Deer seem too strong in 2 Player

[Rutabaga00]

You do realize that getting 10 birds (24in the game) including 3 (out of 4) common goshawks is massively against the odds ?

Thats hardly an experience you want to replicate if you want to be winning on a consistent basis.

And we dont all have the same level and the same experience with the game, thats fine and understandable, but your opponent was not exactly on an optimal strategy, because i fail to see in which world a beech marten is a better opener than a chanterelle, and experienced players know that butterflies are not worth the trouble, especially when you can play and replay after a wolf.

A butterfly instead of a wolf (with 2 cards in bonus) ? Experienced players wont do that kind of mistake.

It was close, sure, but it was not because of the game, it was because you're a better player and your opponent did not make the right choices.
And even then, it was really a close call.

If anything, it shows that deers+wolves are indeed overpowered, because they were awfully close to cost you the game, and we're talking about
a situation of really sub-optimal use !

[Cos-]

You do realize that getting 10 birds (24in the game) including 3 (out of 4) common goshawks is massively against the odds ?

I think you're also missing the point.

Getting plenty of birds is pretty easy. Getting 3 goshawks, no, that's unlikely - if you depend on that from the beginning, you'll probably lose.

Getting two ferns, also unlikely - if you aim for that from the start, chances are, you'll lose.

Getting 6+ bunnies and 2 or 3 foxes, same thing. Or a couple of red deer and 4+ sycamores. And so on.

But having _one_ of those things happen for you, if you start preparing for _all_ of them, so you can go with the branch that will work best based on the cards you're drawing in the first 1/3 or so of the game ... THAT is the way to win more often.

In the context of this thread, you imply that you support the original contention that the right thing to do in a two player game is to ONLY focus on deer + wolves, right from the start, and the game will go to the player who happens to get more of those cards. And now you're implying that, well, okay, if you don't go for deer, maaaaybe you'll happen to be extremely lucky and get 3 goshawks. But that totally ignores everything else I wrote. I'm saying that no, focusing on only deer + wolves right from the start is the WRONG strategy unless you're playing against a novice who doesn't know to compete for them (or how to compete for them, by effectively using the clearing to dump some they can't play, etc.).

I'm saying that from my playing experience so far, which now includes a lot of 2 player games, it's a much stronger strategy to pay attention to many different types of cards, be ready to pursue several different strategies, and it's not all about the deer+wolves. It's those wholly-deer-focused players who are the ones leaving themselves most vulnerable to luck - and that me be why they seem to see the game the way they see it, because with the all-in-on-deer-every-time way they play, the role of luck in the game is greatly increased.

[Cos-]

As another example of what I'm talking about, I found another recent game I won that was even closer, where I ended up playing 3 deer and no wolves and my opponent played 4 deer and 2 wolves: https://boardgamearena.com/6/forestshuf ... =458140773

In this game I initially was thinking it would be a tree deck or bunny deck (hares and foxes) based on my early draws, but I held that fern just in case, and kept trying to draw more cards without committing to a strategy. When I lucked into the other two ferns, I pivoted, focusing on a frogs+ferns strategy. While this strategy can overpower deer+wolves if you get three ferns, because amphibians are so much cheaper to play, I stalled due to bad luck - not drawing many amphibians, even though they're usually easier to come by. Fortunately, I had the bunny strategy to fall back on, and that made up the difference, with an extra fox to draw a bunch of cards at one point.

Although I wasn't aiming to play lots of deer or rely on them for most of my points, I still did what I could to minimize how many deer & wolves my opponent got, which allowed me to hold them down to a beatable number, so despite the fact that I had bad luck follow good and had to shift what I was doing, that worked - I managed to keep up with them and eke out a win. If I had focused on deer, though, I would've had worse luck because they were also trying to minimize how many deer & wolves I could draw, and doing so successfully. Just like with the other game I linked, the other player had better luck than I did on the deer + wolves front, which means if that had been my main focus in this game, I'd have lost. But since I was flexible and keeping an eye on all the other strategies, I ended up winning.

