I would like to ask a question, when there is a combo, though not first turn, which is better to choose? I was discussing with Gnuff, who thought central America was a better pick than South America, which I disagree with.
He then suggested I ask people in the forum for their opinion, so I did just that :)

Here is the game:
http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=4196540

on this map, this distribution, this warlord:

CA is better than SA

yep, i'd definitely agree that CA is better. it gives an immediate border with SA, rendering it pretty much useless, while giving in some situations an opportunity to actually take CA which is a lot smaller/cheaper than SA.
SA has the advantage of protecting/sabotaging antarctica, but then on that distribution it is very unlikely that ant would be taken anyway.

I would say SA, because of the disadvantage that Panama is not connected to Cuba. with this reason he had to make sure to take Colombia, otherwise he could take SA. so he had to waste a lot of armies without being able to take CA, because that is too hard to defend.

I would take CA over SA because it already borders it. You can ruin SA bonus turn 1, and if you had taken AA also, so what? He'd have two of your picks covered still with CA pick (assuming you got SA, AA and Scan or WR). He had safe EC, you would have had safe AA. He probably would have finished GL also before you saw him there (assuming you didn't have both Scan/WR as I said in this scenario). He would have won if you picked SA and AA I think.

Definitely Central America is better imo. You can possibly expand there in the long run, and there's no way your opponent should be able to take South America. South America can get to Antarctica but it is highly unlikely Antarctica will be chosen in that scenerio. I think your picks are better than Gnuffone's as a whole though, I think the only difference is to switch your 1 and 3, and they'd be identical to mine in a typical game. Gnuffone's problem is he couldn't get a bonus until Turn 3 except possibly Central America, and that's not a good idea to take first.

chris, i was just stating the advantages of SA, i also said that ant was a bad pick, but it could be taken, especially if you're playing against a lower level player :)

sorry for double post, but i don't agree fearless, since gnuff's picks left him pretty screwed i think the risk of taking CA early could have paid off.

hedja had the better picks and he played them exceptionally good

SA is the better pick in the way hedja played it.CA is a false friend pick here.
Picking SA as a counter pick and ignoring it for 2 turns turned turned it to be the better pick than CA, while at the same time you can not finish CA because you have to be worried by SA also.

i think it makes no difference :P

I felt like the GL pick made the difference on that game. It wasn't any use to Gnuff (perhaps he thought Hedja would take SA/AA?)

though CA is a better pick for countering SA, I think that knowing south America has been taken, you cannot take the risk of taking central America.
You only take South America if you get Central America as well, if you are not sure, you use it as a counter, while expanding elsewhere. The fact I moved in Greenland wasn't important, since I also got him out of South America with a stack of 10 going to eliminate him completely from that area, also only 1 territory in south America needed to take to get a 4 bonus, so I could give up in scan to secure both Americas + Africa + Antarctica.
I don't think that Greenland was very important, because what would have been a better pick apart from Europe? (which is much too risky to take in case no start in Russia (eg 2 in America 1 in Asia) East Africa was decent, but once I would have eliminated him form Central America, I was going to go toward East Africa. This would leave Scan and West Russia safe, and I could take Greenland too.
After analysing this, I think the reason he lost was because of his lack of aggression in South America, or more importantly the fact eh didn't pick Scandinavia or West Russia.

That is what I am saying. I wouldn't have taken GL, but would have taken Scan/WR instead.

It isn't a knock on Gnuff (he's ten times the player I am). But I am saying I would have taken CA over SA and not taken GL. Not sure about the rest of my picks on the board.

hedja, i think we all agree that CA has its disadvantages, but i don't see any advantages that SA has over it. assuming that both are taken and ant isn't, CA is closer to SA than SA to CA, which makes sabotage easier. it costs you armies to kill those neutrals, and if CA wants contact he can always push through SA

Obviously CA is better, no need for a long discussion for it.

We thank sze, author of the book "the easy world of black and white" for his comment.

SA has a pro in that scouting to Colombia doesn't hurt you if he's not there, whereas scouting from CA into SA means you're losing armies for a potential bonus completion.

a combo in south that must be broken.... no point in arguin wich side you need.

They both knew the other guy 'd take one of those 2 picks. so it's quite useless to talk about it

no it isn't ilpegg, south America can change the game, central could take the bonus and try to hold off south, whereas south protects Africa and Antarctica. Also, as all these above posts suggest, there is a pro to one

Hedja,

that's a combo you need to worry about. You need a foot in america.

Ca cant take bonus unless Sa is free ( or you risk SA to be completed).

SA is slightly better if someone picks antartica but the fact is that both picks counter each other. Trying to complete one of those bonus without controlling the other is bad game.

Gnuffo couldnt win that game with his picks.