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.

Gotta say I agree with boston here, into Africa would be my top choice

Guys, keep in mind here this isn't a one person against another type of thing. Everyone is welcome to post their ideas and have them voted on by the general public and the top vote is the turn we proceed with. The democracy is the challenge and the beauty of this game. No person who posts on here (myself included) will get their idea picked 100% of the time and we will all need to adjust to that and be able to come up with a new set of ideas on a turn by turn basis.

Fred: I've already asked you for a detail of your plan of attack. I'll gladly add it to the vote list if you could draw something up for me to base it on.

Duke: I've added your ideas as per the description in your post.

Mediator role aside, my personal opinion is to agree with Duke in the fact that we have the army advantage over Imp in South America right now and we will have the income advantage back on him next turn and going into Africa right now only opens up the door for Imp to take South America behind us. Remember that Africa is ultimately a death trap with not a lot of great exits and not a ton of great bonuses inside either. If we can potentially knock Imp out of South America, we would gain huge ground for whatever we wanted to do from there and could easily march into Africa then unafraid of anything happening in behind us, even if he manages to bonus up in Africa in the meantime. Again, that is just my personal opinion. I think I might still like option #4 which splits up our attacks and tries for the sweep in South America but I hear Duke's logic in the load and hammer method as well with Imp having a reinforcement card...lotta options guys, we can't guess everything but I'm confident as a group we can beat this guy!

Ok, first let's see what we all agree upon:
We need Greenland, and we have to make sure we really get it this turn, so that binds 6 out of 12 armies. 6 remaining, and we need to invest them effectively.
Assuming Imp has 17 armies at his disposal, he outnumbers our reinforcements almost 3 to 1. Of course unless he reads our little discussion he won't be aware of that fact, he will most likely assume he is up against 12+x.

South America:
Imp has to assume we get at least 12 reinforcements.
We have 1 in Argentina and 29 in Brazil.
He has 1 in Columbia and 6 in Venezuela.

Scenario 1 - biggest stack vs biggest stack:
Imp's perspective:
We put 12 in Brazil, total 41. He puts 17 to Venezuela, total 23.
We attack with 40 vs 23 ->
99% chance of success
he loses 23
we lose 16.1
net gain = 7

World's perspective:
We put 6 in Brazil, total 35. He puts 17 to Venezuela, total 23.
We attack with 34 vs 23 ->
0% chance of success
we lose 16.1
he loses 20.4
net gain = 4

Scenario 2 - split forces vs split forces:
Imp's perspective:
We put 12 to Brazil and attack Col and Ven with 20 each and thus try to complete SA in this turn. Imp can put 11 to Col and 6 to Ven and have 12 in both of them (not very likely, I admit, but anyway).
We attack 2 times with 20 vs 12 ->
86% chance of success per attack; chance of both attacks succeeding = 74%
we lose 2x 8.4 = 17
he loses 2x 12.0 = 24
net gain = 7

World's perspective:
In order to complete SA, we have to take Bolivia as well. This binds another 4 of our reinforcements, leaving only 2 to put to Brazil for a total of 30. We attack Col and Ven with 15 each and thus try to complete SA. Imp can put 11 to Col and 6 to Ven and have 12 in both of them (not very likely, I admit, but anyway).
We attack 2 times with 15 vs 12 ->
0% chance of success per attack; chance of both attacks succeeding = 0%
we lose 2x 8.4 = 17
he loses 2x 9 = 18
net gain = 1

There are of course, endless more combinations thinkable, but for me this boils down to:
a) We don't yet have the strength to take Greenland AND SA at the same time.
b) As long as we attack with ~27+ we don't risk losing more armies than Imp.
c) If we split our forces now, we give up the advantage of having an unpredictable stack of armies, capable of taking any territory it wants.
d) If we don't split-attack, we can effectively deny him SA.

