I Want To Get Better At This Game But I Don't Know How

[FrankJones]

1. I never concede or surrender. But I would agree you're not in great shape in the situation you described in item #1. Try to avoid that situation, obviously.

2. Whether you play additional cards depends on what the cards are worth. It's a simple math equation at that point. Can you lay eggs 6 more times in your final 6 turns? IF so, calculate what that is worth, then calculate whether playing a bird and laying eggs 5 times is worth it. IF you are putting a 4th bird in your grassland, it might end up getting you several extra eggs (dependents on how much food the bird costs, since you could otherwise trade one food for a 4th egg each time). If you put a 4th grassland bird with a brown power that gets you one extra point per grassland activation, it might be worth playing. What you want to avoid is playing birds like the Ruddy Duck in the wetland because "It's a high tier bird". Unless that bird somehow smashes multiple bonus cards / end-round goals, it's a negative-point play in a habitat that should not be used much in the final round.

3. In the base game, star nests are very strong. I think I read that the Burrowing Owl has a high correlation to winning, which surprised me because that bird [is lousy]. (I'm editing myself because I am not sure whether we are allowed to use the "su" word in reference to a bird card.) With limited bonus cads and End-Round goals, star nests are likely to play a major factor in any game. There is no way I am conceding just because my opponent has more star nests than I do. Is life so much of a rush that we are conceding, and therefore reducing our win probability from [Something] to [zero]?

4. Ideally you have 2 forest birds at the halfway point, but I'm not conceding just because I don't.

5. Well, that's a big "unless". Cards without abilities can:

a) advance the habitat
b) give you more bonus cards
c) help existing bonus cards
d) give you the entire card tray (The Brant) or give you 4 worms (The northern Flicker).
e) Give you a lot of points (The Bald Eagle, etc.)
f) Help toward end-round goals.

[Ceaseless]

So if I don't lay down a wetland bird by my third turn, I'm going to struggle?

I would not say that as an absolute, but, if you are doing the "draw cards" action more than once with no bird in that slot, the game is likely not going to end well.

It's not that you need to have that bird in play by the third turn; you just need it in play before you draw cards more than once.

It's fine to Draw card (taking a crucial wetland bird from the tray; maybe your starting hand had no wetland birds), play bird (forest), play bird (Grassland), Lay eggs, play bird (forest), gain food, then play bird (wetland).

The point is, you cannot keep "drawing card" with no bird in the wetlands.

Sometimes you get a hand with no wetland bird and none in the tray. Oh well, gg.

I really don't like this game without the expansion board. Even if they can't add the EE expansion or Oceania or nectar, I wish they would replace the board with the upgraded board that comes with the Oceania expansion.

So I've taken what you suggested and I started getting more wins. There some strategies that I did based on the initial hand that I wonder what you think:

1. Usually around half in the game, if you haven't met at least one of the first two end of round goals and you haven't met your bonus yet AND you're are either tied with your opponent or they are ahead, you are like 90% most likely going to lose. Just concede and move on.

2. Don't play cards around the end of the third round. Instead, lay eggs. The only time it's appropriate to play cards in the final round is if you are ahead by a decent margin and you are about to hit one of your bonus OR lay down a bird that gives you a choice of bonus card and see what you get. Playing cards means using eggs, which lowers the value of the card you are playing. It is, most of the time, much better to continue laying eggs and letting the bird abilities activate to increase points.

3. If the end round goals are all or almost all based around eggs in certain type of nest: absolutely get birds with star nests. If your opponent gets two or three birds with star nests and you have 1 or less, you will probably fail the end of round goals, which you cannot fail more than 2. Concede and move on.

4. If you still have less than two forest birds at the halfway point, unless you have a combo in the grassland/wetland with something like Anna's Hummingbird and the American Crow that allows you to draw food, you will lose. Concede and move on.

5. Cards without abilities aren't worth playing for the most part unless they fulfill a bonus card.

Now, this is just generally speaking. There are exceptions. Am I getting the right idea?

1. No. Points aren't scored and bonuses aren't checked until the very end of the game. A halfway check for bonus completion or point scoring is irrelevant. You may end up meeting the bonus later and a ton of your points are often at the endgame anyways.

2. Could be clarified. If you're at the endgame you can do the math. Stuff that gets more points is better in the end game. It's usually laying eggs. Having to pay 1-2 eggs isn't the end of the world though, playing an expensive bird even with that egg cost can outscore laying eggs depending on your Grassland (especially if you play the bird in the grassland, where it may count for more points). It's usually no scorers like gaining food/drawing cards that really eat at it. Regardless, there's a point in the endgame where you can probably calculate to the end of the game and compare the scores, it will likely be more useful than generalizations, which are more often used in the early game where there's too many unknowns to possibly calculate everything.

3. Could be clarified. If end of round goals have nest type cares star nests are really good. Though the rule of not being able to fail more than 2 end of round goals is probably a bit much. I don't see that as being worth conceding on its own, though it's an uphill battle.

4. Yes. If you don't have a good food engine by the middle game, you're probably toast. Any exceptions to this should be blatant enough you'll be able to tell in game.

