I’m not sure why we decided that Baratheon was the enemy after a disasteruous clash and not Greyjoy. Losing track position to Greyjoy, especially star orders is the difference between holding off GJ for several turns and crumbling after just two or three.
Cornie was basing his case for the CP in White Harbor around Bara aggression.  I agree that Greyjoy is the problem 9 times out of 10, which is the basis of my disagreement.  A rampaging Baratheon remains a beast of legend, which only appears when the full moon falls on a Tuesday.  Whereas Greyjoy attacks Stark 5 days a week.

And part of the reason why a first round clash tends to not be so apocalyptic for Stark is that Greyjoy starts slower, giving you another round to adjust, negotiate and spread out.  Also, losing Winterfell to GJ is not the end of the world. If you still hold the eastern seas and have the Eyrie to fall back to, then you retain basically still have a capital and your full range of motion.  Many times and more has Theon learned that taking Winterfell is easier than keeping it.
Once Winterfell falls, though, Baratheon usually “gallantly” rides north to “help” his “ally.” At least he should in most cases. I think many of these things have been oversimplified too much at this point, so maybe it is best to agree to disagree on stock openings.

Once Winterfell falls, though, Baratheon usually “gallantly” rides north to “help” his “ally.” At least he should in most cases. I think many of these things have been oversimplified too much at this point, so maybe it is best to agree to disagree on stock openings.
In my experience, Bara is too busy trying to contain Lanni and/or fend off southern agression to sail north even when Greyjoy is locking down the North. As a house with four borders to defend, the decision of where to fight is out of its hands more often than not.

Of course there is a strong possibilty of trumping up with some nuts moves from round one onwards. Yet with regard to my finished games I do consider it more influencing if one to three participating players (live or pbem) start to realise somewhen at late mid-game that their chances to win the running game are rather little (or non-existent) as they, consequently (in their perspective), stop paying attention, begin to stall or conduct some more, let's say, "unusual" moves in order to finish it rather quickly.
I think that's beside the point . There are several things that have a greater impact on the win-rate besides starting orders. Those factors are (1) player actions, (2) other players' actions and (3) westeros cards.

The point is you can draw some conclusions from the opening moves even without having access to the rest of the these factors.

I didn't read all the discussions I will just note that what possibly happens here is that there is a a correlation between *experience of a player* and * opening moves* and what you actually observe is the higher chances of an experienced player to win, and not the effect of the *opening move* over *win rate*.

I am willing to bet that if you will build a set which defines two variables: *number of games played* and *opening move* and run a regression of both over the variable *win rate*, opening move will be insignificant.

Last edited by La1985 on 2018-Mar-28 14:26, edited 1x in total

I didn't read all the discussions I will just note that what possibly happens here is that there is a a correlation between *experience of a player* and * opening moves* and what you actually observe is the higher chances of an experienced player to win, and not the effect of the *opening move* over *win rate*.

I am willing to bet that if you will build a set which defines two variables: *number of games played* and *opening move* and run a regression of both over the variable *win rate*, opening move will be insignificant.
I agree with everything you said, but want to add:

If we only see here that experienced players tend towards certain openings, resulting in high win rates for these openings then we should ask ourselves if there is a reason for this tendency. I would guess that is because they are the “better“ openings.

But, I don't think there is a best opening per se. I think there are several good openings and every player should try to find the opening(s) which suit(s) his or her playstyle best. I myself have some favourite openings, but there is only one house for which I choose always the same 1st round orders (Tyrell).

---

“The only way to treat disease is to understand disease.“

I didn't read all the discussions I will just note that what possibly happens here is that there is a a correlation between *experience of a player* and * opening moves* and what you actually observe is the higher chances of an experienced player to win, and not the effect of the *opening move* over *win rate*. I disagree. The initial order set is important and does affect win rate, AND better players will pick the better opening moves. You can have a discussion with no clear answer on which set of opening moves is best for different starting conditions (alliances, other players), but one thing you can't deny is there are bad and really bad opening moves - which can cripple you for the rest of the game.

If you run a regression analysis on those two variables, you won't find anything of note because good players do not pick terrible opening  moves. If they do, then they are not good players .

