Every game is complicated, usually with multiple factors leading to a win or loss. The sole purpose of showing the previous game was to demonstrate what I meant in the OP and how it can help. It's not a Silver Bullet which will win you every game. You can debate whether or not that move 'won' the game or whether he could have beaten me anyway. But that move certainly helped me and hurt him. It also is not what most people would do right there, they'd go for the South Africa bonus.
Here is another game where the concept in the OP played a big role:https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10994428
Turn 1: I went to Kenya and Egypt to give me visibility and to setup advances outward in Turn 2. Going to Mexico is standard here but that also setup going to Cuba in turn 2 (to see if he was in East US). So three moves here, all searching for him.
Turn 2: I decided to take the Central America bonus instead of expanding North or South in Africa, to search for him. That's a difficult tradeoff and I would have preferred to search for him instead. I did go into Cuba which setup me going into East US to look for him. I only attacked Cuba with 3 armies because he could not have gotten that far yet.
Turn 3: This is where I really go hunting. I only use a 3v2 on the West Africa bonus, most people would probably go hard on that bonus here. I instead send 4 armies each into East US, Antaractica and Middle East. 4 because if he uses a 3v2 on the same territory, I'll win. I'm not going for bonuses here, these are all searching for him. If I find him in one, then I can probably take the bonus later in the other 2, but that's not the goal right now. I want to find him.
Turn 4: I spend a few armies on the West Africa bonus but this is still largely a hunting turn. I send another 4 into East US. At this point, I'm pretty sure he's not in East US, but I'm checking to see if he's in Canada. I'm not going to take East US until I know he isn't in Canada. I ignore the South Africa bonus and head straight through to Antarctica, again with 4 in case he tries to complete that bonus with a 3v2. If he's not in Antractica, I'm going to head straight through to Australia looking for him. These bonuses are a secondary consideration right now. I also send 6 armies into Turkey, setting up to go hard into Iran in turn 5. Taking the Middle East isn't even on my mind. Using this strategy rarely results in taking the Middle East, given how many popular picks are in that area. It's all about doing a lot of damage from Iran and/or Turkey -- and protecting my Africa income.
Turn 5: We had the same idea on Iran. He made the mistake of not putting in his attack first, so I held it. I kept advancing in both Antarctica and East US. That 6v4 in East US was pretty risky, I'd like not to have done that. But it gave me visibility into Canada and set me up to take the bonus.
At this point we met and were fighting in the Middle East and Canada so this concept doesn't apply. Except for what I was doing in Canada, which turned out to be really important. I kept advancing with 4v2's in the most efficient manner possible to find him. My goal was to break through Alaska and hopefully find him on the other side. I'd take Canada later and probably slowly. That doesn't work out as we met. And when we did, he was attacking 3v2's trying to take the bonus, instead of trying to find me. If he had sent those 6 armies (or even 4) straight toward East US, I'd have been in a much worse position.
Again, you can debate all sorts of aspects of that game. The point is that if he had been using this concept, it would have been much better for him. And if I had not been using it, that would have been much worse for me. It helped me and hurt him.
Edited 4/20/2016 04:36:47