Beginner tries to improve - Any help welcome

[FrankJones]

In all seriousness, this is not helpful advice.

Yes it is

Wingspan is a simple game. There are 3 things to do (Gain Food, Lay Eggs, Draw cards). You can't do all three. The entire point of the game is getting all three resources (Food, eggs, cards) by only using 2 rows

By far the easiest way to do this that has the most birds supporting it is getting Food from another row. So if you are drawing food a lot, you are likely going to lose cause you should be getting food from the other rows.

The game is 90% variance, that disguises itself as a skill game, which is why people get so ego-addicted to it. Truth is 90% of the game is what cards are in your opening hand and in the top 5 cards you draw.

There are very few birds that give food from other habitats.

Also, games that are 90% luck generally do not have 250 players with a 500+ Elo with the top players around 700.

Open Face Chinese Poker for example, typically has 0-3 players at or above 300, and the highest I've seen is 318, I think.

[FrankJones]

In all seriousness, this is not helpful advice.

Yes it is

Wingspan is a simple game. There are 3 things to do (Gain Food, Lay Eggs, Draw cards). You can't do all three. The entire point of the game is getting all three resources (Food, eggs, cards) by only using 2 rows

By far the easiest way to do this that has the most birds supporting it is getting Food from another row. So if you are drawing food a lot, you are likely going to lose cause you should be getting food from the other rows.

The game is 90% variance, that disguises itself as a skill game, which is why people get so ego-addicted to it. Truth is 90% of the game is what cards are in your opening hand and in the top 5 cards you draw.

Ceaseless has provided excellent general analysis in various forum posts,

Not really, he is just pointing out common sense. You had a bird with a point generating brown power, you drew 2 birds that could copy that power and generate more points, and you just didn't play them. That's like your opponent in Chess blundering thier queen, pointing it out to you, and you just don't take it. It's a no brainer move.

I did ? I don't recall playing any such game in which I did those things.

Anyway, here:

https://boardgamearena.com/gamereview?table=767303922

I am "supposed to get food from outside the forest"? How would I do that without any such birds? I couldn't even get birds that give me food IN the forest. I struggled to get any useful forest birds at all! I had to make do drawing food two at a time, and only by making the unusual play of playing two "play another bird" birds without having a third (Because with no way to get food, I never would have been able to play any birds if I didn't stop hunting forest birds and do SOMETHING.) So, I put two birds in the forest, helping the End-of-round goals, and enabling me to get food to play my other birds.

By the time I had the American Redstart, I no longer was able to gai much benefit from it. But, I needed to get birds on my board because my strong grassland engine would have fizzled fast without nests to lay eggs on.

I didn't feel great about my chances, but I was able to eke out a win. But I suppose tactics had nothing to do with it, and every player would have made the same "common sense" plays that I made?

Perhaps I made some tactical errors. If anyone wants to review and critique the game, I would certainly listen to and analyze any advice given.

[FrankJones]

Reviewing the game, I think I blundered. I got greedy. I had this idea to get the barn swallow and the house finch in the grassland, but without birds in the forest, that wasn't going to happen.

I probably should have played Vireo + House finch in the forest in round 1, which is not the optimal spot for the house finch, but strong for the Forest eggs end of round goal, and would have quickly got my forest set up with 2 birds. And I could have made use of the tuck and draw to gain food while exchanging a bad card for something good from the tray.

At no point in the game did I posses or have the opportunity to possess a bird that gives food outside the forest.

So, no, it really is not helpful to say, "use the forest as infrequently as possible because you should be getting food from the other habitats", as though that's something we can control.

Regardless, since you have stated that winning games is meaningless and no one should care, maybe it's best to let the strategy analysis be done by those who do care about playing optimally and winning?

I mean, you're welcome to continue to the thread, obviously.

But thus far, in two separate threads, your contributions were to dismiss the valuable advice of an expert player, and to say that winning a game is meaningless and that no one should care.

[FrankJones]

Regarding Ceaseless and his advice:

He's just pointing out common sense? Do you have better advice to give? Ceaseless is a high-rated player. If his "pointing out common sense" was all that was necessary for me to get my Elo into the mid-400s, why isn't everyone in the mid 400s or higher?