I didn't read all the discussions I will just note that what possibly happens here is that there is a a correlation between *experience of a player* and * opening moves* and what you actually observe is the higher chances of an experienced player to win, and not the effect of the *opening move* over *win rate*. I disagree. The initial order set is important and does affect win rate, AND better players will pick the better opening moves. You can have a discussion with no clear answer on which set of opening moves is best for different starting conditions (alliances, other players), but one thing you can't deny is there are bad and really bad opening moves - which can cripple you for the rest of the game.

If you run a regression analysis on those two variables, you won't find anything of note because good players do not pick terrible opening  moves. If they do, then they are not good players .
I disagree with your disagreement, some times good players try new things as opening moves out of boredness. therefore I can imagine certain examples where experienced players have weird openings. but since they can with time recover from a shitty opening move due to their higher experience then they will neglect the effect of shitty openings.

to sum it up I do things that some openings are inferior to others, never the less I do not think that a mistake of one order at the firs turn has influence of 5% over your odds for winning (respectfully for outlines such as or example,  GJ putting defense and CP as first move which clearly drops his winning probability to 0)

Last edited by La1985 on 2018-Mar-29 16:07, edited 1x in total

I disagree with your disagreement, some times good players try new things as opening moves out of boredness. therefore I can imagine certain examples where experienced players have weird openings. but since they can with time recover from a shitty opening move due to their higher experience then they will neglect the effect of shitty openings.
Weird openings yes, but shitty ones?

Have you ever seen an experienced player who put support in Shivering Sea in the first round? That is what I call a shitty opening.

---

“The only way to treat disease is to understand disease.“

Weird openings yes, but shitty ones?

Have you ever seen an experienced player who put support in Shivering Sea in the first round? That is what I call a shitty opening.
That is true as I said there are outliers but most of the opening that are somewhat popular make sense to some extent.

I disagree with your disagreement, some times good players try new things as opening moves out of boredness. therefore I can imagine certain examples where experienced players have weird openings. but since they can with time recover from a shitty opening move due to their higher experience then they will neglect the effect of shitty openings.
Weird openings yes, but shitty ones?

Have you ever seen an experienced player who put support in Shivering Sea in the first round? That is what I call a shitty opening. I was thinking of the same thing - support in Shivering Sea or Sea of Dorne. That is a really bad opening move, one from which you might not recover, and one that I have seen. That instantly tells you that that player is not very good.

You might see weird, or non-standard openings from good players, but they still have to be good openings.

My point is you can't separate good opening moves from good players. But you do have good opening moves done by less experienced players who might not understand why they are good opening moves, but they use them anyway simply because they are "standard".

Just throwing this out there:

Comparing my own stats over 500 ranked 6p games to those from original post, they mostly line up. My Bara stats are slightly above and Greyjoy stats slightly behind the field, but the biggest difference is that my Stark stats are markedly better than those listed for any of the potential openings. I've posted a 30% win rate over 70 games, without ever having started with a regular CP in White Harbor.

So I do not agree, because neither the data provided by OP or my own experience backs it up, that dropping to 4 tokens on the first round is a DISASTER. Mostly because this highly aggressive Baratheon is a boogeyman that doesn't actually exist, and also the nightmare clash scenario is only even a possibility if Stark sees it coming and decides to hoard their tokens and allows Bara to buy the blade for 2 . If you bid 3-4 tokens, Bara has to give up their shot at stars to outspend you. And they are (justifiably) loathe to go all-in on the blade for fear that Doran can promptly swipe it and leave them with absolutely nothing to show for their profligacy.

If Stark spends their money in a 2nd turn clash, and still winds up with nothing to show for it, it basically means everyone else is broke too, and now having Karhold is vital to put you back into the race for cash.  Even with dominant track positions, Bara is going to have limited order space to launch an effective sea assault, land invasion, and CP themselves to keep them competitive for power.

