49) with those 2 more buys... doesn't seem like I'm likely to catch up going last.  This suggests that I need to have forgone the Golds and hopefully not be short on money by doing so.  Of course if R gets Province/Duchy and P takes both Provinces (losing, but not seeing a way to win at that point it is likely he will) I get a tie score, with one less turn taken for the win.

Thanks in advance.

[DStu]

If I go for Dukes, I usually don't care for Gold or Provinces at all. I also would not buy Silver with $5, you have the Jacks (and <$5 hands) to give you the Silvers. And you don't need Gold. Your target is $5 per hand, that's $1 per card. Silver is enough to get to this point.

So probably 2 Jacks seems fine, and otherwise buy
>=$5: Duchy/Duke
<$5: 2xJack, afterwards Silver, in the end Estates.

I don't find a "pure" log from me for Duke/Jack, this one has additional Crossroads:
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120111-090101-24308a3a.html
and this one is with Bureaucrat instead of Jack (works the same), and 2 Oases
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120111-090101-24308a3a.html

And they are all 2player. 3 player has the problem that it might end faster, the opponents only need 6 Provinces each to finsih, which for most decks is much easier than 8.

[Davio]

Jack Duke because it sounds cooler, obviously. 

[DStu]

Ah yes, to answer the question, in case that is not implied from my post: I would go Jack/Duke.

3player, KC-Stables, Alchemists Vineyards gave me some time thinking about it, but there is no buy to really profit from this engine. It will probably reliable get you to one Province (or VY)/turn, and would easily give you more (for example trivially Province+Vineyard ), but without the buy I'm confident I don't have to think long about which engine you really want to built here and just decide that you want none.

[DsnowMan]

With no +Buy, I don't like the Alchemist deck, it should be too slow.
With no +Buy, and only light trashing, the KC-coppersmith deck should be unreliable and not be able to take advantage of big hands if it does hit.

Double Jack (I have been informed that buying the 2nd Jack right away is the way to go) + lots of duchies (empty them first if you can ), then lots of dukes should crush your opponents. As posted above, don't bother with gold. Your Jacks will produce enough silver by themselves to keep you going. You could be buying duchies by the 1st or 2nd reshuffle.

[WanderingWinder]

With no +Buy, I don't like the Alchemist deck, it should be too slow.
With no +Buy, and only light trashing, the KC-coppersmith deck should be unreliable and not be able to take advantage of big hands if it does hit.

Double Jack (I have been informed that buying the 2nd Jack right away is the way to go) + lots of duchies (empty them first if you can ), then lots of dukes should crush your opponents. As posted above, don't bother with gold. Your Jacks will produce enough silver by themselves to keep you going. You could be buying duchies by the 1st or 2nd reshuffle.

I'm definitely thinking that 'buy ALL the duchies before you start going dukes' is really bad advice for 3-player, even as it's pretty good in 2-player.

Edit: that's if both opponents are going province. If they're going duke, too (even if just one of them is), then yes, all the duchies.

[Tahtweasel]

Everyone in the thread is zeroing in on the correct answer.

Your mistake was in buying too much money and provinces, instead of focusing entirely on the (correct) strategy you picked out.

Your strategy is suited to long games. Why did you shorten the game by buying Provinces?

1. You produce money continuously, so your deck doesn't stagger under the weight of extra green cards.
2. Your Dukes become more and more valuable the more Duchies you buy. Your strategy is designed around accumulating Dukes worth 6 or 7 VPs. If the game lasts long enough for you to get there, your Dukes are worth more than Provinces and they cost less.

Given this, why would you shorten the game?

You actually hit on the most damning proof that province-buying is bad, and you just did the numbers wrong.

A superficial analysis - if I don't buy Provinces I lose 18 points (22) but gain 14 (36) from Duchy/Duke/Duke and the game is not over, my enemies probably split them.

You actually end up with a score of 38, not 36, with a switch to Duchy/Duke/Duke. You'd have 6 Duchies at 3, and 3 Dukes at 6, plus the two Estates.

Behind 41-38, you're in excellent shape. If your top opponent buys 2 Provinces and a Duchy, and you buy a Duchy and two Dukes, you win. Opponent finishes with 56. You finish with seven Duchies at 3, five Dukes at 7, and two Estates. 58.

Of course, this is a static analysis. The more important part is that you bought treasures over Duchies, and got yourself up to the point where you could buy multiple Provinces - something you never wanted to do in the first place.

Turn some Silvers or Golds into Duchies and this game isn't even close.

[Jorbles]

With no +Buy, I don't like the Alchemist deck, it should be too slow.
With no +Buy, and only light trashing, the KC-coppersmith deck should be unreliable and not be able to take advantage of big hands if it does hit.

Double Jack (I have been informed that buying the 2nd Jack right away is the way to go) + lots of duchies (empty them first if you can ), then lots of dukes should crush your opponents. As posted above, don't bother with gold. Your Jacks will produce enough silver by themselves to keep you going. You could be buying duchies by the 1st or 2nd reshuffle.

I'm definitely thinking that 'buy ALL the duchies before you start going dukes' is really bad advice for 3-player, even as it's pretty good in 2-player.

Edit: that's if both opponents are going province. If they're going duke, too (even if just one of them is), then yes, all the duchies.

I agree with WW here, buying Dukes in a multiplayer game is way different than a 2 player. From my experience in a multiplayer game you usually want to build up your Duchy stash to somewhere between 5-7 Duchies and then start picking up Dukes until you can alternate between the two for the most points. It takes way too long to buy up all 12 Duchies in 3-player. Haven't really perfected the ideal point to do it, but you have to play it by ear to some degree. Also if you are going for Dukes uncontested you'll find that your Dukes will easily be worth more than Provinces at the end of the game so always buy down to fit your Duke strategy and let your opponents struggle to get those last couple Provinces as their engines gum up.

[DG]

The endgame is pretty complicated when you have variable vp cards. If two players chase for duchies/dukes and split them roughly 6/6 then they both have a problem in closing out the game They suddenly need some of those 12 provinces (to beat each other) and they might not be easy to get.

On the other hand, if two players  play a province based strategy they might be able to close out the game buying 6 each before the duke/duchy player builds up enough points. I think the maths points to 9 or 10 duchies/dukes to score more than 6 provinces so even then the duchy/duke looks good. With a militia in the kingdom it looks even better.

The alchemist deck works better starting chancellor/potion. It's got a few things working for it (king's court, stables) and plenty of things working against it - the militia, lack of trashing, lack of an extra buys, the dukes. It probably could work with very good draws or be mediocre without them. If the first two players open with a jack of all trades it could be worth a gamble in third seat, even if it isn't the percentage play.

[arcee]

Thanks for the replies.  I'll try to remember avoid money/province more often in similar situations.