West Africa:
I half expected Imp to already be present in Nigeria. The fact that he is not, together with Lybia being a wasteland, tells us he is at least 2 turns away from completing West Africa, unless he took a detour around Nigeria through Niger to get to Ghana, which is absolutely not likely.
I therefore revise my earlier statement: as of now, it is not necessary to move into West Africa in force. It would be nice to do so in smaller numbers, so we can possibly threaten East Africa/South Africa in 2 turns, but taking Nigeria can wait another turn IF we leave enough troops in Brazil to outnumber him in West Africa next turn.

Central America:
Taking Ven or Col would bring us into a position to get into CA next turn, which always is a big plus.

Antarctica:
If we don't blockade now we WILL have to deploy troops there next turn, else he can take that bonus freely.

Conclusion:
....
I have no idea :-)

I think this is my preferred move. I definitely want to go into West Africa. The other bits are wide open for discussion:

Place 6 in Greenland
Place 4 in eastern Antarctica
Place 2 in southern Greenland

Attack with 12 from Brazil into West Africa
Attack with 4 from Antactica into the left of the two Australias
Transfer only all but 7 remaining armies from Brazil to Argentina
Attack with 4 from Brazil to the center of South America
Take the last piece of Greenland
Attack with 3 into northeastern Canada
Transfer other Greenland armies towards Canada

The reasoning:
Place 6 in Greenland * Duh. We need the bonus.
Place 4 in eastern Antarctica * He's going to be forced to try for Indonesia soon
Place 2 in southern Greenland * There are other places you can use two armies, but It will be a lot easier to take Canada in four moves this way

Attack with 12 from Brazil into West Africa* This is enough to threaten a big attack in East Africa, which he won't be able to defend unless he already started this turn. It is very possible that he is already moving into East Africa to prevent this.

Attack with 4 from Antactica into the left of the two Australias * I'd like to do this earlier in the turn to keep him from seeing it.

Transfer only all but 7 remaining armies from Brazil to Argentina * Unless he makes a risky hard attack into Argentina as one of his last moves, he won't take Argentina. These armies can be sent south to hold Antarctica if needed.

Attack with 4 from Brazil to the center of South America * By saving our blockade card, we have the ability to blockade the South America bonus if we're forced to. We leave two in Brazil in case he tries for a last move 2 on 1 attack.

Take the last piece of Greenland
Attack with 3 into northeastern Canada
Transfer other Greenland armies towards Canada * Our goal is to take Greenland this turn and get Canada in four turns. Going forward, we'd like to be able to use our full 17 wherever we want as often as we can. We can place two armies somewhere, but they won't be that helpful

Fred -- That was a pretty obnoxious post, especially since I explained my reasoning at your request.

1. I don't care how I achieve that strategy THIS TURN. Because there are few options available with only one stack in Brazil.

2. Loading up to attack Brazil was not my idea. I think we sacrificed 5 armies for no gain by attacking Brazil last turn. I am not conceding Brazil by attacking from it.

3. I also suggested attacking South Africa that turn. You suggested a larger attack there. So what? Guessing is guessing -- sometimes you guess right, sometimes you don't. Had my suggestion of attacking with 8 been selected, we would've had enough armies to defend it the following turn (Imp would've had 5 there instead of 10). Sometimes you win by guessing, sometimes you don't. I continue to think it's not worth it to risk a lot of armies guessing when you have an income advantage.

4. We don't know Imp can get the South Africa bonus this turn. Again, I am not conceding Brazil by attacking from it. You hypothesize that Imp is already doing things every turn even though you've seen where he's deployed all his armies each and every turn. Why?

5. You seem to have a problem with the word "opportune", that's unfortunate for you. I'm guessing you are quoting it over and over again in an attempt at sarcasm. It is opportune when you have a large stack next to a small stack -- try and get over it.

6. I want to regain the income advantage by taking Greenland. I said that the last 5 turns. I want to gain a net advantage by attacking with a stack in SA this turn.