Basically, y'all talking like invading the North is easy. It's not. Stark units are practically immortal thanks to their deck, and especially as Bara you always have potential threats at your flanks that can cut you up before you can secure much of the copious amount of territory Stark can maneuver around.   Imo putting cp in wh is indeed a better choice for Stark.You may cxpect an early war between gj and lanni,or a friendly bara engaged in southern fight,but no one can take them as granted.I have seen a very good bara player putting march 0 in shipbreaker,+1 in kingswood and -1 in dragonstone.It's obvious what he wished to do.I have also seen a gj player who took winterfell in turn 2 because of clash of kings and web of lies.In that game Stark had 4 tokens in clash. He lost quickly without getting double-teamed by gj and bara.
  A good bara player should never give up the idea to invade the north.On this site most bara players tend to weaken gj in ties in clash or wilding attacks instead of help them.But if bara DOES tend to help gj in early clashes(bara players like me etc),2 toekns becomes a great difference.When I play bara,I usually help gj a lot espeicially when he is bery agressive so that he can fight 2 or 3 players,which helps decrease the pressure I face.Even when I'm allied with stark,it's usually because Lannister has a rahter firm alliance with gj and fighting for blackwater is a must,and even when it does happen,I still backstabb stark as long as I can.
  Let's stand on the bara side.You can't win easily fighting in south. You need to take Storms End from Martell,The Reach from Tyrell,Blackwater and Harrenhal from lannister.Even if you have 5 castles,you may still lose because of supply.Whats more it's very hard to keep them in turn 10.To invade Martell is even a worse idea,for doran and arianne can greatly slow down your pace.So getting allied with gj,finding a friend in south(either Tyrell or Martell)and fighting Lannister is the best strategy for bara.When the time comes,dont hesitate to crush Stark,espeicially when gj is taking the whole north land and becomes unstoppable.The biggest problem for Stark is,you need to defend both gj and bara whose best way to win is to knock you down,while you are quite weak in the first several turns.
  What's more,if Lannister puts cp in stoneny sept in turn 1,the possibility of clash may be more than 50% in turn 2 instead of 33%. Since it's a fairly good opening for Lannister if he's allied with gj,it becomes even more significant for Stark to consolidate in wh instead of march.
  Last but not least,since you will need to put support in white harbour after you lose bay of ice,what's the point to leave a token there early?It seems quite stupid...

Just throwing this out there:

Comparing my own stats over 500 ranked 6p games to those from original post, they mostly line up. My Bara stats are slightly above and Greyjoy stats slightly behind the field, but the biggest difference is that my Stark stats are markedly better than those listed for any of the potential openings. I've posted a 30% win rate over 70 games, without ever having started with a regular CP in White Harbor.

So I do not agree, because neither the data provided by OP or my own experience backs it up, that dropping to 4 tokens on the first round is a DISASTER. Mostly because this highly aggressive Baratheon is a boogeyman that doesn't actually exist, and also the nightmare clash scenario is only even a possibility if Stark sees it coming and decides to hoard their tokens and allows Bara to buy the blade for 2 . If you bid 3-4 tokens, Bara has to give up their shot at stars to outspend you. And they are (justifiably) loathe to go all-in on the blade for fear that Doran can promptly swipe it and leave them with absolutely nothing to show for their profligacy.

If Stark spends their money in a 2nd turn clash, and still winds up with nothing to show for it, it basically means everyone else is broke too, and now having Karhold is vital to put you back into the race for cash.  Even with dominant track positions, Bara is going to have limited order space to launch an effective sea assault, land invasion, and CP themselves to keep them competitive for power.

