ALL: Keep in mind we have today & tomorrow to really hammer this out and then we should really be focused on voting Saturday as by Sunday the turn will be happening and Monday I will be posting the results.

Fred -- I learned you're an insecure putz.

Even your putdowns are pathetic. I said I paid closer attention than you. You said "someone" didn't like that. Be less of a pathetic pussy and say you didn't like it.

I think you didn't like it because it's true. It was also legitimate, substantiated criticism, not name calling. I hope people learn the difference from this exchange.

I'm calling an end to this bickering and name-calling right now. You guys should be more mature than this. If you can't contribute without attacking eachother, then don't post.

Eitz, I don't really care what you put up as an option. I was hoping to hear some discussion before we come up with the list to vote on, but if you want to post something soon, post that. I understand your concern that we risk giving up South America next turn, but I strongly disagree. This move gives us a chance to reevaluate next turn based on what he's done, which may be to put 17 in South America, or it may be to put a small number there while he starts towards Brazil from East Africa, or it may be that he works South Africa, or spends a bunch of armies on Indonesia. It's hard to know for sure, because they're all valid objectives for him.

If I were him, I'd probably want to take Indonesia, and close us out of Antarctica so I can work Australia after that. It's his cleanest room for expansion. I don't want to concede our position off of Australia, especially because it's one of only two routes to his eastern bonuses. All of the other options seem to give that up too easily.

And my apologies to Duke and Fizzer. I shouldn't have called Duke a dick. Sorry about that.

I will try to explain once again why I think we shouldn't blockade, with example.
First, think what should we do next turn if he go in south pole with all units.
Should we defend Scott then ?

Lets assume that this turn he will put most of his units in S.America and defend our attacks. In same time he can go with all units in south pole. What will be the situation after this turn?
- We will have similar forces in South Africa, that doesn't allow us to take any action.
- He will have 18-19 units in south pole and we would have 1 in Scott(It would be stupid trying to defend Scott). BTW he will know that. So what would be our actions then? We can not predict what he will play next.
However, most probably is that he will take S.Africa and maybe do some maneuvers in S. America. And go in Scott!!!
After that he will have available units to expand in Australia and (15 vs 17 income) to fight with us which I think is enough if he play good some battles. After he take Australia bonus he will have more income then us and chance to continue expanding in Indonesia.
Conclusion1: With this scenario we should win eventually anyway, as I said in some previous post, but it would be hard and long and we shouldn't make mistakes, cause one mistake can turn over the game.
Conclusion2: If we decide to defend Scott from reasons I described, than blockade card is unnecessary!

My opinion is that beside my plan with not blocking Siple and defend Antarctica from Scott in next turn, only bostonfred plan is fine(although very hard to play precise, because to much option will be opened then). Going in Africa and attacking his bonuses will also result with fast win and keep the fight here. That is good way how we should use our advantage.

correction on my previous post

• We will have similar forces in South America, that doesn't allow us to take any action.

Fred. Thanks for apologizing. I'm sorry I insulted you as well. I'll try harder to follow my own advice and stay classy.

One thing to remember is Imp's perspective of our actions. We've gone hard into SA almost every turn now and in his mind we want still want it pretty badly and he's going to make sure we don't get it. Do we know if he has an order priority card? if so he'll just slide to argentina to avoid our blob and we're in the same position.

I feel like we're in a dance situation where neither will take either bonus unless one of the parties get's lucky.

Also, Duke with one of your suggestions I can see him sliding his blob and then delaying enough to retake brazil to make sure we don't gain access to africa, I don't like moving our blob so far north. I think we should stay put in brazil (attacking with only small amounts to colombia and venezuela), blockade antartica, take greenland, and send a small group into africa. What this accomplishes is that we are making sure we withhold the bonuses from Imp while getting our +5(greenland) to be the overpowering factor.

One thing to think of as well is that Imp has got to know that we are blockading. Do you think he'd bank on that and use those troops to just scout antarctica and bring his troops back up. We can use some of our deployment to block that scout attack.

Here is my suggestion:

Continue withholding the South America and Antarctica bonus while taking Greenland and expanding to put pressure on Imp's homefront.

Deploy 6 to Kangerlussuaq, 4 to Siple, 2 to South Pole. Attack Colombia with 10 from Brazil. Attack Qaanaaq with 7 from Kangerlussuaq. Transfer to Kangerlussuaq with 2 from Danmark Havn. Transfer to Kangerlussuaq with 1 from Nuuk. Attack Nigeria with 4 from Brazil. Attack Venezuela with 4 from Brazil. Attack Only to Argentina with 3 from Brazil. Transfer 2 to Siple from South Pole. Blockade Siple.

I like this because it is making sure Imp doesn't get any progress from our fight, we have an opportunity to take South America if he doesn't deploy there (doubtful) but we still hold the advantage in South America either way. We get Greenland, and we also start making a move towards Africa to disrupt his EA bonus.

He slid his blob first move last turn, no idea if he used a card, but he went first. He'll either move to protect those 6 armies by reinforcing them or sliding them (or a combination of both). I don't think he slides them into CA cause it's too easy to get SA if he does. So that only leaves Columbia. We either hit Venesuela 1st move or we hit Columbia 1st move. When it was 12 income I was sure Columbia was going to be the move. But now that it's 17 income, I'm less sure. I think there's no way he limps into South Pole so those two armies would be thrown away. Small attacks in SA don't make much difference -- we might as well stay put and maybe throw an attack only at Argentina last move. I'm not that worried about Imp getting a midsized stack in Brazil next turn. That just becomes are next target for our stack to hit first mvoe. Eventually we win that exchange decisively. if he leaves SA for Africa or CA he's screwed, so I'm fine chasing a smaller stack around untilw e hit it or get a OP card.

