Miscellaneous Talk on Killing Tactics of the Three Kingdoms

1. Identification:

Some people say it is difficult. It is true that the one who kills the rebels is the master, and the one who does not kill the rebels is the loyal one. But what should we do when there is someone pretending or choosing to hide our capabilities and bide our time because there are too few cards in hand to cause effective damage? Actually, I don’t have a precise answer.

Give two examples.

In a certain game, my protagonist played Guan Yu. Because I made a straight, he only had 4 cards when he started. He didn't kill me, but he put a grain and then folded. From a technical point of view, I think he is at most a traitor, and can even be said to be an outright traitor. After the harvest, the lord gets the worst card, while the rebel thief behind has a relatively good card. This behavior itself is negative for the lord. (Of course, he was a loyal player after that game, so it can be determined that this person's tactical literacy is not high; the correct way to play is to rather hold the kill than deal the card. It is also good to wait until the critical moment or confirm the identity of the following player before using it. )

Then there are the common loyalties pretending to be anti-loyal, anti-loyalty and so on. If someone is pretending, it doesn't matter. His or her identity will have some negative impact on others, and all you have to do is to expand this negative impact on others and reduce the disruptive effect it brings on yourself. (It depends on the specific situation)

Identity identification should not be too arbitrary and play cards based on face, and secondly, it should not be too absolute (actually I want to say it is too technical, but think about it), just like Guan Yu above, you You must give others and yourself the opportunity to make mistakes (some people are so convinced that they will be beaten to death, so speechless), and identity identification must also keep pace with the times and adapt to changes (at least there is a traitor, right?)

2. Identity hiding

This is something I am personally good at. Of course, there have been situations where it has been self-defeating. To put it simply, you don’t have to pretend, the effect of pretending must outweigh the risks.

Give two more examples.

For example, if I am the third loyalist, if I am the third loyalist, and the player in front has poor or even no effect on the four counterattacks behind me, I will decisively rebound and kill the loyalist in front. One knife (and other actions). This will cause huge disruption, at least causing an accidental injury, accidental fun, etc. to the opponent. Then when the next round starts, the advantage will come to the main side as the opponent's identity is exposed and your identity is restored. (Imagine if there is no rebound, then all the actions of the opponent will be threatening. Think about the power of four consecutive counterattacks and you will know the effect of rebound~~)

For another example, when you play It's a person who will endanger your life (such as Zhang Fei) and his identity is different from yours. When you can't effectively control him, you don't have to sacrifice your life for the sake of "loyalty", which will cause the situation to become unbalanced and your side to lose. .

The examples are relatively specific, but they are the two most practical situations. Many people on OL don't understand this, and even scold teammates after seeing it clearly (I am often scolded for this, even though my rebound gives our team an advantage). This indirectly illustrates an issue, which is some principles of identity concealment——

First of all, you can’t harm your own side too much. When you rebound, you should use a small attack to make a big impact. It’s good to use a kill, a dodge or a smooth demolition to make the opponent’s chickens and dogs become restless and chaotic; and when you know that your teammates If you are only likely to be killed in the next round because you have no weapons, your threat is greater, or your defense is poor, etc., you need to adapt accordingly, instead of blindly hiding and causing all subsequent operations of your side to become ineffective and become negative operations.

Secondly, it is the processing of hiding. No one is a god and knows everyone's true identity, but when you act, you should give priority to those who are the most absolute "anti" (hostile parties), rather than those who are nearby or casual. This will minimize potential losses. From this perspective, the more "off the mark" the rebound is, the better the effect may be. (Actually, this is combined with the previous identification)

Identity hiding is an "unconventional" tactic. When implemented, it requires investment (i.e. loss) first and then returns, so it must be done well and feasible. Sexual analysis is not recommended when there is no obvious return.

3. The counter-thief's collection of cards

The promoted version of Three Kingdoms Kill can only collect cards by killing the counter-thief, so this tactic only exists on the counter-thief side.

This issue has been posted before, so I won’t repeat it.

