I was on my Jr. High chess team. My friend’s mom found out, and challenged me to a game. I took one of her pawns en passant, and she accused me of cheating.
But you’re required to turn in cards if you have 5 or more, aren’t you? So the only way to wait until the value for cards is high is to hold out at 4 cards, while not taking any more territories. While meanwhile, other players ARE turning in cards (because if they don’t, then the value won’t go up). Which makes you the natural target for everyone else, who have at least some armies from the cards that they’re turning in, and possibly more cards from territory, because they’re expanding.
It’s a lot like the Australia strategy, really: If you know that Australia is valuable, and you’re playing against opponents who don’t realize that, then you’re going to win easily. If you know that cards are valuable, and you’re playing against opponents who don’t realize that, then you’re also going to win easily. But with either strategy, if you’re playing against others who also know those things, then you’ll just end up getting yourself bled severely in trying to make your strategy work.
No, it’s not.
You ALWAYS earn a card every turn, you don’t sit around. You ALWAYS take at least one territory (or 2) every turn to maintain your footholds. (at 12+ if possible)
You must cash in when you have 5 cards, so on your 6th turn is when you start your strategy. The players who have cashed in early will only receive 4,6,8 or even 10 armies. These amounts are not enough to eliminate an opponent. Things get interesting at the 5th, 6th, and 7th set at 12,15 or 20 armies, this is when you want to trade in. You want to be able to eliminate the weakest opponent on this turn. If not, then you improve your position, fortify, and hopefully can match another set ASAP.
Secondly, it doesn’t really matter what strategy the other players employ. The worst thing that could happen it that someone beats you to eliminating the weakest player, so you trade in next and target the second weakest.
The danger of the Australia or South America strongholds is that you confine yourself to a small area of the map which is very easy to walk through with a larger army. You’re either a sitting duck or if heavily fortified, will be left for last.
The key is really in collecting the cards and when the sets are worth 20+ the real game begins…
In Monopoly, is it “legal” to use “exemption from paying rent” as part of a deal? Like, give me Pennsylvania Ave, and I’ll give you $500, plus you never have to pay rent if you land there. We’ve been doing that for years. Is it “wrong” or just creative?
Theres no way to enforce it within the rules. If you on the next turn demand rent on PA then the other player has to pay. Since there’s no way within the rules to enforce future contracts, I think allowing them weakens the game, as the player honouring the contract is now not actively trying his best to win.
I’m not sure if this is ironic or appropriate, but it’s pretty basic game theory. The “enforcement” is just that if you renege on the deal, everyone else in the game knows that you don’t keep your deals, so you won’t be able to make any deals in the future. Moreover, you presumably are playing a family game like Monopoly with more or less the same group of people, over and over again. It’s an open-ended iteration. Under those conditions, keeping bargains that are sub-optimal for you in the short run, even ones that will cost you the game you are currently in, can be an optimal strategy in the long run.
There’s no way in the rules as such to enforce such a deal, but there’s also nothing that forbids it. If you make a deal to give up something now in return for getting something later, it’s a calculated risk, but it’s not “wrong”.
It’s not wrong. Once all the properties are bought, the game has entered the negotiation phase.
Enforcement is easy. All the other players refuse to play unless deal is honoured.
Similarly, other players can veto any ridiculous or unfair deal by refusing to continue to play.
Exactly. Plus social odium of being a lyin’ stinkard, which hurts well beyond the confines of the game board!
I’ve got another example of this sort of thing, which goes too far in the other direction: my b.i.l., when playing Risk, will make “unbreakable” agreements, based on his own personal word of honor. I know he won’t go back on it. But this kills the concept of Risk as a game of fluid alliances. When I say, “I won’t attack you,” I’m speaking as the Red Generalissimo, not as myself. So…
I refuse to play Risk with my b.i.l., because he’s making it personal. (God keep him far, far, far away from Diplomacy!)
Ooh, ooh, I got one! 
The Lone Wolf gamebooks. How I handle randon number table numbers:
Starting Combat Skill and Endurance, starting Gold Crowns for each adventure: Just pick whatever.
Random numbers: Have a string from 0-9. Pick one at a time until all are chosen once, then start a new string.
Combat: Start with a “fight points” value of 0. When combat begins, pick any number; 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 increase the points by 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1, respectively, while 0 (the best result), 9, 8, 7, and 6 reduce them by the same amount. The only restriction is that whenever fight points go into the negative, the next result must be 1-5.
Gambling: If it’s a game that’s clearly stacked in my favor, just take whatever the book says I can win and move on. If it’s an even-odds or unfavorable game, leave it alone.
I mean, seriously, what kind of schmuck uses random number tables? 
In these cases, the unfair dealer has won. Refusing to play is this same as forfeiting the game.
I think the robber-baron capitalist that you are in Monopoly should be just as untrustwothy as the “red generalissimo”
I didn’t say forfeit… I said “continue to play”… but even in the case of where all the other players decide that they would rather not finish the game with you, I don’t think I would claiming a victory.