I think Imp will deploy 13 into Columbia and 4 into South Africa. Then transfer only the 5 from Venezsuela to Columbia, transfer 8 from Antartica to South Africa, attack South Pole with 11, attack the spot in South Africa that lets him clear it next turn, delay moves in CA (and anywhere else he has 1s), then attack Argentina with 2 from Columbia and Brazil with 2 from Columbia.

If this is what Imp decides to do, then hitting Columbia with 30 1st move would be the most devastating option. My next favorite option for Imp is to put 2 in Columbia, 11 in Venezsuela and 4 in South Africa and then attack Argentina 1st move with the 2 and on his last two moves: attack only Columbia and and attack Brazil. If this is what Imp does, then we would want to hit Venesuela first move with 30. We'll net up a bit and hold our position in Brazil.

Because these are my top two guesses on what I think he'll do, I proposed those two varients.

Maybe it's just me, but when I am looking at Snappyvote and trying to decide how to vote I would prefer it if I could see all the turn actions for the turn and not just the turn goal. Having to dig through the thread to see how that goal is trying to be achieved is very painful. How I would go about achieving a somewhat vague goal and how the proposed order go about it may be completely contrary.

Eitz: I definitely changed my mind after looking at things more thoroughly :-)
If you want you can delete my first suggestion from the list, since so far I was the only one who voted on it.
The move in full force to WA is not necessary yet, and the blockade with simultaneous move to AUS would be too weak to be of any use.

Now if you ask for my conclusion: I honestly don't have a good one. I haven't played vs Imp yet, and I haven't followed this whole thing from the beginning. Add to that my relative inexperience in ladder games, and you will find I am of no real use when it comes to predicting his moves. So I will from now on refrain to pointing at the facts and probabilities and let others formulate a strategy based on that.

Speaking of it:
- Why go for Canada in 4 when we can have CAUC in 3?
- if we blockade, then make it count. 6-7+ minimum.
- if we attack Nigeria, then send at least 6, in case he tries for it from his side this turn.

I think the reason for Canada over Caucasus is that we will already have a bunch of spare armies in Greenland that can't do anything useful, so getting the first couple territories on Canada is basically free.

To the blockade amount, I think 6-7 would be too many. Blockading 4 would turn into 14, blockading 6 would turn into 21.

The question is, are those two extra armies worth it? If the opponent never attacks your blockade, then they were wasted. Of course, if your opponent does ever take down your blockade, then you didn't blockade with enough. So it's a balance.

If we blockade 4 into 14, Impaller would have to lose 10 armies on average attacking it (70% of 14) and another 1 to occupy the territory. This is for a +3 bonus - it'd take him 4 turns to recoop those losses. This game is so close that if he spends a bunch of armies on a blockade, he'll be dead in 4 turns. This is why the blockade should be 4 or less.

Troll's right. It's very tough to figure our what you're voting for or against, can't you cut and paste the mvoes instead of (or in additon to) the objectives. God knows yours is a tough and largely thankless job and nobody wants to make it harder, but I think you need this change or no one can effectively vote.

+1 for using the name of the person who suggested the move though -- that cuts down on the time soemwhat.

Troll: I can change that, I was just trying to give people vague descriptions rather than a bunch of random names and numbers that people would have to have a fairly intimate understanding of the map to be able to make a solid vote on. I'll go back to the way you had it before.

Ruthless: I'll add your idea to the vote.

Diabolicus: I'll remove your idea. I still like your contributions tho =)

Thanks, Eitz! Yeah, I definitely know what you mean; it can certainly look cluttered with the specific orders, though I think it's still the best way to do it. Also, I agree with Duke, putting the names of the player that suggested the option is a great idea.

All changes have been made.

Fred: I put your idea in as is, if you get any feedback or decide on any specifics you'd like to change, please let me know.

Fizzer: My only argument to your post regarding the blockade is that Imp already has 20 armies in Antarctica and could smash 14 without much addition to that gaining him the +3 in Antarctica as well as gaining another access point into South America which would be hugely bad for us IF we end up taking South America. I think it has to be 5-6.

Side note: Purely for aesthetics, would you guys prefer I put the description along with with specific orders or would that make it too cluttered and we just leave it as it currently is with orders only?

He's in India and East Africa. I don't like trying to take a bonus where you will immediately border the other guy, especially if the last move is into a four pointer. That four point neutral is a huge help to us right now - it's way too expensive for him to start coming towards us.

I will stop convincing you about the blockade since I see all of you think different.
I will only ask you to see map at starting position and you will realize that only way for him to oppose us is if he succeed to expand toward Australia and Indonesia from Antarctica. All other paths for him are blocked either from as or from wastelands. I think that we have to stop this option for him somehow. Just think about it.
From my point of view there is two ways to stop him:
1) win this game fast by going in Africa and destroy his bonuses(as bostonfred suggested), while we keep S. America safe.
2) to put units and fight him in Scott next turn(If we choose this, blockade card is unnecessary).