I'm not saying it's a bad pick, I'm sure it's probably a good one actually. But I don't understand it. Can anyone explain the strategic reasons for it or the thinking behind it? What is the thought process behind this?

Specifically Pick 5 (Beijing)



Larger image: https://i.imgur.com/NeIzNmC.png

I'm thinking maybe it's some type of interaction with his other picks and the combinations he may end up with. Maybe if he winds up with it, it's highly likely to be in combination with 1 or more specific other picks -- or highly likely to be a counter pick.

Game is here: https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=14878542

I didn't think the best player on warzone got confused. :(

It's just a bad pick imo

What's Warzone?

I am confused too. Why did he pick that 5th when he could have picked it 1st?

Hello! The guilty party here. Well, if Buns thinks it's a bad pick, I probably shouldn't dispute the point, but I'll try anyway.

I had played around with various 3,4,5 pick-orders of SEA, CR and WC/ER, and I wasn't happy with any of them. The problem was that getting my 3 & 5, or my 4 & 5, would always be bad.

Okay, CR and ER looks like a nice pair, but it's a pair that is easily countered (and which EC would be devastating against, though admittedly I wouldn't have had intel on ER).

So what were my options? I could pick the zone 4,5,6, but then I might get my 1,2,3, so I rejected that. 3,5,6 or 3,4,6 have similar problems.

Then it occurred to me that getting SEA + EC or getting CR + EC would be fine, partly because EC is a "bad" bonus that would be unlikely to be countered. Also EC is a nice long-term counter to every bonus in the region except Cauc. This seemed worth picking a bonus that requires three turns to take.

So yes, there was a logic to it. Whether you agree with it or not is another matter. But what would your 3,4,5,6 be, assuming you'd gone with my 1,2?

Just pick all the good ones.

Unconventional picks can be good. If you think this one isn't, and can provide an improvement, that's great, but "just pick all the good ones" is what I did when I initially joined the ladder. My results improved a lot once I started putting more thought in.

You are still underestimating the magical mystical West China combo pick + Greenland. The most unconventional of them all.

Or better yet the East US/Central America combo + West China.

Edited 1/31/2018 01:45:59

@Kicorse
I think it is a good explanation, thank you very much for it :)

@kicorse

I could very well be wrong.

But I thought of it like this:

1- CA will be a first pick in this quite often between good players. So 50/50

2- knowing that players normally stick their 2nd pick nearby to cover it and hopefully get a good combo. SA

So this leaves your 3 4 5 too likely to be split between you and your opponent having only one of those picks. Especially if he picks something safe (scand) with a great bonus to expand into (Greenland).

Deleted

Edited 1/31/2018 09:57:14

Thanks for that explanation kicorse. Ya, I figured there was careful thought put into a pick like that.

Whether that specific pick was a good one, clearly there is a lot of sound reasoning in your thought process. Personally I think the game being pretty much over by getting my 4+5 and them picking East Russia, would make me not go for this combo.

Yeah, I acknowledge that the pick-set has the risks that you guys point out, but those are more about any 3,4,5 in Asia rather than the unconventional choice of EC at 5 specifically. I would maintain that my choice of 5 minimises those risks. Perhaps I should have just gone Scandinavia 3, which I assume is what Buns would have done(?). I just feared leaving Asia empty with no intel.

Anyway, I'm not sure how serious Rogue Nikolai Krogius was being with the CA/E-US suggestion, but a pick-set like

1 - SEA
2 - Scan
3 - CA
4 - SA
5 - E-US
6 - WC

might just work. The chances of your opponent having intel on E-US (likely a lost game) are pretty much zero. The chances of getting SEA, Scan and E-US are very good. Show up in Florida Turn 3, and two of your opponent's bonuses are in danger.

I think I'd probably pick SA 1, CA 2 personally, but still those as 1/2. CA does have better longterm expansion, but I just tend to prefer the versatility offered by SA's borders bordering each other and not having something like Mexico in the way.

I agree with 3/4. 5 though I'd be more prone to pick Scandi and then ER as 6th.

By no means though am I claiming that what I'd pick is necessarily "better".

I think play style dictates best picks to a large degree. I also find it harder to suit picks to play style than play style to picks.

All in all though I think I'm a much better strat 1v1 "player" than "picker".

I'm actually quite surprised by Emu's turn 3. That to me almost seems like the move of someone resigned to lose making a last gamble. Turn 2 11 is not a powerful enough position to go all in one turn 3 unless you can be certain your opponent doesn't also have 11 or more income.

The only way you do that is if you plan to do it from turn 1, and don't move in ER till turn 3 to be able to risk it without going down a card piece.

I do like kicorse's turn 5, I believe he hit because he predicted the missed card piece after seeing emu's turn 3. It wasn't even much of a gamble though since even if like I mentioned, while Emu could have sat in ER till turn 3 and not actually have missed a card piece he'd still only be defending with 24 and 31v24 still comes out with attacker killing 19 and defender killing 17.

Since Emu did indeed miss a card piece, the game was decided after turn 5.

Edited 2/27/2018 16:28:18

Might be to counter SEA on turn 2 if the opponent starts in India as soon as SEA is completed. Turn 3 would then be used to break SEA.

I strongly suspected the missed card piece, but as you pointed out UberElite, I couldn't be sure of this. However, even if Emu had the RF available Turn 5, and kept full-deploying to Siple, it was doomed long term, thanks to my transfer from CA. Can't remember the maximum number of turns needed to take it and can't be bothered to work it out again (maybe 4?).

At that point, my chances of winning were very high even in that scenario (as you say, Turn 3 was the critical one). Emu's best chance was to abandon Siple and counter-attack.

More generally, losing card pieces on Turn 5 is not a big problem, in my view. Less annoying than, say, tapping a 1. Losing them on Turn 4 is a different story.

Edited 2/28/2018 13:08:10