Result of last turn net +1 gain and a loss of 5 income -- despite drama, loading up on Brazil unneccessary.

I agree with Eitz that the blockade is the obvious course of action. I forgot it's percentage boost, but I think a stack of between 16 and 21 would be sufficient. What does 5 yield us?

I agree taking Greenland is essential. We have time to work on Canada afterwards. The extra 2 in Greenland can join up with the stranded 1 and try to take that spot in Canada in 3 turns. If we decide to Go for Canada that should work out timing wise.

I see no point in a delay card. On the contrary we have a chance to net up nicely if we attack first in SA. Depending on what we blockade with, we either have 1 or 2 left after putting 6 into taking Greenland.

With 29 armies, we have to try and take SA. Imp will use his 12 to prevent us. Defending with 18 is a bad choice as it's insufficient to stop the stack. He might try it anyway, but I doubt it. That leaves Defending Columbia and/or trying for Argentina. I think Imp will probably put 12 into Columbia, 1st move slide the 5 in Venesuela over to reinforce, then use a delay (card or lots of smaller moves out of that stack in Antartica (which he knows is unneccessarily large, or both), and then attack all 3 spots in SA with 2. I would do the same thing, except I would be more sparing with the attacks with 2 (I might forego them all together).

If Imp follows this plan, our best move would be a first move big attack into Columbia. We get whatever he deploys there plus the defensive crush on the transfer if were first (or the elimination if were not).

I like going with no more than 4 on the blockade (total 5) so we can attack with 30 -- better number than 29. 31 would be even better, but I don't know if blockading with only 4 is enough.

Those are my initial thoughts, but I want to keep thinking about it.

I still don't see use of blocking card and I am strongly against it. Do you want to defend S.A. bonus with it ?
If we have S.A. bonus together with grenland we will not need blockade to defend. We will have enough force to defend it anyway.
What Duke suggested is similar to my moves and I like it. Only difference is in blockade card.
Blockade card:
1) As it work to block him, it will block us also. Why would we want that if we are stronger at the battlefield, as it is the case?
2) We will still have to defend S.A. bonus from north.
3) We are going away from s. africa(assume his next bonus) and e. africa(his present bonus)
4) We can not use our force from S.A. to enter africa since we will need it to defend from C. America

Anyway, if we block our self from him he will have a chance to start spread and take bonuses. We should win this anyway, whatever we move(if it makes sense :)), but why let him spread and take bonuses when we can keep the fight here.

Zaeban -- you need to show your work and explain how we have the ability to stop him from taking Antartica without a blockade. I don't see it and your repeated assertions without back-up do nothing to shed light on the mystery.

Denying him that +3 bonus is easy and cheap with the blockade. It's so obvious that we built it into our assumptions when we decided to not defend Antartica against Imp's stack attack (leaving him with 19 armies out of position).

Read my first post.

I just looked more closely at Zaeban's sugegsted move and it is similar to what I am considering:

Take Greenland, Blockade Antartica and Attempt to Take South America [with or without the delay card)

Deploy 4 to Siple, 2 to Brazil, 6 to Kangerlussuaq. Attack Colombia with 22 from Brazil. Attack Qaanaaq with 7 from Kangerlussuaq. Transfer to Kangerlussuaq with 2 from Danmark Havn. Transfer to Danmark Havn with 1 from from Nuuk. [DELAY CARD?]. Attack Venezuela with 8 from Brazil. Blockade Siple.

I went back and checked, blockades are 3.51%. So adding 3 will leave 14 and adding 4 would leave 18. Tough call. I could go either way. If we go 14, then I would add the extra one to the attack on Columbia to make it for 23.

BTW: HAS SOMEONE CHECKED TO CONFIRM IMP DOESN"T HAVE A REINFORCEMENT CARD THIS TURN? AFTER TWO WEEKS I HAVE NO IDEA. IF HE DOES THEN NEW PLAN.

