Also, removing the human element is silly, because resistance is a game about getting town reads, you’re bound to be playing with friends and at least 1 person that you can easily town read… Unless you’re awful or your friends are all really good.
For finding an “optimal” strategy, you need to factor that in.
TBH, it probably differs based on friend circles and you would need to have a way to input relative accuracy into the formula. If you’re playing with 3 people who have piss poor reads, then it changes what the optimal strategy is.
Yeah, but then what you’re arguing is pointless because it has no real world application… Other than if you’re playing with a bunch of strangers AND you can’t read body language AND you are playing with other people who also understand optimal strategy.
Like, if you’re town with a rock solid town read on one other player, you always put yourself on the 2 with that player, pass the mission, maybe fail mission two, but then convince your friends to put you both back together on the next mission.
like if you construct a table of probabilities for how well each individual reads another individual…you can again construct a potential strategy but that’ll be case by case depending on the table.
I think the optimal way to play Resistance is to sort the 3rd player over from the mission leader and go clockwise from there.
Because people typically have more fun if you let them decide missions (and let’s face it, if you’re gathered with friends, that’s what you’re doing)… So, you put your focus in reading the first player who can potentially cause you to lose and read clockwise from there. I generally would lobby to include them on missions since when they are deciding in end game, they will likely include themselves… and we need to know if it’s a good idea.
You clearly haven’t played strategy games with a group of mathematicians. You’ll end up sketching solution set calculations on blackboards, agree on a scheme and then never finish playing the game xD.