Conquer Club

i have a prety good tactic as far as austraila(SP) goes ut does anyone prefer playing S.america instead>....

Moved on over.

Sometimes I prefer playing in South America, if it is a Flat Rate game...I like to have some expansion options either to Africa or to North America!


--Andy

On the World 2.1 map I have a preference for SA because it allows you to deploy and take the Maghreb which is a nice bonus. On the classic map I have to agree with Andy in that you can build and run NA or Africa, which is easier to do that taking Asia quickly.

THere was a thread about this a few weeks ago, called "what continent to start with" or something like that, with lots of good discussing/arguing about what continent to go for. Some math proof too IIRC, look it up it was quite interesting.

personally i prefer austraila cuz its a lot easier to defend and if u rlly know how to time and stragegize u can cut right across the bottom of asia and make a quick grab for africa but normally if i get into austraila i will be totally happy with just staying as close as i can and let the other players weaken themselves

If you look into flat rate games involving decent players, the numbers overwhelmingly support Aussie being the best starting place. Because of a previous discussion on this, I looked into it and checked for the first continent held by the eventual winner. I forget the exact numbers but it wasn't remotely close at all. Aussie won by a landslide.

FWIW.

Everyone loves to think otherwise. In fact, the games I looked into were those involving a player who said how often players in his games were able to succeed from other spots. So, even a player who was allegedly drawing on his own memory of games failed to see that, in those very games, it was all about Aussie.

yeah. The best way to win (I think) in escalating or flat rate would be to grab aussie. Within only a few rounds, you can have armies en masse on your borders. Hopefully, you will have some other territories across the board which you can exploit.

in esc games....hell no...i guess thats why..shit i cant...ban hammer is flying...

Classic map-- it's Aussie without a doubt. With only 1 front to protect, you need 1/2 the armies as you would defending SA. As a direct result you receive the income on it up to 2 or 3 rounds before as well.

I'm probably one of the most aggressive players ( of the high ranks) when it comes to grabbing a bonus there. But SA-- I rarely push for it (seq) even when dropped two terr's there.

Remember that you can win from any continent. If you start to obsessively go for one continent in every game you're bound to lose a lot, just take the one that's easiest for you to get and plan your game from there.
The problem with Aussie is that once the situation has stabilized you're stuck with your bonus of 2 and have no chance of getting Asia against as many as 3 other players with continents bordering it. All it takes is a NAP between Iceland and Greenland and you'll be really lucky to reach 12 territories because everyone will be going into Asia since it's the only place left to go.
In FOW games taking Asia might work though.

MeDeFe wrote:Remember that you can win from any continent. If you start to obsessively go for one continent in every game you're bound to lose a lot, just take the one that's easiest for you to get and plan your game from there.
The problem with Aussie is that once the situation has stabilized you're stuck with your bonus of 2 and have no chance of getting Asia against as many as 3 other players with continents bordering it. All it takes is a NAP between Iceland and Greenland and you'll be really lucky to reach 12 territories because everyone will be going into Asia since it's the only place left to go.
In FOW games taking Asia might work though.

LOL. You're the reason why I bothered to look up which was the first continent the resulting winner of classic games held. Because you implied that holding Europe wasn't as tough or as bad an idea as people made it out to be. So, I actually looked up all the classic, flat rate games that you'd played in. The guy who went for Europe almost never won at all and the guy who started with Aussie won an overwhelming amount of times.

I also recall, that you were rather steadfast back then despite this rather overwhelming evidence and I see now that, given enough time, you can again convince yourself to ignore the facts.

Mind you, I understand that you're not going out on to too thin a branch by merely saying it's "possible". Further, only one guy can take Aussie and if you're not the guy who got dropped at least 2 of 4 plus perhaps a China and Siam or something, then it's not worth beating your head over. However, if that's the case, I think that you'd be much better off just roaming around and staying out of everyone's way rather than undertake some Quixotic mission to take and hold one of the big boys.

Keep in mind, this doesn't mean that the first person to take Aussie wins all the time. In my study, I looked at the eventual winner and checked out the first continent they ever held for at least a few turns. Mind you, often times the winner also happened to be the first person to hold Aussie. However, some of the times it was a player who seemingly employed the tactic I'm suggesting and took Aussie with their first major move of the game. Even if that move was well into it.

Forget about what 'FEELS' Right... here's a FACT,,,

in EVERY singles game (100% of the time, except assasin) the winner held NORTH AMERICA!

So NORTH AMERICA is where it's at!!!!




Well actually, by the final round they held ALL the continents... but for now lets just ignore that little detail...

