Maintaining Supremacy from Africa in a 2.1 game

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Hey everyone! This is my first time posting here so go easy on me. I've been playing here for about 4 months.

I wanted to discuss how to maintain supremacy in a 2.1 game. If this has been covered elsewhere, excuse me.

I find (as do others) that going for Africa is hands-down the easiest approach to become the biggest, baddest boy on the block, with Oceania a second pick... in one game, I've got BOTH.

The problem is, of course, that unless you've got fog of war on, everyone will (rightfully) gang up on you once you've attained said supremacy.

My question to you all is: what do you do to retain that supremacy, and to make it good, so you don't end up ripped apart by the lesser powers of the world? Do you go full-bore on the second most powerful player? Do you peck at outlying territories?

BTW, this is assuming that the cards are flat rate or just no cards.

Cheers...

[detlef]

Hey everyone! This is my first time posting here so go easy on me. I've been playing here for about 4 months.

I wanted to discuss how to maintain supremacy in a 2.1 game. If this has been covered elsewhere, excuse me.

I find (as do others) that going for Africa is hands-down the easiest approach to become the biggest, baddest boy on the block, with Oceania a second pick... in one game, I've got BOTH.

The problem is, of course, that unless you've got fog of war on, everyone will (rightfully) gang up on you once you've attained said supremacy.

My question to you all is: what do you do to retain that supremacy, and to make it good, so you don't end up ripped apart by the lesser powers of the world? Do you go full-bore on the second most powerful player? Do you peck at outlying territories?

BTW, this is assuming that the cards are flat rate or just no cards.

Cheers...

For starters, I don't entirely agree with your claim that Africa is best (will get to that) but as for Oceania being a second pick? Not a freaking chance. Oceania is horrible.

One of the core elements in determining how advantageous a continent is to hold is what the pay out to borders ratio. Assuming that you are holding no territories outside of the bonus area, they are as follows:

North America: 16 armies at deployment, 4 borders (4)
South America: 13 armies at deployment, 3 borders (4.33)
Europe: 15, 4 (3.75)
Asia: Well, forget Asia
Africa: 23,5 (4.6)
Oceania: 13,4 (3.25)

So, based on that alone, Oceania has the worst ratio. Why is this important? Because if the game settles into a build phase, the better your number, the faster you build on your defenses, and the better shape you'll be in when WWIII erupts.

Based on this, Africa and South America have the lead. However, depending on what's going on in North America, the guy in South America can very easily improve his number rather drastically.

To begin with, holding just SA means you are one territory short of earning another army. Thus, harmlessly taking, say Chilean Claim, bumps your payday to 14 which pushes your ratio past that of the guy in Africa. Additionally, doing so does not limit your ability to attack in the south because, unlike Oceania and Africa, you have two Antarctic borders so your big troops will not be buried behind a one army holding. Also, the guys in Africa and Oceania would have to hold two spots each down there in order to get the same extra guy.

Even better, if you can set your northern border at Mexico rather than Columbia, you add another 3 territories and 2 bonus (3 more troops at deployment) without requiring another border. That means you get to add nearly 6 troops per border, per round.

Africa, on the other hand, doesn't have such a convenient way to easily expand without taking on additional borders. Yes, you can push into the middle east and add 7 armies without more borders, but that's nowhere near as easy as simply taking 3 linear countries.

As for Oceania, besides the horrible bonus to borders ratio, you have the unfortunate position of having one random territory (Hawaii) that is important to your complete bonus, standing in the way of whomever is holding Far East and Central America. Not very fun.

Of course, this is not the only factor to consider, but it is a big enough one to at least question the first part of your original point and completely refute the second part (Oceania being 2nd best).

[Itrade]

I like going for Scandinavia.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Hmm, detlef, interesting food for thought. Hadn't thought of it in those terms. However, while the ratio might be superior, the benefit of holding Africa in sheer number of armies far outweighs what SA offers, even with CA thrown in. Also, I find consolidating Africa easier than SA - fewer borders for Southern Africa with a higher yield. However, I don't dispute the validity of your claim.