I fully expect other experienced players to try to keep me from getting more deer + wolves, just as I think they would expect me to do. Just because these cards are very strong, doesn't make it unfair if we're both doing that. But it does mean the player who works all the other strategies, and doesn't prioritize deer & wolves over everything else, has the advantage more often.

[ I played no goshawks in this game. It's not about having one very specific kind of luck, it's about playing in a way to be open to and take advantage of the kind of luck you happen to get in that particular game. ]

[Rutabaga00]

You do realize that getting 10 birds (24in the game) including 3 (out of 4) common goshawks is massively against the odds ?

I think you're also missing the point.

Getting plenty of birds is pretty easy. Getting 3 goshawks, no, that's unlikely - if you depend on that from the beginning, you'll probably lose.

Getting two ferns, also unlikely - if you aim for that from the start, chances are, you'll lose.

Getting 6+ bunnies and 2 or 3 foxes, same thing. Or a couple of red deer and 4+ sycamores. And so on.

But having _one_ of those things happen for you, if you start preparing for _all_ of them, so you can go with the branch that will work best based on the cards you're drawing in the first 1/3 or so of the game ... THAT is the way to win more often.

In the context of this thread, you imply that you support the original contention that the right thing to do in a two player game is to ONLY focus on deer + wolves, right from the start, and the game will go to the player who happens to get more of those cards. And now you're implying that, well, okay, if you don't go for deer, maaaaybe you'll happen to be extremely lucky and get 3 goshawks. But that totally ignores everything else I wrote. I'm saying that no, focusing on only deer + wolves right from the start is the WRONG strategy unless you're playing against a novice who doesn't know to compete for them (or how to compete for them, by effectively using the clearing to dump some they can't play, etc.).

I'm saying that from my playing experience so far, which now includes a lot of 2 player games, it's a much stronger strategy to pay attention to many different types of cards, be ready to pursue several different strategies, and it's not all about the deer+wolves. It's those wholly-deer-focused players who are the ones leaving themselves most vulnerable to luck - and that me be why they seem to see the game the way they see it, because with the all-in-on-deer-every-time way they play, the role of luck in the game is greatly increased.

You needed many swings in order to overcome a player with a lower elo that played, arguably, a subpar game, but had more D/W than you.
I'd say thats a very good evidence that D/W is overpowered because it allowed an inferior player with an inferior gameplay to keep in contention.

I dont imply that the right thing is to only focus on some cards. I'm telling you that the best strategy is to get as many fresh cards as possible.
Considering the odds and the mathematical aspect of the game, sorry, but deers and wolves are going to be central to that gameplan, and they're eventually going to decide the fate of a large majority of the games, which is quite sad considering there are 158 cards.

Feel free to try other things, but i dont think i (or we) speak from nowhere. You talk about your experience, fine, sure, its normal to use that as a reference, but i think i (or we)'ve watched, played and won more than enough games to have the results to back up what we are talking about.
Maybe take a look at the top-elo players and other competitive players, that's always helpful to improve, and after a dozen of games, the pattern will be clear. Over 200+ or 300+ games, its a massive difference.

And i'd say those 2 examples are not exactly good standards of how to play, either. Not sure you want to use those as evidence as your opponents were not really playing as best as they could.
I dont want to be rude, we're all in the same boat after all.

[Cos-]

I dont imply that the right thing is to only focus on some cards. I'm telling you that the best strategy is to get as many fresh cards as possible.
Considering the odds and the mathematical aspect of the game, sorry, but deers and wolves are going to be central to that gameplan, and they're eventually going to decide the fate of a large majority of the games, which is quite sad considering there are 158 cards.

That paragraph underscores how you and others here seem to miss the point I'm trying to communicate.

Yes, deer _are_ central to the game, and you must pay attention to them to play well. And yes, getting more fresh cards _is_ very important. However, it is NOT the case that deer alone will decide your fate in the large majority of games, _unless you play that way_. Remember, this thread started with comments like these:

But on the whole i find you pretty much MUST fight over wolves and deer to the best of your ability every game, and when you happen to draw significantly fewer deer and wolves than your opponent it doesn’t particularly matter how your complementary strategies are going.

