Analysis of loss in 7 player secret hitler game
I love the game of Secret Hitler, and am now using this blog to improve on my understanding of how I can play the game better. As a chess player, one thing I've learned is you must ruthlessly analyze your own games in order to improve. This is the first of a series of reviews where I try to identify the mistakes made.
The format of my hands will be formatted as follows:
President - Chancellor (minority) pres claim, chancellor claim, passed
So for example:
EXAMPLE: 1-5 (2) RRB RB B
seat 1 would be the president. seat 5 would be the chancellor, seat 2 neined the government, the president claimed to have drawn RRB (two fascist policies, and one liberal policy), the chancellor claimed to have been passed RB (one fascist, one liberal policy) from the president, and a liberal policy was passed.
This is a game I played about a week ago online on secrethitler.io. I was a liberal in seat 7, in a seven player game. Here is a link to the replay, if you'd like to follow along.
1-5 () RRR RR R
2-6 () RBB BB B
3-7 () RRB RB B
First three hands are following standard meta. There is a 25% chance of drawing three reds the first hand, so seat 1 is the least trustworthy initially. Seat 2 forced 6 to play a blue, which is considered better for liberals than gathering information by offering them a choice. I think its somewhat less likely to see RBB BB B claim if both 2 and 6 are fascist, because they could work together to pass a red, or at least claim RRB to make a red liberal president down the road look more like they've secretly discarded a blue. The 3-7 claims make them the most liberal claims on the board so far.
4-5 (2,4,5)
4-5 is not a good government, because there is no information on either player yet. When two blues are passed in the first three hands, usually seat 4 is skipped in favor of the chancellors.
5-2 ()
6-2 is a slightly better tandem than 5-2, even though both were forced as chancellors. This is because a 1-5 fasc fasc combo passing a red is more likely than a 2-6 fasc fasc combo forcing a blue.
6-2 () RBB BB B
One of the nice things about forcing BB is that two players can see the blues, which helps better verify the count.
7-3 () RRB RB B
This is my first presidency, and we pass a blue. At this point, the discard pile is reshuffled into the deck. There are a total of six blues in the deck, and all six blues have been claimed to have been seen. Generally, that favors the presidents, and increases the likelihood that 4 and 5 (who haven't played yet) are fascist.
Since 3 and 7 both had an opportunity to drop a red and claim the investigation, they are the strongest liberal candidates on the board. 3 also passed the fourth blue, which puts the fascists in the danger zone. Even Hitler might conflict to prevent that from happening. 1's presidency was forced, but because of the 6 blues claimed, we could treat as no information. 2 and 6 are highly unlikely to both be fascist, because they each forced the other. However, since neither could force through a red, its possible that one of them could be fasc. At this point, we should treat 3-7 and 2-6 as the candidates for a liberal wheel.
1-5 ()
This government was skipped with no dissent, since at best we have no info on either player, and better choices without having to draw from the top of the deck.
2-6 (1) RRB RR R
This was the games first conflict, where either 2 or 6 must be fascist. My read is that its much more likely for seat 6 to create a conflict, since there are four blues on the board already. There is no way this makes sense to me as a fascist fascist conflict.
Looking a little deeper at likely governments, if 2 is fascist while 6 is liberal, and claims RRR instead of a conflict, then the next government would be 3-7. If three fascist policies were drawn, then seat 3 would SE seat 7, and 7 would select 6. So 2 would have to conflict in those lines to avoid a likely liberal liberal pair.
One thing I overlooked during the game was that only 1 neined this government. If 1 were liberal, then he would know for sure that there is at least one fascist in 2,3,6,7. Since both 3-7 and 7-3 passed RRB governments, it was more logical to suggest there is one fascist in 2-6 (which there was). 1 should have come out of this conflict as a better liberal candidate down the road. So that seems like an important miss during the game. Neither 4 nor 5 neined this government, but they should have been able to make the same deduction as 1.
2 investigate 3 liberal
This investigation seemed to bolster my belief that 2 was liberal. I've looked through hundreds of games at the investigations, and have found the following:
2-3 being liberal/liberal made more sense than fascist/liberal. It also seemed possible that 3 could be Hitler, but as I previously mentioned, 3 passed the 4th blue when we only had one fascist policy on the board.
3-7 () RRR RR R
So 3-7 passes without dissent again. With 1 blue left in the last 9 cards (if 2's claim of rrb was to be believed), there was a 66% chance of this being RRR, even if seat 3 was liberal.
3 special election 7
As expected, 3 chooses me for special election. The problem is seat 3 is term limited, so I have to select from a number of bad choices. Assuming 3 and 7 are liberal, then there is one fascist in seats (2,6), and there are two fascists in seats (1,4,5). I picked 7-4 as a test case to see who ja's the gov, since 4 could be the next president, and pick 4-7 if everyone neined. This requires libs to know to nein a special election if one of the candidates is in the next government naturally.