Let me ask - once you've gotten SA & CA, where do you go from there? The rest of North America, or make a push for West Africa?

Similarly, from an African perspective, what do you tend to hit next?

[BaldAdonis]

If you're playing in fog, you're less likely to degrade into a build game. I've always tried to snap up small regions around the board, then from there decide which continent is best to take. This has benefits in terms of advancing later in the game to another continent, where you are already entrenched, in giving you more information about the board, and giving out more confusing information in the log.

You shouldn't corner yourself by picking a continent to start from before the game begins, and you shouldn't corner yourself by exclusively attacking one continent. The bonuses for holding it all aren't that great, and often you make yourself a target by doing so.

Following detlef, here's Asia:
26 at deployment, 9 borders (2.88)
which would seem even worse than Australia. But if no one wants these two, then together you have
39 at deployment, 9 borders (4.33)
and only one Antarctic territory from 40 at deployment.

Now, since 6 of 16 bonus regions are in those two, it's not as hard as you might think to start building up there and take both continents (especially when you play people who think the other 4 continents are the greatest on earth).

[detlef]

Hmm, detlef, interesting food for thought. Hadn't thought of it in those terms. However, while the ratio might be superior, the benefit of holding Africa in sheer number of armies far outweighs what SA offers, even with CA thrown in. Also, I find consolidating Africa easier than SA - fewer borders for Southern Africa with a higher yield. However, I don't dispute the validity of your claim.

Let me ask - once you've gotten SA & CA, where do you go from there? The rest of North America, or make a push for West Africa?

Similarly, from an African perspective, what do you tend to hit next?

Once again, "sheer number of armies" only help you keep from getting killed, not from "dominating the board". Massive armies on your fronts is what's most important there.

So, you have Africa, and I have SA plus CA and one spot in the Antarctic.

Let's say we begin with 10 armies each on our defending borders. Assuming nothing major happens for 3 turns, and we're forced to evenly defend all of our borders, at that point, I'd have 27 on NE Brazil and you'd have 24. Not a huge difference but it could add up over time.

Also, I know at least I often take into account how hard somebody is to bust up and what it will cost them. For instance, I'm less likely to go after a big army defending a smaller bonus than I am to go after a smaller army defending a big bonus. So, your 24 armies guarding Africa are going to be a much more likely target for attack than my 27 guarding SA.

Keep in mind, that I'm not saying that SA is hands down better than Africa, rather that the ratios imply that it might be the case. The only place I was really disagreeing with you was on Oceania, which I think sucks on a number of levels.

As for your question as to where to head from there. I mentioned earlier that the Middle East is an obvious place to branch to is the Middle East. Once again, once you hold it, you're not adding any new borders to defend. Also, if you go through Yemen, you can clear out that and Oman and stop in Saudi, which is just as effective as Somalia in protecting your core bonus area. Then, when you've got the juice, you can push to Turkey and Iran (which work as well as Levant and Somalia). The nice thing from there is that you can hit Europe, Far East, Russia, or Indian Sub continent rather easily.

At any rate, that's how I would play it from Africa.

[detlef]

If you're playing in fog, you're less likely to degrade into a build game. I've always tried to snap up small regions around the board, then from there decide which continent is best to take. This has benefits in terms of advancing later in the game to another continent, where you are already entrenched, in giving you more information about the board, and giving out more confusing information in the log.

You shouldn't corner yourself by picking a continent to start from before the game begins, and you shouldn't corner yourself by exclusively attacking one continent. The bonuses for holding it all aren't that great, and often you make yourself a target by doing so.

Following detlef, here's Asia:
26 at deployment, 9 borders (2.88)
which would seem even worse than Australia. But if no one wants these two, then together you have
39 at deployment, 9 borders (4.33)
and only one Antarctic territory from 40 at deployment.

Now, since 6 of 16 bonus regions are in those two, it's not as hard as you might think to start building up there and take both continents (especially when you play people who think the other 4 continents are the greatest on earth).