Basically, y'all talking like invading the North is easy. It's not. Stark units are practically immortal thanks to their deck, and especially as Bara you always have potential threats at your flanks that can cut you up before you can secure much of the copious amount of territory Stark can maneuver around.   Imo putting cp in wh is indeed a better choice for Stark.You may cxpect an early war between gj and lanni,or a friendly bara engaged in southern fight,but no one can take them as granted.I have seen a very good bara player putting march 0 in shipbreaker,+1 in kingswood and -1 in dragonstone.It's obvious what he wished to do.I have also seen a gj player who took winterfell in turn 2 because of clash of kings and web of lies.In that game Stark had 4 tokens in clash. He lost quickly without getting double-teamed by gj and bara.
  A good bara player should never give up the idea to invade the north.On this site most bara players tend to weaken gj in ties in clash or wilding attacks instead of help them.But if bara DOES tend to help gj in early clashes(bara players like me etc),2 toekns becomes a great difference.When I play bara,I usually help gj a lot espeicially when he is bery agressive so that he can fight 2 or 3 players,which helps decrease the pressure I face.Even when I'm allied with stark,it's usually because Lannister has a rahter firm alliance with gj and fighting for blackwater is a must,and even when it does happen,I still backstabb stark as long as I can.
  Let's stand on the bara side.You can't win easily fighting in south. You need to take Storms End from Martell,The Reach from Tyrell,Blackwater and Harrenhal from lannister.Even if you have 5 castles,you may still lose because of supply.Whats more it's very hard to keep them in turn 10.To invade Martell is even a worse idea,for doran and arianne can greatly slow down your pace.So getting allied with gj,finding a friend in south(either Tyrell or Martell)and fighting Lannister is the best strategy for bara.When the time comes,dont hesitate to crush Stark,espeicially when gj is taking the whole north land and becomes unstoppable.The biggest problem for Stark is,you need to defend both gj and bara whose best way to win is to knock you down,while you are quite weak in the first several turns.
  What's more,if Lannister puts cp in stoneny sept in turn 1,the possibility of clash may be more than 50% in turn 2 instead of 33%. Since it's a fairly good opening for Lannister if he's allied with gj,it becomes even more significant for Stark to consolidate in wh instead of march.
  Last but not least,since you will need to put support in white harbour after you lose bay of ice,what's the point to leave a token there early?It seems quite stupid...
I agree with much of your reasoning, but not your conclusions.

As I went on about on earlier pages, I completely agree that as Bara, I'd prefer to be fighting in the North.  But it doesn't matter how exhaustively I catalogue the reasons for that preference, because I can only really make it happen if I am not facing an aggressive Martell, or Tyrell, or Lannister.  It's my ideal scenario, but in general I plan for more likely ones, which means focusing first on consolidating my holdings around Blackwater Bay and KL, and keeping a healthy CP production going. That doesn't mean I am not going to look for openings to head north, just that I'm not going to be shocked (or unprepared) if whole games go by without an opening presenting itself.

To that end, I think your approach of helping GJ is completely counterproductive.  For one, Greyjoy is already very powerful to start with, and if he is going immediately north it basically means he already has an ally in Lanni.  A Greyjoy with two friends is a frankly disgusting prospect that should offend any gods-fearing man of the Kingdoms.  But my real point is that you shouldn't look it as simply as weak Stark=easy conquest. You have to think about how you are going to do it too, and a strong start for Greyjoy likely means that the Ironborn lock down Bay Of Ice early. At that point, all you've done is consolidate Stark's sea power on your side of the board for the rest of the game. So you may have succeeded in handing Greyjoy gains while making your own path harder.  Better that Stark is feeling his oats enough to put 3 ships in the West, I say. But in any case, I'd rather see a stalemate in the North until I'm ready to strike than GJ planting a firm foothold in the areas I intend to compete for.

As to Stark's CP in White Harbor, it may in fact be a superior move.  But I think the proponents tend to misconstrue the purpose of marching from there. As a (soft) proponent of marching from WH, I don't need to be convinced why having 2 more tokens in a clash is beneficial.  But my whole purpose in marching is to set up better power generation in Karhold.  It's not foregoing power for a barrel or extra MP, it's trading immediate tokens for more tokens over the long term.

And to that end, an immediate clash is definitely bad, but it doesn't leave Stark utterly helpless.  Unless it is paired with a muster, Greyjoy is still going to be moving slow with limited units, giving you another turn to get situated and beg for help.  And even with 4 tokens, you have a chance at taking the blade away, or at least making it expensive enough that if GJ keeps it, he loses his chance at a star or ability to use Aeron (no small thing).

Finally, while CP in Stony Sept is an increasingly common opening for Lanni, I don't think it necessarily means they will pick Clash if the choice comes up.  It's more likely, for sure, but if I'm Lanni I like having the raven and good turn position. I look at turn 2 clash as mainly serving to punish the "poor" Stark/Martell houses, who I am not in direct contention with, while my three neighbors all have just as much money as me, I feel I have more ground to lose to them than to gain over them (Tyrell in particular).