I agree and in fact feel that deer are so strong they are the all-encompassing dominant strategy, to the point where everything else is a waste of time. Ideally on your turn, you should only be taking actions that are playing deer, playing trees only when you need room for more deer, playing cards to free up hand space to make room for deer, and drawing cards from the deck to find deer (or raccoons for greater odds). This isn't even an oversimplification-

Those are what I'm arguing against. I'm not saying deer + wolves are not some of the strongest cards in the 2-player game, because they are - by design, I assume. What I'm saying is that that does not mean they are "too" strong, and more importantly, that does not mean those comments suggesting it's best to just focus on deer only and other stuff doesn't matter, and that the game will be decided by who draws more deer, are right. My experience is that those comments are very very wrong. But saying that is NOT that same as saying that deer + wolves aren't very strong, or that you can play well without caring about them. Lots of the responses to me here seem to be pretending that I'm saying those things, which really muddies the discussion.

Luck does matter, of course. But playing a broader strategy rather than being entirely deer-focused opens up possibilities to beat a player who draws more deer than you, in more games than not. Which means that if you play that way, which player draws more dear ends up deciding only a minority of games.

To summarize it in different words: Deer + wolves are very strong and to play well, you need to care about them. If you're playing against another good player, who also knows the importance of deer + wolves, the way to have an advantage over them and win games more often than just by luck is to also play broadly, pay attention to multiple other strategies, and be ready to shift with the luck of the draw.
* If neither of you do this, and you're both just playing the "deer is all that matters" method, the game will usually be decided by the luck of who draws more deer.
* If both of you do this, though - if you both play more broadly and flexibly and care about multiple non-deer strategies - then as long as you're both playing the deer angle well, the game will be decided by the non-deer strategies more often than it will be decided by deer-luck.
* If only _you_ play this way, and you're facing a "deer is all that matters" opponent, the advantages is with you. You will win more games agains them, including a fair proportion of the games where they draw more deer.

[Rutabaga00]

I dont imply that the right thing is to only focus on some cards. I'm telling you that the best strategy is to get as many fresh cards as possible.
Considering the odds and the mathematical aspect of the game, sorry, but deers and wolves are going to be central to that gameplan, and they're eventually going to decide the fate of a large majority of the games, which is quite sad considering there are 158 cards.

That paragraph underscores how you and others here seem to miss the point I'm trying to communicate.

Yes, deer _are_ central to the game, and you must pay attention to them to play well. And yes, getting more fresh cards _is_ very important. However, it is NOT the case that deer alone will decide your fate in the large majority of games, _unless you play that way_. Remember, this thread started with comments like these:

But on the whole i find you pretty much MUST fight over wolves and deer to the best of your ability every game, and when you happen to draw significantly fewer deer and wolves than your opponent it doesn’t particularly matter how your complementary strategies are going.

I agree and in fact feel that deer are so strong they are the all-encompassing dominant strategy, to the point where everything else is a waste of time. Ideally on your turn, you should only be taking actions that are playing deer, playing trees only when you need room for more deer, playing cards to free up hand space to make room for deer, and drawing cards from the deck to find deer (or raccoons for greater odds). This isn't even an oversimplification-

Those are what I'm arguing against. I'm not saying deer + wolves are not some of the strongest cards in the 2-player game, because they are - by design, I assume. What I'm saying is that that does not mean they are "too" strong, and more importantly, that does not mean those comments suggesting it's best to just focus on deer only and other stuff doesn't matter, and that the game will be decided by who draws more deer, are right. My experience is that those comments are very very wrong. But saying that is NOT that same as saying that deer + wolves aren't very strong, or that you can play well without caring about them. Lots of the responses to me here seem to be pretending that I'm saying those things, which really muddies the discussion.

Luck does matter, of course. But playing a broader strategy rather than being entirely deer-focused opens up possibilities to beat a player who draws more deer than you, in more games than not. Which means that if you play that way, which player draws more dear ends up deciding only a minority of games.