5. No. High point value cards exist. Also, just playing cards in rows develops your game. The simple act of a bird being in the row may end up giving you an extra food/egg/card a turn, which is also why birds that move habitats are so brutal, the very act of existing in the row you're using provides quite a bit of value.

[Ceaseless]

5. Well, that's a big "unless". Cards without abilities can:

a) advance the habitat
b) give you more bonus cards
c) help existing bonus cards
d) give you the entire card tray (The Brant) or give you 4 worms (The northern Flicker).
e) Give you a lot of points (The Bald Eagle, etc.)
f) Help toward end-round goals.

I pretty much agree with your general idea, though I suspect the OP is counting b and d as abilities, and already mentioned c, more or less at least.

[kostinen]

Hi, thanks for this very interesting post!

1. Usually around half in the game, if you haven't met at least one of the first two end of round goals and you haven't met your bonus yet AND you're are either tied with your opponent or they are ahead, you are like 90% most likely going to lose. Just concede and move on.

It could also mean you are building a very good engine that will give you lot of points in the mid and late game ! It's not mandatory to win the round goals, or meet your bonus, they just are way to gain points but not the only ones. I would even say paying too much attention on them, especially in the beginning of a game, could lead to bad long term decisions, and less points.

2. Don't play cards around the end of the third round. Instead, lay eggs. The only time it's appropriate to play cards in the final round is if you are ahead by a decent margin and you are about to hit one of your bonus OR lay down a bird that gives you a choice of bonus card and see what you get. Playing cards means using eggs, which lowers the value of the card you are playing. It is, most of the time, much better to continue laying eggs and letting the bird abilities activate to increase points.

It depends. Sometimes your grassland is not well developed and playing birds is better. At the end of the game, it's easier to think of how much point each action will give you. If you do the math to calculate between two options, you will know what to do !
I also recommand to calculate the number of eggs you can lay each turn with you actual position, it will help you to know if you can do that until the end of the game with your actual egg capacity. If you can't, then it's simply too early to enter in the "lay egg only" mode, and do something else now (unless maybe laying eggs will help you to reach the round 3 goal for example)

3. If the end round goals are all or almost all based around eggs in certain type of nest: absolutely get birds with star nests. If your opponent gets two or three birds with star nests and you have 1 or less, you will probably fail the end of round goals, which you cannot fail more than 2. Concede and move on.

You can fail the 4 and win the game, it's not mandatory!
I would say if you are 100% focus on the end round goals, then yes losing them is very bad because you probably didn't build other ways to gain points

Generally, I see goals and bonus like fruits by the roadside. If they are too far from the road, it's not worth the effort to stop and pick them, unless there are many fruits in the same place (like if fulfill a bonus card helps also to win a round goal for example)

4. If you still have less than two forest birds at the halfway point, unless you have a combo in the grassland/wetland with something like Anna's Hummingbird and the American Crow that allows you to draw food, you will lose. Concede and move on.

Yes you need to have something to gain food, it's very decisive (but I never conceded myself since it's sometimes the occasion to try new things)

[FrankJones]

5. Well, that's a big "unless". Cards without abilities can:

a) advance the habitat
b) give you more bonus cards
c) help existing bonus cards
d) give you the entire card tray (The Brant) or give you 4 worms (The northern Flicker).
e) Give you a lot of points (The Bald Eagle, etc.)
f) Help toward end-round goals.

I pretty much agree with your general idea, though I suspect the OP is counting b and d as abilities, and already mentioned c, more or less at least.

Possibly. I interpreted "cards without abilities" as "cards without ongoing brown powers". I mean, if we're counting C and B as having abilities," then don't almost all cards have abilities? Some ,like the Warblers and the Wild turkey do not, but the vast majority of cards ,even white cards, do SOMETHING, and therefore "have an ability".

[Ceaseless]

5. Well, that's a big "unless". Cards without abilities can:

a) advance the habitat
b) give you more bonus cards
c) help existing bonus cards
d) give you the entire card tray (The Brant) or give you 4 worms (The northern Flicker).
e) Give you a lot of points (The Bald Eagle, etc.)
f) Help toward end-round goals.

I pretty much agree with your general idea, though I suspect the OP is counting b and d as abilities, and already mentioned c, more or less at least.

Possibly. I interpreted "cards without abilities" as "cards without ongoing brown powers". I mean, if we're counting C and B as having abilities," then don't almost all cards have abilities? Some ,like the Warblers and the Wild turkey do not, but the vast majority of cards ,even white cards, do SOMETHING, and therefore "have an ability".

I read it as stuff like Wild Turkey, etc. yeah. As you pointed out, most birds have those, but there exist some that don't that are worth noting.

[Archisian]

5. Well, that's a big "unless". Cards without abilities can:

a) advance the habitat
b) give you more bonus cards
c) help existing bonus cards
d) give you the entire card tray (The Brant) or give you 4 worms (The northern Flicker).
e) Give you a lot of points (The Bald Eagle, etc.)
f) Help toward end-round goals.

I pretty much agree with your general idea, though I suspect the OP is counting b and d as abilities, and already mentioned c, more or less at least.

