In my previous entry, I mentioned a
game called Outwitters. I started playing this game several months ago, and it instantly became my new favorite game. In the time since then, however, it has
nevertheless become even more and more interesting and enjoyable to me. I would
recommend it to anyone who enjoys turn based strategy games, on the condition
that they don't mind waiting for opponents to take their turns, an unavoidable
necessity of asynchronous online games. It is available on iPhone, iPad, and
iPod Touch and is free to download, though I highly recommend purchasing the
Uber Pack to gain all the additional teams aside from the bundled one (there
are four total).
I recently participated in a
fan organized tournament in which we imposed the restriction that we could not
spawn any units. We had to use only the units we were given at the start of the
game. One consequence of this was that managing wits was less important. Since
there were no spawns allowed, once a unit was captured, it was gone forever.
There was no replacing it. This style of play demands extremely cautious and
defensive strategies, which means that attacks were rare, and we focused on
moving our units around and buffing them with the medic. Eventually, we had
more wits than we could reasonably spend in a single turn. Soon enough, I
completely stopped thinking about how many wits I had and assumed I could move
and attack (or heal) with each and every one of my five units if I wanted to.
At the beginning of these games, this might not have been quite true, but by
turn 4 or 5, wits were no longer really much of an issue.
I had the thought to write up a
detailed analysis of my experiences, but in planning to do so, I realized that
if I went as in-depth as I really wanted to, then there would be more of
interest in these ten short games than I could reasonably cover in a short
amount of time. Therefore, I decided it might be better to do a short series of
writeups, providing in-depth commentary on a few select moments that I found
particularly interesting.
To start off, here's a really
critical moment from one of my last games as P2. It's from the endgame, the
last few exchanges between my opponent and myself. I was in the process of
sneaking my soldier along the bottom of the map towards my opponent's base when
units up north started capturing each other. If I'd gotten my soldier on his
way a turn sooner, things would have been much simpler, but as it happened the
timing made this a very tense move for me.
P1: harvarnold
P2: TheGreatErenan
Map: Long Nine
Here are the links to the replay of
the entire game:
We'll pick it up in Turn 8, probably
the most precarious moment of the game on my end.
This is a really critical move. At
this point, I'm aware of the locations of all my opponent's units (I'd already
captured his soldier on an earlier turn), though he can't know exactly where my
soldier is. Anyway, I have some choices to make. Let's start with the easy
decisions: It seems clear that I need to capture the sniper with my heavy or
else my opponent would overwhelm me easily on the next turn. I don't have the
firepower to take out the heavy, so it has to be the sniper. In addition, it's
equally clear that I should then capture the medic with my runner, since if I
attack either the runner or the heavy, the medic would simply heal it on the
next turn, and I would have wasted my runner's attack power.
So I move my heavy to the space
southeast of the sniper and make the capture. I also move my runner northwest
of the medic and capture it. The placement of these two units is important.
The placement of both units should
be fairly obvious to seasoned Outwitters players, but I'll explain anyhow. By
putting the runner northwest of the medic, then if my opponent should decide to
capture my runner with his heavy, then he would have to move it away from my
base, which is a good thing for me because I am trying to delay my opponent's
attack on my base as long as possible.
As for my heavy, under very
different circumstances I might have placed the heavy northeast of the sniper
instead of southeast, so as to force the enemy heavy to move before attacking
mine and therefore having to spend that extra wit doing so. Additionally, that
way my opponent would not have had the option of first attacking and then
moving the heavy somewhere else. However, in this scenario it's clear that my
primary goal is to prevent my opponent from destroying my base. Placing the
heavy where I did prevents my opponent from moving the heavy next to my base,
thus gaining me an extra turn.
Now for the tricky part.
My soldier at the bottom of the map
is a tough call. Do I advance or do I retreat? I have to calculate very
carefully here. Do I have enough turns to spare to destroy the enemy base with
that soldier? Or do I need to move the soldier backwards to help defend the
base?
I first consider what would happen
if I advance the soldier.
First of all, I can tell immediately
that my opponent needs at least two turns to destroy my base. With only a
runner and a heavy, only four points of damage can be inflicted in a single
turn, but since my base still has five points, one turn won't be enough.
Unfortunately, with only my soldier
guaranteed an uninhibited attack on the base (and not until my next turn, at
that), it isn't immediately clear if I'll have enough turns at my disposal. It
depends upon whether I'll also have my runner available and what my opponent
does with the heavy and runner menacing my base.