The next game I play where somebody was able to take all of Asia, let alone couple that with Oceania, will be the first.

[BaldAdonis]

The next game I play where somebody was able to take all of Asia, let alone couple that with Oceania, will be the first.

You know there's a link there. I could give another example as well, but somebody from Africa suicided on me, so I don't hold them anymore. He's dead though, and I'm not.

*edit* I had a look at your games, and you've only played two singles where people would be taking continents (no cards/flat rate). Fire up a few more and you might see it happen.

[yeti_c]

Dude - you wanna take Moskva - that drops your borders by 3...

C.

[detlef]

You know there's a link there. I could give another example as well, but somebody from Africa suicided on me, so I don't hold them anymore. He's dead though, and I'm not.

I didn't say it couldn't be done, just that it seems quite unlikely and I'm honestly surprised that nobody has gone through borders of armies in the low teens that protect such a massive bonus.

Green's the only player on that board who's got little incentive to do so since he'd only earning 10 less than you despite having way less borders to defend. Frankly, I'd rather be him than you there even though you're out earning him.

That brings up the next point, as much as I like SA, I really, really like SA+NA. In fact, in doubles, that's the only way to fly. My partner and I fight like hell for those two spots and typically ride that to victory.

[detlef]

Dude - you wanna take Moskva - that drops your borders by 3...

C.

And then there's that. If you're holding Asia, you really need to go after that. Especially since doing so doesn't open you up to that big army in Poland.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Very interesting food for thought, Detlef and Baldadonis. Baldadonis, yes, in fog of war games I've worked from Oceania to Asia and taken the game 3 times. Never have I done that in a non-fog game... although I've seen some craft folks build up a huge base that way while the Europe and Africa players quibbled.

I've rarely seen an SA-based player take anything. Not saying it can't happen; obviously it has, as Detlef points out. I'm actually employing this very strategy right now in a 2.1 game... working on mopping up NA at this minute. We'll see where I go from there...

[BaldAdonis]

Dude - you wanna take Moskva - that drops your borders by 3...

C.

And then there's that. If you're holding Asia, you really need to go after that. Especially since doing so doesn't open you up to that big army in Poland.

I'm not that anxious to decrease my border count; army size is what really matters. As long as Fitz is going to sit back and build, and red doesn't have the armies to make a move, I'm not going to spoil my lead by jumping into Europe.

[MeDeFe]

Keeping huge armies on your borders is also not always the best way to go wince that will make you look aggressive and might cause the other players to strike preemptively at you, I prefer to keep a medium sized stack at the front and a large on behind to retaliate with, sure, it's easier for an other player to break your bonus, but the implicit threat of retaliation will usually keep the others from doing it.

[Dr_Demento]

Very interesting food for thought, Detlef and Baldadonis. Baldadonis, yes, in fog of war games I've worked from Oceania to Asia and taken the game 3 times. Never have I done that in a non-fog game... although I've seen some craft folks build up a huge base that way while the Europe and Africa players quibbled.

I've rarely seen an SA-based player take anything. Not saying it can't happen; obviously it has, as Detlef points out. I'm actually employing this very strategy right now in a 2.1 game... working on mopping up NA at this minute. We'll see where I go from there...

You can see the asia stratagey happening in this game
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=1851397
as you can see he's setting himself up to take all of oceana and asia at the same time. I went the S.America route because frankly, I had more to start with there.

[detlef]

Keeping huge armies on your borders is also not always the best way to go wince that will make you look aggressive and might cause the other players to strike preemptively at you, I prefer to keep a medium sized stack at the front and a large on behind to retaliate with, sure, it's easier for an other player to break your bonus, but the implicit threat of retaliation will usually keep the others from doing it.

That doesn't effect the advantage of holding areas that pay a high ratio of armies to borders defended.

[MeDeFe]

Keeping huge armies on your borders is also not always the best way to go wince that will make you look aggressive and might cause the other players to strike preemptively at you, I prefer to keep a medium sized stack at the front and a large on behind to retaliate with, sure, it's easier for an other player to break your bonus, but the implicit threat of retaliation will usually keep the others from doing it.