To address the strategy "advice" you gave:

With the swift start birds and without the power 5, there are 175 cards.

Exactly FIVE of them give food in a non-forest habitat without also giving the opponent(s) food. So, you can say, "you should be getting food from other habitats", but we don't get to dig through the deck and pick out those 5 birds.

Most games, I don't see any of those birds.

Only two of them give an unconditional food (The two crows). So, yeah, if you get a crow, it's probably a good idea to play it in the grassland.

The spotted Towhee gives specifically a grain, which may or may not be useful depending on the circumstances.

The Cedar Waxwing and the Dark-eyed Junco give specifically a cherry or a grain, and also requires having extra cards to tuck to gain those food. Which, again, might not be useful depending on the circumstances.

[kostinen]

I didn't really appreciate SluggerBaloney's tone. So it bothers me to agree with some of its points, but let's explain it!

For some time now, my playstyle has been based primarily on the idea of ​​playing in the forest as little as possible (preferably not at all) as a default strategy. I'll try to explain how and why.

FrankJones, you mentioned that there are 5 cards that allow you to gain food from outside the forest. That's not exactly true (you said so yourself), because there are actually 6 more that are "social" birds, which share their gains with everyone. There are also (at least) 5 more that allow you to gain food passively (pink power), and 3 others that allow you to gain food the moment they are played.

Personally, I particularly like 10 birds that I consider very effective at providing me with food (5/6 of which are social birds).

Based on this, if I don't have any of these 10, I generally keep only a few birds at the start, favoring wetland and/or tucking birds.

With this, I can see a lot of birds, often having some food to use when the time comes.

For me, cards are the most powerful resource in the game.
- Building a powerful card deck as early as possible gives a significant advantage in making subsequent moves as efficient as possible because you know more precisely where you're going.
- A card can also be tucked in exchange for an egg/food.
- A card can be traded for food in the forest. And this is a huge point I "discovered" recently. If I draw two card, I already theorically gain two foods, but in the same time knowing which food I need because I already have cards (well it's two card or two foods or 1 and 1, not both, I know).

With this strategy, I often know where I need to focus my efforts to be most effective. I might occasionally be forced to make a few moves in the forest if necessary (with one or two birds placed, depending on the number of cards I can trade with their potential value later in the game). I might also completely shift towards a full forest strategy (if I have the right cards for it).

I don't want to claim that this strategy is the best, as it certainly has its flaws. It requires considerable experience with the game, as you need to know which cards to keep, anticipate the food you'll need, and so on. It's therefore less reliable than a strategy that focuses on building a forest with at least two food resources as early as possible, which I recommend for all beginners (and which is also used by most of the best players, from what I've seen). It can (rarely) lead to catastrophic situations.
I can also say it does not imply to all games (you need good wetland birds or tucking birds in grassland)

I simply wanted to lend some credence to this idea that SluggerBaloney mentioned, which better suits my playing style and gives me better results.

[FrankJones]

I didn't really appreciate SluggerBaloney's tone. So it bothers me to agree with some of its points, but let's explain it!

For some time now, my playstyle has been based primarily on the idea of ​​playing in the forest as little as possible (preferably not at all) as a default strategy. I'll try to explain how and why.

FrankJones, you mentioned that there are 5 cards that allow you to gain food from outside the forest. That's not exactly true (you said so yourself), because there are actually 6 more that are "social" birds, which share their gains with everyone. There are also (at least) 5 more that allow you to gain food passively (pink power), and 3 others that allow you to gain food the moment they are played.

Personally, I particularly like 10 birds that I consider very effective at providing me with food (5/6 of which are social birds).

Based on this, if I don't have any of these 10, I generally keep only a few birds at the start, favoring wetland and/or tucking birds.

With this, I can see a lot of birds, often having some food to use when the time comes.

For me, cards are the most powerful resource in the game.
- Building a powerful card deck as early as possible gives a significant advantage in making subsequent moves as efficient as possible because you know more precisely where you're going.
- A card can also be tucked in exchange for an egg/food.
- A card can be traded for food in the forest. And this is a huge point I "discovered" recently. If I draw two card, I already theorically gain two foods, but in the same time knowing which food I need because I already have cards (well it's two card or two foods or 1 and 1, not both, I know).