To summarize it in different words: Deer + wolves are very strong and to play well, you need to care about them. If you're playing against another good player, who also knows the importance of deer + wolves, the way to have an advantage over them and win games more often than just by luck is to also play broadly, pay attention to multiple other strategies, and be ready to shift with the luck of the draw.
* If neither of you do this, and you're both just playing the "deer is all that matters" method, the game will usually be decided by the luck of who draws more deer.
* If both of you do this, though - if you both play more broadly and flexibly and care about multiple non-deer strategies - then as long as you're both playing the deer angle well, the game will be decided by the non-deer strategies more often than it will be decided by deer-luck.
* If only _you_ play this way, and you're facing a "deer is all that matters" opponent, the advantages is with you. You will win more games agains them, including a fair proportion of the games where they draw more deer.

But they're right !
The game is largely decided by who gets the most D/W. Its obvious when you look at large samples !



The game, in 1-vs-1, doesnt let you chose how you play. It just doesnt work that way.
Thats partially true at 3 players, but not with 2. We know which cards are valuable or not, because there is a gap between engines, which is just too big to ignore.
The correlation between being the player with the most deers/wolves cards and being the winner of the game is much higher than the rest of the cards (having more tree ferns than your opponent being 2nd). Thats not the result of the imagination.
We're talking about a 85% success rate here, and the higher you go in ELO, the deerest you tend to be.
At the end of the day, when we're talking about that kind of numbers, you could pick a different road if thats suits you, but you will end up behind.

Once again, look at the games of the highest-elo players. The forests all look the same, and its for a good reason.

These cards are too powerful, because they're too common and allow the player to recycle more (and potentially good) cards than the opponent and scoring more points than him. Remember, getting as many fresh cards as possible.

You said ""Unless you play that way"? But you MUST play that way !
They're one of the the easiest ways to get through fresh cards, and they're massively powerful points-wise, thats just too much to overcome.

Look around, really. You can talk several times about your experience, but then, maybe take a stepback and analyze in depth whats done otherwise.
Because right now, i'm just trying to get you to realize there is a balance issue. Feel free to disagree.

But i've played largely over 1000 games if you wanna use the card "experience". I've won more than games than i lost. I think i've been playing long enough to see that something was wrong. Then i checked, i looked around, i watched hundreds of games done by good players to verify if it was my eyes or not.

There is a saying in rugby that says that the result of the game is decided by the packs and the score by the backs.
I'd say thats pretty much what we have here.

[Zmajoubica]

How do you beat someone who plays 3 Deers in the first 6 cards? Three trees and three different types of deer. How to beat it? I will pray to the gods that my opponent does not play a deer in the next 6 cards.

[Zmajoubica]

The gods are merciless. In his first 8 cards, the opponent played 4 deers. Unfortunately, this case clearly shows that this game is not competitive and that there are no different strategies in it, only one dominant one against which there is no solution. Forest Shuffle is a amazing game that has a lot of perspective, but right now it's just a broken (unbalanced) game, one of the most beautiful games of chance.

[Zmajoubica]

How to get the highest score? In the first 9 moves, play 5 deers.

[Stockomator]

Have to agree with the general sentiment of the thread.
I really, really like the game. Beautiful art, appealing theme, a lot of very nice ideas mechanically.
Still I lost enjoyment to play it at 2 players to the point that I stopped playing at that count completely.
Deer/wolf just scales too well at this count. There is no counter play, as every deer/wolf will be instantly picked anyways by anyone but the newest of players. The fact that more cards are removed at that count actually enforces it, as it affects every other strategy as well but deer are so strong individually that it's almost always worth picking them anyways.
I might not be experiences enough to see the error in this thoughts but just the mathematical facts seem rather overwhelming:
- Wolves value/price is beyond anything else in the game by a long shot if you even got 2 deers
- there are two cards scaling directly with deer, which is probably the main reason it outperforms so strongly at 2 players (most cards per player)
- Roe deer are just very good on their own, if you have at least one other card in the color their price/value also is great and you have the option to lean into their color

Sure, those cards all need color combos to get full value, but theres usually more than enough time in 2 player games to just wait till you can conveniently pick the necessary colours up.