That doesn't effect the advantage of holding areas that pay a high ratio of armies to borders defended.

To some degree it does, since it's often possible to have one stack as backup for two or sometimes even three border territories.

[detlef]

Keeping huge armies on your borders is also not always the best way to go wince that will make you look aggressive and might cause the other players to strike preemptively at you, I prefer to keep a medium sized stack at the front and a large on behind to retaliate with, sure, it's easier for an other player to break your bonus, but the implicit threat of retaliation will usually keep the others from doing it.

That doesn't effect the advantage of holding areas that pay a high ratio of armies to borders defended.

To some degree it does, since it's often possible to have one stack as backup for two or sometimes even three border territories.

OK then, my beloved South America contains one of the few places where on secondary defense position backs up two borders. Amazona backs up both NE Brazil and Columbia. Baltics, I believe does the same for Moskva and Greece, but there aren't many more. So, now if you want to equally distribute your deployment on primary and secondary defense spots, that makes SA even better than Africa because you can do so with 1/2 rather than 60% of the number of territories.

[Plutoman]

I just wanted to point out something in the flaws of going by border armies only - more than one army can attack another.

If you get more troops, regardless of more borders, you'll still be able to bring to bear more men than the other.

Now, if the ratio is too high, it's too easy to be broken, but you need to consider this too.

Personally, I really like SA - though competition with NA can frequently get fierce, I've noticed.

[gp24176281]

You know there's a link there. I could give another example as well, but somebody from Africa suicided on me, so I don't hold them anymore. He's dead though, and I'm not.

I didn't say it couldn't be done, just that it seems quite unlikely and I'm honestly surprised that nobody has gone through borders of armies in the low teens that protect such a massive bonus.

Green's the only player on that board who's got little incentive to do so since he'd only earning 10 less than you despite having way less borders to defend. Frankly, I'd rather be him than you there even though you're out earning him.

That brings up the next point, as much as I like SA, I really, really like SA+NA. In fact, in doubles, that's the only way to fly. My partner and I fight like hell for those two spots and typically ride that to victory.

My 2 pennies,

Since I like playing singles and play alot of World 2.1, I saw many times that Chaina + Russia + India + Oceania are taken. This bonus area is protected by 5 borders (MOSCOW, IRAN, SAKHA, HAWAII, W. AUSTRALIA) and yields more than 35 armies / round.
Moreover, Since Europe and Middle-East are hard to protect - this bonus zone have very low friction with enemy forces.
In other words, Asia might seem a bad spot at first glance. But, for my humble opinion, Asia is one of the best spots to be running for victory from (starting with conquering Oceania). Saw it happen, did it myself (and actually have one running game that is close to achieve that).

As for detlef claim regarding S. America, N. America. All is true, but the fact that Central America is giving to both the S. America holder and the N. America holder, a huge strategic benefit, is the main problem with these 2 bonus zones. The 2 players are bound to clash in this border damaging each other constantly.

And reffering back to Africa - again, mathematics is a powerfull tool. Yet, usually ppl who attack Africa are only breaching it and not conquering it (due to its shear size and "out of the way" location). Thus, Africa is a very good candidate for being "best location" in World 2.1.

Summary - I believe Africa and (India+Chaina+Russia) are the best bonus zones in the World 2.1 map (singles game). From my experience, the winner usually start at these bonus zones.
One remark is in order. All that is written reffer to singles games. Dbl games are another story and S. America + N. America held by a team is extremely strong position (Due to the lack of friction in Central America border).

gp

[BaldAdonis]

Dude - you wanna take Moskva - that drops your borders by 3...

I did that.... it didn't work out. 4 borders is fine by me.

Green's the only player on that board who's got little incentive to do so since he'd only earning 10 less than you despite having way less borders to defend. Frankly, I'd rather be him than you there even though you're out earning him.

That brings up the next point, as much as I like SA, I really, really like SA+NA.