Actually, I hardly ever choose Clash when DWDW.  Basically only if I have an overwhelming $ advantage on everyone, or am actively warring with someone who had the blade and less $.  Or if someone is at 6 castles and will end the game immediately without interference.  Otherwise, I'm not risking my premium star package for a marginal gain, and none of those scenarios are going to apply on turn 2.

I have seen a very good bara player putting march 0 in shipbreaker,+1 in kingswood and -1 in dragonstone.It's obvious what he wished to do. It's not really that obvious to me, unless what he wished to do was a mistake .

When I play bara,I usually help gj a lot espeicially when he is bery agressive so that he can fight 2 or 3 players,which helps decrease the pressure I face. Yeah, and the pressure really goes down when GJ wins turn 4 or 5 . I'll admit that it could sometimes be a good idea to help GJ with track positions against Stark, but it really depends on the two players fighting, so I would say this is more case-by-case.

What's more,if Lannister puts cp in stoneny sept in turn 1,the possibility of clash may be more than 50% in turn 2 instead of 33%. Since it's a fairly good opening for Lannister if he's allied with gj,it becomes even more significant for Stark to consolidate in wh instead of march. If Lanni is allied with GJ, there's really no reason to choose Clash turn 2. There are cases when it is a good move if they are at war, but I really don't see any benefit of choosing it when there's a western alliance.

Last but not least,since you will need to put support in white harbour after you lose bay of ice,what's the point to leave a token there early?It seems quite stupid... I thought the reason behind it was obvious... for mustering

I have seen a very good bara player putting march 0 in shipbreaker,+1 in kingswood and -1 in dragonstone.It's obvious what he wished to do. It's not really that obvious to me, unless what he wished to do was a mistake .

When I play bara,I usually help gj a lot espeicially when he is bery agressive so that he can fight 2 or 3 players,which helps decrease the pressure I face. Yeah, and the pressure really goes down when GJ wins turn 4 or 5 . I'll admit that it could sometimes be a good idea to help GJ with track positions against Stark, but it really depends on the two players fighting, so I would say this is more case-by-case.

What's more,if Lannister puts cp in stoneny sept in turn 1,the possibility of clash may be more than 50% in turn 2 instead of 33%. Since it's a fairly good opening for Lannister if he's allied with gj,it becomes even more significant for Stark to consolidate in wh instead of march. If Lanni is allied with GJ, there's really no reason to choose Clash turn 2. There are cases when it is a good move if they are at war, but I really don't see any benefit of choosing it when there's a western alliance.

Last but not least,since you will need to put support in white harbour after you lose bay of ice,what's the point to leave a token there early?It seems quite stupid... I thought the reason behind it was obvious... for mustering I want to make some more explainations here:
1.GJ is  not always that strong.With good Lanni and Stark players it's very hard for him to win anyway.Even if GJ does win early,you're not the one to be blamed.And maybe you cant even do anything to stop it.I have experienced a GJ game in which everyone chooses to bid 0 in wilding attack,and the Bara player chooses to punish me just because he's allied with Stark and he thought"GJ is too strong".Finally he was eliminated by Lannister and Stark together while I couldn't do anything to stop Stark from winning because no mustering happens in the following several turns.
2.Do look at those games Bara wins before turn 10.You always find GJ very strong and agressive--or Lannister taking Pyke early and draws everyone else's attention.Then the chance to break through comes out for you.
3.If everyone chooses standard opening,GJ,Lanni,Tyrell and Bara usually has 7 tokens in first clash,while Stark and Martell with 4 or 6 tokens.If Lannnister chooses clash,it helps to push GJ to go against a weak Stark.I dont see anything wrong doing this.
4.It's not a rather bad idea to choose the bara opening I mentioned if Martell is friendly enough to you.Bara has 18% winrate and maybe lower in high standard games.So why not choose something different?I choose standard opening usually but I do prefer this one!Take KL and narrow sea in turn 1!