So we played this invitational game with good players https://www.thronemaster.net/?goto=community&sub=forum&fid=3&tid=34975#top

And deranger and I promised to comment on the intresting situation that emerged in turn 5:




(Or replay the whole game using the first link).

The question is: Was it good for Tyrell to attack Martell here?

I was Tyrell and decided to attack deranger (martell) for following reasons:

1) In previous 4 turns I tried to agree on a strong pact with Martell I could trust. But he never committed to it clearly and his wordings were always unclear. Alliance yes but no strong brotherhood if you see what I mean.

2) you can see both Bara and Martell played CP on their border in turns 1-5 which makes it clear that Martell made a deal with Bara too. And he just wants to power and wait with a view to stab either bara or tyrell when the weakness opens.

Conclusion 1: I could not have relied on south alliance too much. I dont blame Martell for it. That was just a fact.

(As an interesting side topic I think that in games with good players it is generally bad to be too opportunistic / double faced. Good players will see through the farce and will not trust you. Just pick one ally and work with him. Thats a better start, especially between Martell and Tyrell).

3)Tyrells way north on land is blocked by bara-lanni alliance on land. Bara has a huge support in Blackwater and can always raid Reach first due to higher throne position. So if younwanted to go north on land as a Tyrell here, Bara+Lanni have a message for you: "You shall not pass!!!"

4) So how about being Standard Tyrell and crush Krakens on sea??

It does not work either because of two reasons. First Greyjoy is aware of that option and manages his cards carefully. Secondly if I bite into GJ now it just gives Stark a complete freeroll. Whilst we squable around Sunset sea raiding and attacking/defending adjacent territories, Stark will grow stronger and snitch the Greywater watch which is a key to both Seagard and Flint later.

5) Stark is already too strong.

6) in this round Bara clearly wants to take Reach out of me.

7) and Martell wants to Doran in Kingswood and take Shipbreaker bay. That is a controlling disaster for two reasons: number 1 Stark gets a sword to further bolster his winning freeroll. Number 2: Bara is crippled and it makes CCP easy target.

Conclusion 2: Going north and sticking to questionable Martell alliance makes me lose Reach and produce 3 upsides for Stark: sword; easy targets east; easy targets west

So I did a deal with Bara to not take Reach and become friendly with me if I save his ass from Martell.

This generated 3 big upsides for me as Tyrell:

1) Stark path to victory (which was already likely anyway) did not become easier.
2) I earned a good Bara ally and did not lose reach.
3) I got a leg up in fight vs Martell.

Deranger was passionately telling me that it was wrong for Tyrell to attack Marty here. I have respect for good players on the platform and like to learn from them, so I said I would post my thought process and hear counter arguments.

Game is in turn 10 now. It looks that Stark is likely winning anyway but at least there are some chances.

Happy to hear your opinions

Last edited by Cornie4ever on 2017-Feb-08 22:34, edited 1x in total

---

Don´t fight in the North, or the South. Fight every battle, everywhere, always, in your mind. Everyone is your enemy, everyone is your friend, every possible series of events is happening all at once. Live that way and nothing will surprise you.

First thanks for showing your process of thoughts.

I didnt watch the replay yet, so i can judge just out of the current position.

Conclusion 1: I agree with you, that as Tyrell you should never trust Martell unless he really proved that hes willing to help you. So before talking about your possibilites, lets look at Martell and check what his plans ar so you can plan accordingly:

1) CP on The Boneway: he obviously is trusting Bara and Tyrell

2) +1 on ESS and -1 in the port: who is planning to attack? Tyrells Sea was safe with an obvious support in Redwyne and the raven for tyrell. But Bara is also safe with rhe support in BWB and the blade.

3) defense on Starfall but march on SE: he is rather expecting Bara to do a mistake than Tyrell.

4) 3 CP-orders: hes basically jsut collecting strength

Conclusion for Martell: Martell is jsut waiting for something to happen. As soon as one of his neighbours opens his back, he will take his chance.

Conclusion for Tyrell: He cant trust Martell.


Therefore, attacking Martell is the right way to go for Tyrell, especially after talking to Bara and agreeing on a pact.

The only question for me left is if this was the right moment, but as you said, Stark is already growing strong and you had an opportunity to attack.

---

"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." , Terry Pratchett

Hi Popelos,

Very good post. Thanks for your thoughts

I saw urgency to act based on the point 7 above.

---

Don´t fight in the North, or the South. Fight every battle, everywhere, always, in your mind. Everyone is your enemy, everyone is your friend, every possible series of events is happening all at once. Live that way and nothing will surprise you.

I saw urgency to act based on the point 7 above.
oh well, i didnt read that.
Im still not that used to the power of 2nd-Edition-cards, but that move would have been nice indeed, making it also way too easy for Stark to win.
Now im totally in with your decision!

---

"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." , Terry Pratchett

I had almost the exact same situation (also in Round 5) in this game, and also opted for the stab. Martell had both alliances and march+1 on ESS with another march in port. When doing that, you've gotta expect your neighbours to team up against you in a game with good players.

In a typical game though, totally different story of course.

---

Zizzeus Guide to AGoT

Interesting dilemma, very tricky. I think I agree with your decision, though I came to it differently.