I actually like that a lot Duke, except that I would for sure go with at least +4 for the blockade as I just don't think 14's gonna do a whole lot to him when he already has 20 there if he doesn't put another man on. I think it makes it too juicy an opportunity for him to crack the blockade (gives his trapped stack something useful to do instead of turning around back to Africa), take Antarctica and be on our border in S America. This is also why I made it +5 in my #4 to blockade it to 21 to make it far less appealing to him. Ironically, other than numerical values, your idea is almost identical in move structure to Option #4 and I could definitely find myself agreeing with you on Impaller's likely intent of putting 12 on Colombia and shifting from Venezuela and those values potentially needing to be tweaked. I also agree with you that it wouldn't be necessary to use the Delay Card if we're planning on going with this turn option as it will be more important for us to get the first move to Colombia and anything after shouldn't matter much if Impaller acts as we suspect he might.

Not sure about the Reinforce Card, will look into it.

Why is it noone likes the idea of gaining between +10 and +15 armies income the next 3 turns while at the same time denying Impaller Antarctica, South America and West Africa?

Diabolicus: we simply don't have the armies to repel his stack of 20 in Antarctica at this point in time. We only make +12 per turn right now (+17 after we take Greenland) so there's just no mathematical way we can do everything you're suggesting we do without the +351% boost that the Blockade Card offers us.

The point of getting Brazil wasn't to take South America. It was to deny him room to expand. We needed an entry point to Africa. Now we have it. Even if we can beat him in both spots in South America, we won't get the bonus this turn, because there's still the neutral in the center. And he'll border us on two spots in Central America. If we expect him to put a bunch of armies in South America - and I think we do - then why not trap them out of position, while we move a big chunk of our Brazilian armies towards Congo? I think I'd move about 15 armies from Brazil to East Africa, take Greenland, and blockade the western side of Antarctica. It's also worth noting that he may actually retreat some of the Antarctica armies, knowing we're likely to blockade, so he can take South Africa next turn.

I agree on the likely retreat to SA. I considered it as the only possible rationale for Zaeban's plan of foregoing the blockade. Basically you bet that Imp will retreat enough troops to make defense a possibility. I still don't like it because it bets on Imp not heading sending all or nearly all of the stack south (which I think is still a very viable option). Also even if he sends a smaller number like 15, we'd still be facing a bigger stack attack next turn (possibly augmented with a card).

Seems like Imp has been droppign 12 every turn for awhile now. I think he gets it this turn or he got it and cleverly deployed just those 5 elsewhere to work on another bonus.

I'm pretty confident he just got a reinforcement card for this turn.

From what we can see, he was likely 2 turns behind us which would put him at getting the card at the end of last turn.

Yeah -- that's what i thought. Need to think about him having 17 vs 12 this turn then. Too bad we didn't take Greenland last turn...

With 17, Imp has more options and we need to think more about spreading our attacks in SA. Suppose he just sits with 23 in Venesuela? My plan would likely lead to a net -3, more or less equal stacks in SA and arguably a worse position (Brazil is better than Columbia).

Given the income disparity this turn, I don't think my plan is that great. I see two wiser strategies in SA: (1) Make the first move an all out attack on Venesuela -- If he puts 100% there we net +1 or +2 and if he puts less than 100% we net up more, or (2) sit for a turn in SA and see what Imp does with his armies - he doesn't have enough to mount an attack and we can respond to the new situation better next turn when we have 17 income again.

Imp must be mighty tempted to go for another bonus this turn, so sitting squanders an opportunity. I think we go for the first move attack.

Duke: Please put down in orders what you feel the best scenario is and I'll add it to the vote list. I kind of get where you're going with what you're saying but would like to see it broken down to really wrap my head around it.

Ok -- here's the option I like in two varients:

Objective: Kill more than we lose for net army gain in SA, take Greenland, and blockade Antartica.

Deploy 4 to Siple, 2 to Brazil, 6 to Kangerlussuaq. Attack Venezuela with 30 from Brazil. Attack Qaanaaq with 7 from Kangerlussuaq. Transfer to Kangerlussuaq with 2 from Danmark Havn. Transfer to Danmark Havn with 1 from from Nuuk. Blockade Siple.

Objective: Set-up taking SA next turn and try for a net gain, take Greenland, and blockade Antartica.

Deploy 4 to Siple, 2 to Brazil, 6 to Kangerlussuaq. Attack Columbia with 30 from Brazil. Attack Qaanaaq with 7 from Kangerlussuaq. Transfer to Kangerlussuaq with 2 from Danmark Havn. Transfer to Danmark Havn with 1 from from Nuuk. Blockade Siple.