That is, whether the number of invulnerable peaches on hand (including skills) can withstand the damage caused by the opponent before the anti-thief teammate takes action. This is one of the reference principles for killing and not killing.

Second, it is also a common situation, that is, after killing the opponent and taking the card, you can take the opportunity to end the game or establish an absolute victory.

Other than the above two, there is no reason to kill teammates to get cards. At this point, OL's design is reasonable, that is, the more surviving teammates, the higher the score. Personally, I think the progression of poker should be from the pursuit of victory to the pursuit of greater victory or even complete victory.

We will accept when we should accept, and we will never accept when inappropriate. Teammates will never stop them.

4. Concentrated fire tactics

With the development and promotion of the game, the concept of concentrating fire has gradually become popular, and scenes of Hua Tuo and Xiangxiang being defeated in seconds are common. But I still want to express some thoughts on this, because the use of this classic tactic of focusing fire is not just that.

Let’s first talk about why Jihuo is a classic. Self-explanatory, use several times the number of enemies to quickly resolve the battle.

This idea should be derived from ancient Chinese art of war, but why is it common among Hua Xiangliu?

Some people would say that it is because they are wet nurses. Not really. This is only one aspect, and the other aspect is Hua Tuo and Xiangxiang's poor health and Liu Bei's low defense. Mentioning the other side is actually to bring up another topic.

To a certain extent, the rebels are "born with fire-focusing tactics" because they want to focus fire on the lord. However, the lord's 5(4) blood and the protection of his loyal ministers lead to a sharp reduction in the effect of concentrated fire. This is why such a classic concentrated fire tactic is often eclipsed in front of the lord.

Therefore, the concept of concentrated fire tactics needs to be promoted.

The first is to focus on loyal ministers when circumstances permit. The so-called allowable circumstances include: the concentration of fire can be formed, the concentration of fire can be effectively completed, and one's own side will not consume too much or threaten itself. The feasibility of gathering fire loyal ministers should be very high, after all, the difficulty is much lower than that of the lord. Some people say that the traitor will snicker, but this is not the case. When a successful focus is completed, the situation becomes 4 versus 3, which creates better conditions for the next focus. When the time comes, the traitor will I can't laugh anymore. Let’s discuss the disadvantages of not gathering loyal ministers but gathering fire lords from the negative side: First, it is more difficult to gather fire lords, which are often protracted battles rather than blitzes; second, heroes such as Sun Quan, Cao Cao, Liu Bei, etc. have comparable recovery and counterattack capabilities. It is powerful. Once the focus of fire fails, the red-faced rebels who are fighting against the idle loyalists will most likely be killed one by one (you will understand after thinking about it based on your own experience)

Okay, I admit this. The law belongs to "cruel killing". In fact, our army has always had this tradition. Focusing fire on loyal ministers is not a necessary tactic, but it can be used as a highly valuable and feasible tactic. (I will often initiate tactically, and of course I need the support of my teammates who are quick-sighted)

I mentioned this in the chat yesterday. At that time, people said that if you can focus on others, they will not focus on you. Yes, it's relative. There are two problems here: one is the problem of numbers, four counters vs main, 2 loyal and 1 inside, the inside cannot be counted as a complete combat effectiveness (the die-hard inside play method is problematic, so it will not be at a disadvantage in terms of numbers; second) It’s a matter of the order in which they are initiated. No matter who initiates the attack, there is always a sequence, but often the rebel side has the first mover advantage (there is a popular saying “You attack whoever the master attacks”, which is a vulgar tactic of concentrating fire. There is huge uncertainty about the identity of the person the protagonist strikes first, and it should not be counted as a type of concentrated fire tactic) (Of course, I can’t explain exactly how to have the first-strike advantage, which is a bit empiricist.) But based on these two analyses, As a starting point, we can see the advantage of gathering fire loyal ministers: the more people go first

Gathering fire loyal ministers is like a two-step approach to realizing communism, since Chinese history has chosen a two-step approach. , why don’t we “learn from history” and use it?