Perhaps 1 was a better choice, since he had neined the 2-6 government. However, Hitler might nein 2-6 as well, since he doesn't know where his fascists are in the game, and the general rule is to nein all governments you aren't in if there are four blue policies passed already.
7-4 (2)
We agreed that a better strategy was to top deck back to me, so I could play 7-3 again. However, 2 jaed the government anyways. Maybe a lib jas that gov thinking the best person to have the gun is 7, but it seemed a bit suspect.
4-6 ()
5-1 ()
Top Deck R
6-7 ()
7-3 () RRR RR R
We neined the government back to 7-3, top drawing a red when three governments failed. This was the first time we had to find someone not hitler, and I opted to take the chance on 3, who was then CNH. Unfortunately, I got a legitimate RRR. So our plan after the conflict between 2-6 has failed to fish out the last blue. At the start of the plan, we would get to see 7 of the 9 cards, and had a 78% chance of winning.
7 shoots 6
Originally, I had decided if 3 had conflicted, that I would shoot 2. This was because 2 and 3 would be confirmed fascists, and since 3 would be confirmed not hitler, 2 was the next shot. But there was no conflict.
This had to be the biggest mistake I made in the game. I decided that 6 was the most likely fascist in the conflict, because it was game over if he didn't conflict. I knew the rule "never shoot into a conflict"... and didn't follow it. What I should have realized is there was likely 1 fascist in (2,6), and 2 fascists in (1,4,5). 3 couldn't be the shot, because he was confirmed not Hitler. So shooting into the conf, there was a 50% chance I hit a fascist, while shooting into (1,4,5), there was a 66% chance of hitting a fascist. Combined with 1 neining the 2-6 government earlier, I should have been able to deduce 4-5 was where the shot should be.
1-4 (1,4)
Here we entered the final phase of the game. Both 3 and 7 were term limited, so we could only form a government amongst (1,2,4,5), unless we passed the government to 3. 1 picked 4, and both 1 and 4 ja. The only way this makes sense to 1 is if the fascist lines were (2,3,5) or (2,7,5). Since 3 was basically confirmed liberal (since he was not hitler, and twice passed blues by choice). 1 should have neined to 3, and pushed for 3-1. Likewise, 4 should have neined, and pushed for 3-4. Both votes were suspicious.
2-5 (2,4)
This one was also a very strange vote, and it should have been outing for the last decision. 2 investigated 3 to be liberal, and should have neined to 3-2... a government guaranteed to be liberal if 2 was also liberal.
To make matters worse, 4 ja's a government. From 4's point of view as a liberal, (2,6) contains one fascist, 3 is liberal, and there are two other fascists in (1,5,7).
So his possible lines are:
2,1,5
2,1,7
2,5,7
6,1,5
6,1,7 Since 7 shot 6, this is not a valid line
6,5,7
All lines contain one of 2-5, so this should have been a huge tell that 4 was fascist. The lines should be clear to me at this point that (2,4,x) are the lines.
To make matters worse, 4 ja's a government. From 4's point of view as a liberal, (2,6) contains one fascist, 3 is liberal, and there are two other fascists in (1,5,7).
So his possible lines are:
2,1,5
2,1,7
2,5,7
6,1,5
6,5,7
All lines contain one of 2-5, so this should have been a huge tell that 4 was fascist. The lines should be clear to me at this point that (2,4,x) are the lines.
So there are eight cards after the reshuffle, and two of them are blue. If we fail the government, there is a 25% chance we get a blue. With seat 3 basically confirmed as a liberal, he has to choose between 1,2,4,5, where either two or three fascists live. If you further break it into (2,6) had one fascist, and (1,4,5) had two fascists, then there is a 50% chance of passing a liberal policy picking 2, and a 33% chance of picking a liberal policy picking in 1-4-5. If we then take into account the votes from the last few rounds, we eliminate 4 as a choice, and its back to 50% chance picking between 1 and 5.
3-2 (1,5) RRB RB R
Had 1 neined himself in the 1-4 pick, then the choice of 3-1 might have been more obvious. 3 picked 2, and only 1 and 5 neined. So a fascist policy was passed and the game ended.
FASCISTS WIN
Lessons Learned
- Better understand why a player would conflict. 2 had to conflict in order to prevent 3-6-7 from making a liberal wheel. Just claiming RRR wouldn't work.
- Don't shoot into a conflict. There was a 66% chance of hitting a fascist shooting blindly in (1,4,5).
- Count up the bad votes, and the good votes as you go.
- 1 had 1 good vote (neining 2-6 conf) and 1 bad vote (jaing 1-4 his last chance).
- 2 had 3 bad votes (breaking meta on 4-5, jaing 7-4, and jaing 2-5)
- 4 had 3 bad votes (breaking meta on 4-5, jaing 1-4, and especially jaing 2-5)
- Keep track of which lines should be from each players perspective. You should be able to out fascists who make bad votes.
Comments
Post a Comment