Hmmm tough one. I would have to say s.america because of the extra expansion options. Both africa and north america are better that aisa in ease to take and in ease to defend. Also holding north and south america holds the same bonuses as aisa but is much easier to defend. Though the best possible option is to have both

Robinette wrote:Forget about what 'FEELS' Right... here's a FACT,,,

in EVERY singles game (100% of the time, except assasin) the winner held NORTH AMERICA!

So NORTH AMERICA is where it's at!!!!




Well actually, by the final round they held ALL the continents... but for now lets just ignore that little detail...

Well, I understand where you're going with this but it's still not true. 1v1 games often end with out the winner holding all the continents because of neutrals.

detlef wrote:

Robinette wrote:Forget about what 'FEELS' Right... here's a FACT,,,

in EVERY singles game (100% of the time, except assasin) the winner held NORTH AMERICA!

So NORTH AMERICA is where it's at!!!!




Well actually, by the final round they held ALL the continents... but for now lets just ignore that little detail...

Well, I understand where you're going with this but it's still not true. 1v1 games often end with out the winner holding all the continents because of neutrals.

*sigh* ... you really took the wind out of this sail...

and i wouldn't know anything about those neutrals .... never played 1v1 ...

Robinette wrote:

detlef wrote:

Robinette wrote:Forget about what 'FEELS' Right... here's a FACT,,,

in EVERY singles game (100% of the time, except assasin) the winner held NORTH AMERICA!

So NORTH AMERICA is where it's at!!!!




Well actually, by the final round they held ALL the continents... but for now lets just ignore that little detail...

Well, I understand where you're going with this but it's still not true. 1v1 games often end with out the winner holding all the continents because of neutrals.

*sigh* ... you really took the wind out of this sail...

and i wouldn't know anything about those neutrals .... never played 1v1 ...

Sorry, but there's neutrals on classic in all game settings but 3 and 6. Actually, I'm not sure about 3 even. They technically don't need them because 3 goes into 42 evenly, but they still might deploy them for some other reason.

Damn, it's getting pretty still out here. Better fire up that motor

detlef wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Remember that you can win from any continent. If you start to obsessively go for one continent in every game you're bound to lose a lot, just take the one that's easiest for you to get and plan your game from there.
The problem with Aussie is that once the situation has stabilized you're stuck with your bonus of 2 and have no chance of getting Asia against as many as 3 other players with continents bordering it. All it takes is a NAP between Iceland and Greenland and you'll be really lucky to reach 12 territories because everyone will be going into Asia since it's the only place left to go.
In FOW games taking Asia might work though.

LOL. You're the reason why I bothered to look up which was the first continent the resulting winner of classic games held. Because you implied that holding Europe wasn't as tough or as bad an idea as people made it out to be. So, I actually looked up all the classic, flat rate games that you'd played in. The guy who went for Europe almost never won at all and the guy who started with Aussie won an overwhelming amount of times.

I also recall, that you were rather steadfast back then despite this rather overwhelming evidence and I see now that, given enough time, you can again convince yourself to ignore the facts.

Mind you, I understand that you're not going out on to too thin a branch by merely saying it's "possible". Further, only one guy can take Aussie and if you're not the guy who got dropped at least 2 of 4 plus perhaps a China and Siam or something, then it's not worth beating your head over. However, if that's the case, I think that you'd be much better off just roaming around and staying out of everyone's way rather than undertake some Quixotic mission to take and hold one of the big boys.

Keep in mind, this doesn't mean that the first person to take Aussie wins all the time. In my study, I looked at the eventual winner and checked out the first continent they ever held for at least a few turns. Mind you, often times the winner also happened to be the first person to hold Aussie. However, some of the times it was a player who seemingly employed the tactic I'm suggesting and took Aussie with their first major move of the game. Even if that move was well into it.

So you completely agree with me, why the long post then?

MeDeFe wrote:

detlef wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Remember that you can win from any continent. If you start to obsessively go for one continent in every game you're bound to lose a lot, just take the one that's easiest for you to get and plan your game from there.
The problem with Aussie is that once the situation has stabilized you're stuck with your bonus of 2 and have no chance of getting Asia against as many as 3 other players with continents bordering it. All it takes is a NAP between Iceland and Greenland and you'll be really lucky to reach 12 territories because everyone will be going into Asia since it's the only place left to go.
In FOW games taking Asia might work though.

LOL. You're the reason why I bothered to look up which was the first continent the resulting winner of classic games held. Because you implied that holding Europe wasn't as tough or as bad an idea as people made it out to be. So, I actually looked up all the classic, flat rate games that you'd played in. The guy who went for Europe almost never won at all and the guy who started with Aussie won an overwhelming amount of times.

I also recall, that you were rather steadfast back then despite this rather overwhelming evidence and I see now that, given enough time, you can again convince yourself to ignore the facts.