I apologize for not clarifying, but yeah I mean white cards that do nothing else, like Trumpeter Swan or the Wild Turkey.

[FrankJones]

5. Well, that's a big "unless". Cards without abilities can:

a) advance the habitat
b) give you more bonus cards
c) help existing bonus cards
d) give you the entire card tray (The Brant) or give you 4 worms (The northern Flicker).
e) Give you a lot of points (The Bald Eagle, etc.)
f) Help toward end-round goals.

I pretty much agree with your general idea, though I suspect the OP is counting b and d as abilities, and already mentioned c, more or less at least.

I apologize for not clarifying, but yeah I mean white cards that do nothing else, like Trumpeter Swan or the Wild Turkey.

Yeah, there's zero reason to play those until the end of the game for points, unless they help with an end-of-round goal, or you're desperate to advance a habitat.

A note on how precious food is:

If you look at otherwise identical birds (essentially identical) whose food cost differs by one food, the bird costing an extra food generally gives at least 2 extra points, often 3.

I would say that 2 points is the starting point to assess the value of a food in the early game, but it's probably more. Being one food short can set back an entire game and end up costing the player a dozen points.

Some questionable tuck birds that require discarding a food typically give 2 points for the discarded food (Sandhill Crane, or the wetland one that eats two fish and then needs additional fish to get two tucks). (American White Pelican.)

Northern Mockingbird -> gray catbird are basically identical birds, but the extra cherry cost for the catbird makes the point value go from 2 to 5.

Peregrine Falcon -> Great Horned Owl, same thing; 5 points compared to 8 points.

In these cases, an extra cherry or rat is needed, and that can be especially difficult. Hence the extra 3 points, I assume. For otherwise similar birds that differ by a grain or a worm for the food cost, the point difference might only be 2. Or less.

By this measure, some birds seem incorrectly priced, to me. The California Quail and the Dickcissel come to mind.

California Quail compared to the scaled Quail is 2 extra food for only 3 extra points.

The 3-food cost of the Dickcissel compared to any of the other similar birds (Bushtit, red-winged blackbird, Brewer's blackbird, common grackle, Yellow-headed blackbird) makes no sense to me.


So, spending food earlier than necessary is highly ill-advised.

[Archisian]

1. I never concede or surrender. But I would agree you're not in great shape in the situation you described in item #1. Try to avoid that situation, obviously.

2. Whether you play additional cards depends on what the cards are worth. It's a simple math equation at that point. Can you lay eggs 6 more times in your final 6 turns? IF so, calculate what that is worth, then calculate whether playing a bird and laying eggs 5 times is worth it. IF you are putting a 4th bird in your grassland, it might end up getting you several extra eggs (dependents on how much food the bird costs, since you could otherwise trade one food for a 4th egg each time). If you put a 4th grassland bird with a brown power that gets you one extra point per grassland activation, it might be worth playing. What you want to avoid is playing birds like the Ruddy Duck in the wetland because "It's a high tier bird". Unless that bird somehow smashes multiple bonus cards / end-round goals, it's a negative-point play in a habitat that should not be used much in the final round.

3. In the base game, star nests are very strong. I think I read that the Burrowing Owl has a high correlation to winning, which surprised me because that bird [is lousy]. (I'm editing myself because I am not sure whether we are allowed to use the "su" word in reference to a bird card.) With limited bonus cads and End-Round goals, star nests are likely to play a major factor in any game. There is no way I am conceding just because my opponent has more star nests than I do. Is life so much of a rush that we are conceding, and therefore reducing our win probability from [Something] to [zero]?

4. Ideally you have 2 forest birds at the halfway point, but I'm not conceding just because I don't.

5. Well, that's a big "unless". Cards without abilities can:

a) advance the habitat
b) give you more bonus cards
c) help existing bonus cards
d) give you the entire card tray (The Brant) or give you 4 worms (The northern Flicker).
e) Give you a lot of points (The Bald Eagle, etc.)
f) Help toward end-round goals.

Mmkay, I see. I'll try to keep those points in mind.

I usually concede if I know I'm going to lose because, for me personally, I just see it as a waste of my time and the only reason for me to stay would be for my opponent's own personal enjoyment at seeing how much they win by. Since they know they'll win (based on the situation happening in the game, of course), I just don't see why I need to provide them with any extra satisfaction with no benefit on my mind. So that's why I personally concede. Nothing against people who don't.

[Florrible]

I had someone concede a game a few days ago, they said that they had to go though. I can't recall that we had a huge points differential at that point it was still anyone's game, they might even have been ahead.

Usually I find that a bit odd like if you start a game surely you know how long it takes approximately and you know if you are able to see it to the end. If I only have 10 minutes before a meeting or something, I'm not going to start a game of Wingspan, I'll pick Azul or something else quick.

If someone concedes when I'm ahead, I still get frustrated that I didn't get to play the game until the end. It feels like an easy victory. I may be ahead but I still enjoy the challenge and uncertainty. In Wingspan specifically I don't think I ever have such a point differential that I am ever sure I can win. I've seen scores completely flip who is ahead, often around round 3 - both in my favour and not.