There's nothing subtle or tricky about this option. Just blasting the closest small stack with our large stack, picking up abonus and blockading to block him from getting one.

I'd also be ok with sending 30 at Columbia first move, but I feel that splitting up our stack this turn is a mistake given that Imp has 17 income to put into SA.

Duke, what are you hoping to accomplish in South America? Do you want to take the bonus? Are you trying to attack him because you think he's going to place armies there? I'm not sure I understand your goal here. My goal would be to get armies into Africa to break up one of his two (and possibly soon three) bonuses, and you don't seem to care about that one at all, so I'm just wondering if you've got something better in mind.

I've been paying closer attention than you. He has deployed 100% of his armies every turn where we can see them. He has 1 territory in Africa outside of EA -- the one connecting to Antartica. If he starts deploying armies elsewhere, then I would adjust my strategy to his new tactic.

We have had a higher income every turn except this one. And we are sacrificing armies on a blockade. We will recapture the income lead next turn, but we need to keep the pressure on him by devoting as much of our income to attacks on Imp as possible.

He either defends SA or we get it. If we get it we win. It's been that simple a since the first few turns.

I want to "win" every turn by having a larger increase in our total armies at the end of the turn than Imp has. How that happens doesn't much matter to me in this particular game. We lost 5 this turn by not taking Greenland. We lose 5 more next turn by blockading. Imp gets 5 extra via the card. I want to regain some of the lost ground by an opportune attack in SA.

It's very hard to lose if you gain armies every turn relative to your opponant. You keep favoring strategies that woudl make sense if we were even or behind. But we have an oppotunity to make Imp adjust his strategy to try and catch up to us. He's done a decent job by devoting 100% of his income to it all game. He got some small gains from good defense in SA, he got the bust in Antratica and he's held his bust in SA. We need to make some small gains against him now in SA, regain the income advantage and try to hold the momentum.

I wouldn't be surprised if he goes for a bonus soon, I assume in South Africa, but he hasn't done so yet. He'll probably pull back 8 armies from Antartica to accomplish that next turn and put 3 or 4 income into an attack from EA to set up taking SA next turn.

"I've been paying closer attention than you"

That's weird, I didn't think you were a dick. Why are you trying to change my mind?

"I want to "win" every turn by having a larger increase in our total armies at the end of the turn than Imp has. How that happens doesn't much matter to me in this particular game. We lost 5 this turn by not taking Greenland. We lose 5 more next turn by blockading. Imp gets 5 extra via the card. I want to regain some of the lost ground by an opportune attack in SA.

It's very hard to lose if you gain armies every turn relative to your opponant. You keep favoring strategies that woudl make sense if we were even or behind. But we have an oppotunity to make Imp adjust his strategy to try and catch up to us. He's done a decent job by devoting 100% of his income to it all game. He got some small gains from good defense in SA, he got the bust in Antratica and he's held his bust in SA. We need to make some small gains against him now in SA, regain the income advantage and try to hold the momentum. "

So your strategy is to win every turn by getting more income instead of taking risks. And the way you plan on doing it is by taking a risk with an "opportune" attack.

You don't care how we achieve your strategy. But we just loaded up last turn to make sure we got Brazil, and now you're willing to concede it for very little gain.

Imp got the bust in Antarctica. How did he do that again? Oh that's right, I kept telling you we needed to hit South Africa first, and we didn't, and he ended up with a big army there with nothing we could do about it.

You want to gain armies every turn relative to him. Now he can take the South Africa bonus, and you're willing to concede our only route into Africa so he can try to take West Africa, too.

You want to regain the income advantage, but when I asked you how we would do that by attacking South America, your answer was just that you were hoping to make a big attack with all those armies burning a hole in your pocket so you can make the "opportune" move by guessing at his moves on the turn he likely got a card.

You don't seem to have any interest in busting his bonuses, but you're dying to send a ton of armies right at him because you think that it might work.

None of that bothers me, really. I get that you play differently than I do. But don't pull that "I've been paying closer attention than you" nonsense - especially while you had to ask Eitz if he just got a card.

And please, please, please don't keep whining about how we didn't take Greenland, and how you're some super genius who never has to guess at what the other guy is doing, then come up with a plan to waste the armies we used NOT taking Greenland on some hopeful guess as to what he's going to do this turn while risking the position that was the whole point of not making the move you wanted.

Good day.