With this strategy, I often know where I need to focus my efforts to be most effective. I might occasionally be forced to make a few moves in the forest if necessary (with one or two birds placed, depending on the number of cards I can trade with their potential value later in the game). I might also completely shift towards a full forest strategy (if I have the right cards for it).

I don't want to claim that this strategy is the best, as it certainly has its flaws. It requires considerable experience with the game, as you need to know which cards to keep, anticipate the food you'll need, and so on. It's therefore less reliable than a strategy that focuses on building a forest with at least two food resources as early as possible, which I recommend for all beginners (and which is also used by most of the best players, from what I've seen). It can (rarely) lead to catastrophic situations.
I can also say it does not imply to all games (you need good wetland birds or tucking birds in grassland)

I simply wanted to lend some credence to this idea that SluggerBaloney mentioned, which better suits my playing style and gives me better results.

I literally wrote, "Exactly FIVE of them give food in a non-forest habitat without also giving the opponent(s) food.", and yet you're responding as though I omitted that fact or am unaware of the hummingbirds.

Yes, of course strong tucking birds are great. But those are also not easy to find. In 2-player games with no expansions and without the power 5, it's not easy to gain strong birds at all. There are no cards in this format that give cards from the grassland. Which means even a seemingly strong bird such as a "tuck and lay egg" can become difficult to optimize. Setting up a scoring engine in any habitat other than the grassland is difficult.

Yes, having extra cards is great. Partly for the above reason I mentioned. Again though, there are only so many "Ruddy Duck" cards in the deck. It's not that easy to acquire a large pile of cards without losing a lot of tempo.

SluggerBaloney didn't really mention an idea or strategy. "Use the forest as little as possible because you should be getting food from elsewhere" is an empty statement. I already wrote 5 essays explaining why.

I never suggested that it's a winning strategy to indiscriminately take the "gain food action". Obviously, the action should only be taken when food is needed to play birds. That goes without saying.

And with all due respect, I'll follow the advice of a high Elo player such as ceaseless rather than the advice of someone who literally said that winning is meaningless and no one should care.

[FrankJones]

I mean, the game is about efficiency. The extent to which we take various actions depends on what is most efficient given the circumstances.

(Obviously you know this; you're one of the highest rated players on the site.)

but empty blanket statements such as "use the forest as little as possible" is not useful to a beginner. Most points are scored by laying eggs and playing birds. The vast majority of EOR goals and bonus cards are met by doing those two things. The extent to which we take the "gain food" action depends on how much food we need to play the birds we need to optimize our score.

The Kingbird and belted Kingfisher can provide great value when played early. The other 3 are a bit dicey, because I don't expect my opponent to hunt when I have a vulture or the magpie. In fact, I don't think I've ever received a piece of food from those 3 birds in any of my games here on BGA.

[FrankJones]

I think a more useful statement would be, "Keep an eye out for some of the key cards that can gain food outside the forest, but realize you may go entire games without getting any useful ones, and be prepared to at least get two birds in the forest if it turns out that the forest is your only way of gaining food."

That's a statement of far more substance than "Don't use the forest", which was the original statement that started this whole tangent.

[kostinen]

I mentionned you were aware about social birds "FrankJones, you mentioned that there are 5 cards that allow you to gain food from outside the forest. That's not exactly true (you said so yourself)"
Maybe my english is sometimes bad, sorry for this !

Yeah I all agree with you about the previous messages. That was ironic that I was, kind of, agree. I took this opportunity to explain why because I thought it would be interesting. Maybe not the good timing

[kostinen]

The other 3 are a bit dicey, because I don't expect my opponent to hunt when I have a vulture or the magpie. In fact, I don't think I've ever received a piece of food from those 3 birds in any of my games here on BGA.

I like those two vultures because they cost nothing and it's very good with my strategy, especially when I didn't find the birds I need. One in the forest is good, providing me the opportunity to gain two foods if I can trade a card. And it gives me sometimes extra food with the pink power, but I don't count on that in 2 players. In 3 players they are very powerfull for me