7. Busting his bonus is now several moves through neutrals away. I was interested when it was through South Africa, as I mentioned a few times, but now it's inefficient as Imp is putting all his armies into taking SA.

8. I am not "dying" to do anything other than take Greenland this turn. You literally accuse me of not caring and being obsessed in the same post with regard to a stack attack in SA. Stop ranting and look up "opportune". I am neither indifferent nor obsessed, I think there's an opportunity to pick up a net gain and I suggest taking it.

9. I said that I've been paying closer attention than you because you keep saying Imp is pursuing bonuses and expanding when he's put 100% of his income into attacking us every turn. Where is all this expansion you keep talking about happening?

10. You're welcome for my remembering that Imp was due to get a card.

11. Guessing is always a part of the game, but some guesses are more substantiated than others. I don't think attacking for a net gain is wasteful. There's no guesswork in attacking Venesuela -- those 6 armies there are not a mirage.

12. I don't think I'm a genius (let alone a "super genius"), I'm surprised you think I do, insecure much?

13. I think your plan this turn is seriously flawed. You aren't blockading, so you are permitting Imp to move on Antratica (perhaps you're betting he pulls back into Africa). 9 armies in Argentina is not going to be enough if he heads that way. Imp will have more armies than us in SA next turn if that's where he puts his income (minus the 4 he needs to set up South Africa) and, assuming no attacks, we'll be left with 10 in Argentina and 7 in Brazil. Moving into Africa has merit and is worth talking about. Threatening the bust on EA in a few turns will force Imp to adjust how he deploys. Sending 4 into Australia makes no sense to me. It just puts Imp on more even footing with us in our face off in SA. I think we need to exploit our income and army advantage in SA to try to get that bonus. You want to head for EA to get a bust. Doing so requires leaving enough forces behind to hold SA. That part of your plan is interesting, but you're spreading us very thin.

Ultimately it's numbers. Imp has 26 in position to attack us and 17 income this turn or 43. We have 29 and 6 extraneous income or 35. Your plan sends 18 of our 35 away from Imp (12 into WA, 2 extra in greenland and 4 into Australia). Next turn Imp likely has 43 in position to attack us and we'll have 17 in position to attack him. That's a risky plan.

Fred -- missed the "dick" remark before. Stay classy.

Diabolicus/Eitz -- nice summaries. That's what I was thinking as well.

I hope people learned something from that exchange. Specifically, I hope they learned not to lead with "I've been paying closer attention to you" and then be surprised someone thinks you're a dick.

Diabolicus: your last post doesn't look ANYTHING like your first one =P
I agree with what you're saying tho about keeping the squeeze on Imp in South America, I think because Imp has a Reinforcement Card this turn and 6/12 of our armies are going to be tied up taking Greenland we really need to focus the rest of our deployments and attacks as much as possible and spreading too thin right now would just be begging Imp to get back in this game...Fyi on your mention of Central America: Imp blockaded Baja to 11 on Turn 3. Obviously I agree with your blockade idea as well. Actually the only thing different I would've loved to see from your post would be the conclusion ;)
Would you like me to adjust/remove your original idea from the vote or would you like to leave it as it is?

Fred: You mentioned that the only thing you know for sure is to take Greenland and move into West Africa but "the other bits are wide open for discussion". Does this mean you'd like me to hold off on adding your idea to the vote until you give me more of a "final answer" or would you like me to put up exactly what you've posted? I still believe that you're spreading us too thin this turn and giving Imp the option of potentially pushing us out of South America next turn and/or taking Antarctica behind us (without blockading it this turn) AND/OR maybe he takes South Africa too next turn and suddenly we are WAY behind in a game that as of right now we have firm control of. Also any troops that we send to Australia without blockading behind us are just going to be lambs to the slaughter when Imp pokes his head over that way (and in my mind there's zero chance he won't). Again, that's the beauty of democracy that my solitary opinion doesn't really count for a whole lot but I felt compelled to give it anyways =P
I will still gladly add your idea to the vote if you can clarify on my point above.