Mind you, I understand that you're not going out on to too thin a branch by merely saying it's "possible". Further, only one guy can take Aussie and if you're not the guy who got dropped at least 2 of 4 plus perhaps a China and Siam or something, then it's not worth beating your head over. However, if that's the case, I think that you'd be much better off just roaming around and staying out of everyone's way rather than undertake some Quixotic mission to take and hold one of the big boys.

Keep in mind, this doesn't mean that the first person to take Aussie wins all the time. In my study, I looked at the eventual winner and checked out the first continent they ever held for at least a few turns. Mind you, often times the winner also happened to be the first person to hold Aussie. However, some of the times it was a player who seemingly employed the tactic I'm suggesting and took Aussie with their first major move of the game. Even if that move was well into it.

So you completely agree with me, why the long post then?

You've got a very creative interpretation of "completely agree"

detlef wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

detlef wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Remember that you can win from any continent. If you start to obsessively go for one continent in every game you're bound to lose a lot, just take the one that's easiest for you to get and plan your game from there.
The problem with Aussie is that once the situation has stabilized you're stuck with your bonus of 2 and have no chance of getting Asia against as many as 3 other players with continents bordering it. All it takes is a NAP between Iceland and Greenland and you'll be really lucky to reach 12 territories because everyone will be going into Asia since it's the only place left to go.
In FOW games taking Asia might work though.

LOL. You're the reason why I bothered to look up which was the first continent the resulting winner of classic games held. Because you implied that holding Europe wasn't as tough or as bad an idea as people made it out to be. So, I actually looked up all the classic, flat rate games that you'd played in. The guy who went for Europe almost never won at all and the guy who started with Aussie won an overwhelming amount of times.

I also recall, that you were rather steadfast back then despite this rather overwhelming evidence and I see now that, given enough time, you can again convince yourself to ignore the facts.

Mind you, I understand that you're not going out on to too thin a branch by merely saying it's "possible". Further, only one guy can take Aussie and if you're not the guy who got dropped at least 2 of 4 plus perhaps a China and Siam or something, then it's not worth beating your head over. However, if that's the case, I think that you'd be much better off just roaming around and staying out of everyone's way rather than undertake some Quixotic mission to take and hold one of the big boys.

Keep in mind, this doesn't mean that the first person to take Aussie wins all the time. In my study, I looked at the eventual winner and checked out the first continent they ever held for at least a few turns. Mind you, often times the winner also happened to be the first person to hold Aussie. However, some of the times it was a player who seemingly employed the tactic I'm suggesting and took Aussie with their first major move of the game. Even if that move was well into it.

So you completely agree with me, why the long post then?

You've got a very creative interpretation of "completely agree"

Well, about half of your post was not at all relevant to what I had posted and what you seemed to be wanting to reply to, so I ignored that part. Why pay attention to something that's not relevant?

MeDeFe wrote:

detlef wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

detlef wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Remember that you can win from any continent. If you start to obsessively go for one continent in every game you're bound to lose a lot, just take the one that's easiest for you to get and plan your game from there.
The problem with Aussie is that once the situation has stabilized you're stuck with your bonus of 2 and have no chance of getting Asia against as many as 3 other players with continents bordering it. All it takes is a NAP between Iceland and Greenland and you'll be really lucky to reach 12 territories because everyone will be going into Asia since it's the only place left to go.
In FOW games taking Asia might work though.

LOL. You're the reason why I bothered to look up which was the first continent the resulting winner of classic games held. Because you implied that holding Europe wasn't as tough or as bad an idea as people made it out to be. So, I actually looked up all the classic, flat rate games that you'd played in. The guy who went for Europe almost never won at all and the guy who started with Aussie won an overwhelming amount of times.

I also recall, that you were rather steadfast back then despite this rather overwhelming evidence and I see now that, given enough time, you can again convince yourself to ignore the facts.

Mind you, I understand that you're not going out on to too thin a branch by merely saying it's "possible". Further, only one guy can take Aussie and if you're not the guy who got dropped at least 2 of 4 plus perhaps a China and Siam or something, then it's not worth beating your head over. However, if that's the case, I think that you'd be much better off just roaming around and staying out of everyone's way rather than undertake some Quixotic mission to take and hold one of the big boys.

Keep in mind, this doesn't mean that the first person to take Aussie wins all the time. In my study, I looked at the eventual winner and checked out the first continent they ever held for at least a few turns. Mind you, often times the winner also happened to be the first person to hold Aussie. However, some of the times it was a player who seemingly employed the tactic I'm suggesting and took Aussie with their first major move of the game. Even if that move was well into it.

So you completely agree with me, why the long post then?

You've got a very creative interpretation of "completely agree"

Well, about half of your post was not at all relevant to what I had posted and what you seemed to be wanting to reply to, so I ignored that part. Why pay attention to something that's not relevant?