I would put my emphasis on the lack of pressure on Stark, not the luke-warm defensive opportunism of Martell. In this case, only Greyjoy could mount an effective attack on Stark. In my view, it would be a blunder for any of the players involved to ignore that.

That point is a valuable diplomatic tool, but likely insufficient. Because Lannister has already refused you BlackWater, and Baratheon is generally co-operative, I would make attacking Martell conditional on him attacking Lannister in some fashion.

The trickiest part of this is your only solutions are diplomatic solutions, not tactical. So a great deal of it depends on what sort of personalities the other players have.

At least that's my view. Though I can't claim the same rankings, stats and experience the other players in this thread have.

---

Not sure if brother is Azor Ahai...or smoked ham.

Mediocre Tailors for House Greyjoy - We do so-sew.

Thanks for sharing the game zizzeus, nice one. Good to see these games where Martell can lose to smart Tyrell earlier than in late game. (I mean everybody can push starfall in last turn but effectively smashing martell in the mid phase despite arrianne and doran is a different cup of tea).

I'd see the motivation to bite Martell in your game more driven by good opportunity vs martell and coming up from previous relationship with martell. (In that sense it is very similar to my game yes). Whereas in my game the decision was more geo-political, mainly to weaken stark.

The set up vs martell in my game was not ideal. You can see I did not plan it and decided for that during the round. Thus the moment of surprise gave me only Starfall and eternal war south. Deranger said I should have waited to attack him one more round. He has a point there from immediate tyrell vs martell perspective, I did not gain much for myself. So in that sense I agree with him.

However due to big picture and stark I just had to do it in turn 5. Sometimes controlling the board is a priority.

---

Don´t fight in the North, or the South. Fight every battle, everywhere, always, in your mind. Everyone is your enemy, everyone is your friend, every possible series of events is happening all at once. Live that way and nothing will surprise you.

Hi Bruce

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.



I would put my emphasis on the lack of pressure on Stark, not the luke-warm defensive opportunism of Martell. In this case, only Greyjoy could mount an effective attack on Stark. In my view, it would be a blunder for any of the players involved to ignore that.

.
This is 100% correct. Well spotted.

I started with explaining the relationship w martell first for the context and background. But the actual decision making factor was mainly the stark situation. So the point 7 in my OP and related conclusion 2 was like 90% of the decision.

---

Don´t fight in the North, or the South. Fight every battle, everywhere, always, in your mind. Everyone is your enemy, everyone is your friend, every possible series of events is happening all at once. Live that way and nothing will surprise you.

Hi folks!!

Nothing to discuss here Cornie, this is not a thread to do that, since you explained it so well and wisely... in fact, this is a free got lesson thread! It should be anexed with zizzeus guide eheh

Congrats for that game, even if you do not win it, it should feel like. It was an ambicious and brave aproach, but also pragmatic and well planed.

Be well, peace

I had almost the exact same situation (also in Round 5) in this game, and also opted for the stab. Martell had both alliances and march+1 on ESS with another march in port. When doing that, you've gotta expect your neighbours to team up against you in a game with good players.

In a typical game though, totally different story of course.
Haha zizzy, seriously you publicly shame me with that game? That was my 3rd martell game ever and you were already one of the top players on this website. And you stabbed bara one round later too! You didn't do it because of me being allied with bara too. You did it because you saw a chance to stab me and an opportunity to convince bara to help you. I was naive to be allied to both but those were the times I still officially announced breaking an alliance 1 round in advance (I still actually do that sometimes)
Learned many very valuable lessons that day though.

Long time since we've played. We should do it again some day.

Naive? Ok. But usually a Marty allying with both Tyrell and Bara is looked upon as  a backstabber biding his time. I never liked those guys and have to side with Cornie/Zizzy on this one.

Last edited by Bround on 2018-Jan-28 20:03, edited 1x in total

You didn’t read very well. I completely agree with you, but as I said, I was still learning how to play. I didn’t understand martell game mechanics yet. And both offered to ally so I said yes to both and was even honest about it to them. I thought an alliance was to be made and broken officially. I didn’t even backstab at that time. Yes naive. Diplomacy wasn’t my strength as I started as a 3p game player. Oh, how things have changed

And both offered to ally so I said yes to both and was even honest about it to them. I thought an alliance was to be made and broken officially. I didn’t even backstab at that time. Yes naive. Diplomacy wasn’t my strength as I started as a 3p game player. Oh, how things have changed
Good old times, i a tually miss my older self that took every backstab personally because "its not a nice thing to do", while the entire game and story is about not so nice things...

---

"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." , Terry Pratchett

I guess it depends on how you want to play. I for one try to backstab as little as possible. In most situations, it's more important for me to be trustworthy rather than machiavellian, but I hold no (lasting) grudges against backstabbers, it's part of the game .

As for Martell not being aggressive against either Tyrell or Baratheon, that's not necessarily because Martell is double-faced and opportunistic (although from my experience, that is usually the case ). You could have an alliance with one and a truce with another, or a truce with both. And you could also have alliances that only lasts a certain number of turns. Martell might conclude that his best bet is to be passive for the first turns of the game. Why not strike a non-aggression deal with Baratheon in this case?

Last edited by Zsa on 2018-Jan-30 18:04, edited 1x in total