The level of aggression | Mafia Game Academy

The concept of the "level of aggression" from "Mafia in the Style of Zen" opens with a joking epigraph: "In any unclear situation nominate yourself. That way you will not offend the delicate, sensitive natures of the other players". The author calls it key for the sheriff and for the whole mafia, because the bought votes the role cards need depend directly on its use: all of them for the sheriff, one or two for the blacks. This lesson covers the mechanics, three uses for the mafia, the special case of the sheriff, and links the concept to the lesson "Attack in speech: the rule of four and fifty pairings".

The one you play against thinks you are mafia

This is a regularity for players of any level who lack enough awareness. The author puts into this word the ability to understand why you are taken for black and to work out whether the player has the right to such a position. If his point of view can be accepted, consider the variant that a civilian is attacking you. Unfortunately most act by template: I am attacked and I am red, so the attacker is black. The mafia counts on exactly this, expecting conflicts.

What follows from this

For the red: before declaring an attacker black, check his grounds. If they are logical, he may be a civilian who simply sees the situation differently.
For the black: if you attack a player, he will most likely answer in kind and start looking for your team. The level of aggression must be chosen consciously.
A conflict of two players almost always means there is mafia in the pair (a sign from the count analysis in the level 2 lessons).

Exceptions

The author notes players who in principle are unable to attack others because of low self-esteem or uncertainty about their right to do so. Against them it is most effective to gather hands without emotional pressure, as if holding a dialogue with them. Such players will not answer with aggression, but will not consider you an enemy if you are gentle.

The level of aggression for the mafia team

a) In pairings it is better to give red checks instead of black

With two conflicting players, give red checks instead of black. You will have an argument in your pocket: the player is mafia because he played against a civilian. This leaves the second player the right to admit a mistake about whom he played against and to choose your line of play. If you give a black check, you will not only lose a vote but also make an enemy of a player who will gather hands against your team. Any slot in a state of uncertainty is guaranteed to be better than one who has determined correctly.

b) Attack players who have already spoken

A player who has spoken in the current round cannot defend himself with speech and find deceit or illogic in your words. The author recalls the kinds of positions: the further a player sits, the weightier his speech, especially for those who close the rounds. With positional kills it is better to arrange that your black closes the round: the moment before the vote is the best to win over the civilians' votes.

c) In the critical round write your black into the sheriff's team

If you want to win in this round, the author names a universal strategy of buying votes: without attacking, you win the reds over to your side. Naturally the mafioso will put his vote together with the bought hand, and the win is yours.

The level of aggression and the sheriff

It is much harder for the sheriff in this respect: one wrong attack may cost the game. The blacks will play a balance and leave for the deciding round the one who will vote for the red leader because he saw a mafia player in a civilian. Moreover, the level of aggression applied to the sheriff turns into a level of distrust: the more unclear and murky actions the sheriff makes, the higher the chance that he is black. So for the main role card of the red team non-standard moves, beacons, assigning shots and the like are not recommended: play as carefully, simply and clearly as possible.

How this relates to the sheriff's play in the critical round

The author develops the idea in the chapter "Playing the sheriff in the critical round" (covered in the level 2 lesson "The sheriff in the critical round: speech structure and causes of defeat"). Two key causes of the red leader's defeat: your actions were not clear, and you abandoned one of the civilians or played against him. Attention to all participants makes a person one of us: he is listened to and is not voted, other things being equal. "In childhood most of us equated attention with love," writes the author. Any abandoned player will be supported by the blacks and become their deciding hand. So the sheriff's "level of aggression" must be minimal toward the reds and maximal only toward found blacks.

The mathematics of a necessary attack

In the chapter "We attack" the author adds a rule that helps to choose the mafia's level of aggression. The position of the attacker in a game is always stronger than that of a passive or defending one (from the civilian's point of view), because it is more profitable for the mafia to provoke and strengthen conflicts than to be a party to them. But at a table with experienced players you cannot sit it out, because good civilians force you to give a position.

The rule of four: if among the civilian town you do not have four suspicious players, you must attack. In other cases you may sit it out, that is, give a quiet and unnoticeable speech. Often the sheriff dies on the first or second night; even if he manages to make two red checks posthumously, you will have exactly two players to remove for the win. If there are three suspicious ones or fewer, you should "release the brakes" and attack for the slightest slips; in this case it is more effective to play team against team. The "magic number four" frees your hands regarding the remaining three civilians: you can give them even the reddest colour, the main thing is to kill or buy them later. If you give more than three as red, this may force you to play against your own, which by default should not be done.

The author adds an example of the logic: if you are mafia on slot no. 5, after you sit your blacks no. 7 and no. 10, and no. 4 spoke well, without playing against nos. 1, 2, 3. If you do not "eat" him for the team of nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, you will expose yourself (the weakest position of all who spoke) and expose the blacks who sit after you. With no complaints about the speeches before your own minute, you form for the whole town a range of mafia: when redness is created in one part of the table, the other part of the table blackens.

Application (the author's recommendations)

Think whether the player who attacks you has the right to a position.
Attack the one who gathers hands against you.
Attack players who have already spoken.
In pairings make red checks to remove the one who played against the check. It is especially good to give your own blacks as red.
As the sheriff play simply and carefully.

For the red

Analyse the attacker's grounds, not the fact of the attack.
Do not answer aggression with aggression automatically: that is exactly what the mafia counts on.
If you are attacked by a player who yesterday defended your version, look for the reason: perhaps he changed his line without arguments.
If you are the sheriff, do not enter conflicts with reds: every such quarrel may become the deciding hand of the blacks.

For the black

Choose the level of aggression to fit the plan: team play requires an attack on the reds, mixed colours require gentleness.
Do not give black checks to players you play in a pair with: leave them the chance to choose your line.
Attack those who have just spoken, but not those who surely will not gather votes.
Do not attack the sheriff's red check without a fallback plan.

Example (compiled for the Academy)

Nine players, false sheriff no. 6. No. 3 and no. 8 have been in conflict since round zero. The false sheriff goes to check no. 8 and gives a red check: "No. 8 is red, because no. 3 played against him". No. 3 comes under suspicion as one who attacked a civilian. No. 8 is grateful, puts his hand with the false sheriff, and no. 3 loses votes. If the false sheriff had given no. 8 a black check, no. 8 would have made an enemy and started gathering hands against the false sheriff.

Self-check questions

What does "awareness" mean in the concept of the level of aggression?
Why is it more profitable to give a conflicting player a red check than a black one?
Why is attacking players who have already spoken more profitable?
How does the level of aggression transform for the sheriff?
What is the "magic number four" and how is it linked to attack?
At how many players can the sheriff be shot and at how many not? (the author's question, look for the answer in the sections on the shot and night strategies)

Practice

Review a recording and mark all attacks: who on whom, from which slot, and whether the attacked later took the attacker for black. Then play two games in which you consciously change the level of aggression: in the first as gently as possible, in the second as harshly as possible. Compare who started to take you for black.

Typical mistakes

Automatically taking the attacker for black.
Giving a black check to a conflicting player.
Non-standard moves as the sheriff.
Attacking without a reserve of red candidates (violating the rule of four).
Sitting it out when the town has no four suspicious players.

Source of the idea. The chapters "The concept of the level of aggression", "Playing the sheriff in the critical round" and "We attack" from Dmitry Novik's book "Mafia in the Style of Zen" (2020). The question about the sheriff's shot is taken from the author. The example, questions, practice and practical advice for reds were compiled for the Academy.