Well, truth be told, here's the breakdown:
You said you shouldn't go after any continent that you can't easily get. That's pretty much where our agreement ends.

You went on to say, "take the one that's easiest for you to get and hold on to it". I don't agree with that and said as much when I said, if you don't get dropped one of the easy ones, it's likely better to just stay out of the way than try in vain to take a bigger continent. That, sir, is not the same thing.

You also made a point of illustrating the problems with holding Aussie. That would imply that it's not as good as people claim. Thing is, it is as good as people claim as illustrated by how often the eventual winner's first continent held is Aussie.

Sorry.

Do I understand you correctly? Unless you get a drop of 2 or better in Australia or SA you can forget about taking a continent at all, even if you have 6 territories in NA. No way, don't go for North America, it's by definition not an easy continent, don't even try to take it, much less hold it. Do you really want to make that claim?
I have been talking about flat rate and no cards games btw, I'm not much of an escalating person. If that wasn't clear and you were referring to escalating games that statement would make at least a little sense. Otherwise you're telling those who weren't lucky enough to get a good drop on a small continent that they might just as well deadbeat because they have next to no chance of winning anyway, and that, sir, makes no sense at all.

"plan your game from there" is hardly the same as "hold on to [the continent]", implicitly at all costs (oh yes, I can overinterpret what the other person writes as well as you). I've seen a few situations where it was more beneficial to give up the continent(s) you had held for a large part of the game and move elsewhere.

Me pointing out some problems with Australia means that I'm pointing out some problems with Australia, while some people seem to deny that there are any at all and that holding Australia guarantees victory. You're doing a lot of interpreting there, my dear.

Apology accepted.

Well, I'm just going to let this one go. Partially because we're at a bit of stalemate, and partially because you've proven before that you won't relent even when faced with undeniable facts.

Remember the referenced argument about holding Europe?

Where you claimed that holding Europe is easier than people think, and I said I almost never see it my games and you said...

It has happened practically every time I've played on the classic map.

Then I researched your games and found that, not only did people rarely win from that position, those who took it rarely managed to hold on to it because of the constant attacks I said were inevitable.

Of course, that's where the semantics came in...

Despite the fact that the discussion was in the strategy forum so, the implication was whether or not it was remotely strategic to undertake, you just argued that somebody did, in fact, take Europe (though even that wasn't really true) and the fact that they were rarely able to actually hold it and routinely got bludgeoned, thus losing the game had no bearing on the discussion.

So, whatever, I know you pride yourself on this kind of BS version of debating...

Here's the link in case you forget

Fine, if you feel you need to dig up old threads instead of clarifying your less than lucid thesis in this one, be my guest.

MeDeFe wrote:Fine, if you feel you need to dig up old threads instead of clarifying your less than lucid thesis in this one, be my guest.

OK, what the hell, I'll clarify. See, rather than discuss things that almost never happen, like getting dropped 6 spots in NA, I prefer to discuss the topic in how it relates to how the game is typically played. I mean, what's the point of discussing how one should handle the amazingly good fortune of being dropped a profitable continent with only 3 borders?

So, I guess I should be mostly apologizing for giving you more credit than you seemingly deserved and trying to debate this within the realm of situations that actually occur more than once in a blue moon.

So, assuming that you don't get dropped one of these bigger continents, yes, I absolutely don't bother going for one. For all the same reasons why I don't assume that I'm going to get 6s all the time when I attack. See, I have this silly habit of forming strategy based on how best to handle situations that aren't completely lucky.

As for the Aussie thing. You're making the very common mistake that one must expand from Aussie to make it pay off. The reality is, if you look into the games won by players who held it, is that they were able to put a big enough number down there so that nobody messed with them and were then able to drop the 5 instead of 3 they were earning elsewhere and attack from other spots of the globe.

None the less, it didn't take much interpretation. You see, every time somebody shows the data about how successful players are from Aussie, somebody, usually you has to come along and contest it. Go ahead. Just understand that the best you're going to come up with are these once in a blue moon situations that you use like a crutch. Obviously we will concede that in those very rare and specific cases, you're correct and you'll get some pathetic satisfaction in this.

So when is it profitable to go for an other continent then, oh great master of strategy? Should everyone hang back while the two who got Australia and SA battle it out?
You have done nothing to clarify, so far you have claimed that getting Aussie is almost tantamount to 100% chance of winning the game. "Get it and be done", seems to be what you're telling us inferior cretins. Please, I beg you, give us unworthy ones some details, how would you deal with the oh so hypothetical situation that never occurs of 3 or 4 other players holding continents on the classic map? Because surely they would never decide not to fight each other to the death if someone else is already holding a continent.