Some new developments in Game 1618680 (it moves slow, we're in round 91 now).
Defending fewer territories didn't help the SA + NA holder at all. When he finally made a move from one of them (Mexico -> Hawaii), I had enough at the other (Sakha -> Alaska) to break up NA, SA and take back Hawaii. Now I hold almost all of it. More armies beats fewer borders.

[Crazyirishman]

Africa is easy to aquire but difficult to expand from. If you manage to gain the continential bonus you have to chip away at surrounding areas i.e. Parana, Austraila, Middle East and stack with depth like crazy to have a shot.

[redhawk92]

Africa is easy to aquire but difficult to expand from. If you manage to gain the continential bonus you have to chip away at surrounding areas i.e. Parana, Austraila, Middle East and stack with depth like crazy to have a shot.

this makes sense

[sully800]

My 2 pennies,

Since I like playing singles and play alot of World 2.1, I saw many times that Chaina + Russia + India + Oceania are taken. This bonus area is protected by 5 borders (MOSCOW, IRAN, SAKHA, HAWAII, W. AUSTRALIA) and yields more than 35 armies / round.
Moreover, Since Europe and Middle-East are hard to protect - this bonus zone have very low friction with enemy forces.
In other words, Asia might seem a bad spot at first glance. But, for my humble opinion, Asia is one of the best spots to be running for victory from (starting with conquering Oceania). Saw it happen, did it myself (and actually have one running game that is close to achieve that).

As for detlef claim regarding S. America, N. America. All is true, but the fact that Central America is giving to both the S. America holder and the N. America holder, a huge strategic benefit, is the main problem with these 2 bonus zones. The 2 players are bound to clash in this border damaging each other constantly.

And reffering back to Africa - again, mathematics is a powerfull tool. Yet, usually ppl who attack Africa are only breaching it and not conquering it (due to its shear size and "out of the way" location). Thus, Africa is a very good candidate for being "best location" in World 2.1.

Summary - I believe Africa and (India+Chaina+Russia) are the best bonus zones in the World 2.1 map (singles game). From my experience, the winner usually start at these bonus zones.
One remark is in order. All that is written reffer to singles games. Dbl games are another story and S. America + N. America held by a team is extremely strong position (Due to the lack of friction in Central America border).

gp

That is one of the best summaries of World 2.1 I have ever read, and I certainly agree. I think the best bonus zone is the East Asia/Ocenia combination. You either begin in Australia, expand to Oceania and head North, or you quickly grab India/China and do the reverse. It is very hard for Oceania and Asia players to coexist, so I find that most commonly one player gets to hold both.

As you said, North and South America are both great, except you are guaranteed to have in-fighting between two players over Central America. If you can hold both continents you are set, but if a player is strong in one of them you have a difficult road for expansion.

Africa is a perfect continent. relatively secluded, and hard to hold any bonus unless you hold the whole thing. This means that a person might break your continent at one point, but they usually won't try to hold South Africa while you maintain the North. Expansion can be difficult (Europe and SA are both tough sells) but Middle East is easier to hold from Africa than anywhere else. Middle East greatly expands an the Asian borders, but makes no change to the number of Africa borders, so it is quite easy to secure. From that point (Africa+Middle East) you have garnered a large enough bonus that you can overpower any SA or European position. Your only issue will be if Oceania and East Asia has fallen to a single player, as already discussed.

[AAFitz]

I think the most important thing to remember, as with any map, the key to winning, will probably not be what territory you aim for. There is no territory that can overcome 3 players that all attack you every turn. The key is taking the one that makes the most sense for your particular drop, and adjusting to what the other players are doing. If someone else wants africa, and are willing to spend everything to get it, then its a very bad place to be.

Its a big enough map, that there's usually enough space for everyone to make a home...by all means make a big one if you can get away with it, but not at the expense of a turf war that will ultimately kill you every time.

I honestly think that the best bonuses to take are the ones that no one else seems to want in the game at that particular time, with those particular places and then wait for them to all kill each other and make your move. This of course changes to varying degrees with which spoils you are playing with. In general, let the game tell you where to go, it almost always does, and fighting against that, almost always gets you killed.