So I have to consider every sensible
possibility for my opponent's next turn. Let's make some simple lists:
For the runner:
1. Move and attack my runner
2. Move and attack my heavy
3. Move and attack my base
For the heavy:
A. Attack my heavy (and move)
B. Move and capture my runner
Combining these lists, there are six
options to consider. Let's start with the easy ones.
I can obviously disregard 1B, since
it would be pure foolishness to attack my runner with his runner and then
capture it with his heavy, since the heavy can capture it unassisted. The
runner's attack would be wasted.
1A is also fairly simple to work out
my response: My runner is buffed, so my opponent can't capture it with only a
runner. Even if he tried to block my runner with his two units...
...this would put his heavy at least
a full two turns away from my base. That means I can at least get his base down
to one point before he gets his heavy to my base. Before that point, however, I
could move my runner somewhere on the left edge of the map where I can hop down
to hit his base, so that if my opponent doesn’t capture it, I’ll win on the
next turn. If he does capture it, it’ll take him another two turns to get his
runner back to my base, and in the meantime, I can slow his heavy down with my
own heavy to give my soldier plenty of time to finish the base off. 1A is
clearly a win for me.
Let's consider 2A:
If my opponent doesn't attack my
base on this turn, then it's clear that he'll need two additional turns to
destroy it. But this option allows me to attack the base with my runner, thus
giving me the extra point of damage necessary to win within only one more of my
turns. So 2A means a win for me, no matter where the opponent's runner and
heavy are placed or what they do on the following turn. I could comfortably
ignore the threat to my base and focus on attacking instead.
How about 2B:
This option basically leaves me with
the choice of whether I should capture the runner or attack the heavy. Since my
runner is gone, it'll take me at least two more turns to destroy the base with
my soldier alone. My opponent isn't going to let my heavy near his base if he
can help it, so if I advance and attack the heavy, then he'll capture it next
turn with his runner and heavy. Of course, this will prevent him from attacking
my base that turn, thus giving me the extra turn that I need to win. If I had
captured the runner instead of attacking the heavy, it's even better, because
then he won't be able to capture my heavy, thus allowing me to win easily on
the following turn. 2B is a win for me.
That leaves 3A and 3B. These are a
bit trickier, because the runner's attack brings my base down to four, putting
it in danger of being destroyed next turn if the heavy gets a chance to touch
it.
3B is perhaps the simpler of the
two.
If no one has attacked my heavy,
then it cannot be captured in the next turn, thus allowing me to move it west
and on the next turn move it next to my opponent's base for the win. The
heavy's capture of my runner means that it'll take two more turns to get it
next to my base, giving me the time I need.
3A is probably the trickiest of all.
If my opponent brings my base down to four points with the runner and keeps his
heavy within range of my base, probably by going around the north end of my
heavy...
...then ostensibly one more turn is
all he needs to win. I need at least two. So I need to make sure he can't
attack my base again with both heavy and runner. This can be done by blocking
the heavy’s movement forward with my runner and heavy.
However, this alone isn't enough. I
have to attack his heavy with both my heavy and my runner, bringing it down to
one point.
This is critical. On his next turn
he won't be able to capture both my runner and my heavy (his runner cannot
capture either unit in this case, as they both have two points left). On my
next turn, I'll be able to capture his heavy with whichever unit he doesn't
capture, thus forcing him to use only his runner to attack my base, which
obviously affords me the time I need to finish off his base.
So it seems that advancing my
soldier is a good idea. My opponent ended up using option 1A, but it doesn't
apppear that there was anything he could have done at this point to stop me
from claiming victory.
I didn't bother working out what
might have happened if I'd tried to retreat my soldier to help defend, but just
glancing at it, it looks to me as though it would have given my opponent a far
better chance at winning.
Under normal playing rules, this
game would have played out differently. We would have continued spawning
additional units, adding strength to our existing forces and severely altering
the tactical implications of the situation. Forcing the players not to spawn
any units makes the game significantly more like Chess. It forces the player to
think much more carefully about where his units can be placed without putting
them in danger. And if he puts them in danger, who will come out on top in the
ensuing exchange of units? It forces a player to consider where their opponent might have his units placed if they are still hidden by the fog of war.
Personally, I wouldn't mind at all if One Man Left officially implemented a "No
Spawns" game type in the Outwitters app and created some new maps
dedicated to this mode. Whether or not they do so is obviously entirely up to
them, but if they did, then I for one would regularly play it.
Until next time…
