Taking neutral territories

[Baron Von PWN]

I have often seen it argued here that taking neutral territoreis is a waste of time and resources, but what if a Player drops from the game leaving many territories with one army on them Is it still a waste of time to snap these up? or should all efforts be concentrated on active opponents?

[MeDeFe]

I have often seen it argued here that taking neutral territoreis is a waste of time and resources, but what if a Player drops from the game leaving many territories with one army on them Is it still a waste of time to snap these up? or should all efforts be concentrated on active opponents?

It depends. If it's becoming a long drawn out game taking those extra territories could well be worth it, especially if there's a huge stack of neutrals at a chokepoint that will prevent anyone else from getting them. (And especially especially in no cards and flat rate.)

[Baron Von PWN]

I have often seen it argued here that taking neutral territoreis is a waste of time and resources, but what if a Player drops from the game leaving many territories with one army on them Is it still a waste of time to snap these up? or should all efforts be concentrated on active opponents?

It depends. If it's becoming a long drawn out game taking those extra territories could well be worth it, especially if there's a huge stack of neutrals at a chokepoint that will prevent anyone else from getting them. (And especially especially in no cards and flat rate.)

This was my line of thinking as well, it's nice to see it confirmed by someone with more experience. thanks

[shadistic]

It's just a question of which will benefit you more: denying an opponent a few extra armies per turn, or getting a new bonus for yourself.

And then you need to bring the costs in. If they would cost the same, you generally want to go after the opponent, because that kicks in instantly whereas taking a new bonus has a 1-turn lag and during that time might be taken from you. But if you have enough armies to protect the new territories, it's often a good idea to take them if you're not openly fighting anyone.

If the chokepoint on the neutrals is smaller than that of an opponent, conquering the neutrals is definitely the way to go. Just make sure it's not likely that the opponent will go after you in turn.

Non-escalating games are often contests of who holds the most bonuses. There's a tradeoff between getting more sure territories for yourself and depriving the other players of theirs. The latter is a bit more reliable, but leaves you reliant on taking as many territories as possible in order to get your new troops.

[jleonnn]

This strategy of not taking neutrals is not logical on some maps. Take City Mogul for example. Fuedal war, the age of realms series and WWII Poland are examples of maps where you HAVE to attack neutrals. If I attack butchery, dru then rabbit farm, in aor2, starting neutrals, i would get 9 troops the next turn... Some maps, you really do have to break that rule. Or perhaps if you have to attack one more neutral to obtain a large bonus that you are able to keep, by all means, go for it!

[zimmah]

there are exceptions to all rules off course, the worst thing you can do is being predictable.

do what your opponents least suspect you to do (as long as it's not suicidal)

as a rule of thumb, it's often best to let the neutrals fight for you (they make up great free 'shields' more often then not.

tho, like said above, it's often a good thing to clear out some neutrals if you have to get a specific part of the map, or for specific reasons. also, sometimes if people rely too much on the protection from neutrals, you can break through them, and strike them in an unsuspected area, and also, in foggy lands it's sometimes handy to kill some neutrals just to see more area's.

it realy depends on a lot of things.