Those picks are very conventional, but there are other, more creative options. You asked about advanced picking, so we can discuss them.

Triple pick Central Russia or West china: I cant see a way to make either work, what do you think?

Indonesia, East China, West Africa: complete echina and hit south america hard turn 3. You have intel advantage and safety, this is risky but fun.

South America, Antarctica, scandinavia, central america: You get half of the FirstTurnBonus and 2 small bonuses. Turn 1 you go with 8 into Siple and hope to get 2 leftovers in either scand or CA, Turn 2 make 2 3v2s in your smaller bonus.

"Is that useful or just patronising?"

As far as I'm concerned the two are unrelated.

I am very much a believer in "Crocker's Rules", which state:

"Declaring yourself to be operating by "Crocker's Rules" means that other people are allowed to optimize their messages for information, not for being nice to you. Crocker's Rules means that you have accepted full responsibility for the operation of your own mind - if you're offended, it's your fault. Anyone is allowed to call you a moron and claim to be doing you a favor. (Which, in point of fact, they would be. One of the big problems with this culture is that everyone's afraid to tell you you're wrong, or they think they have to dance around it.) Two people using Crocker's Rules should be able to communicate all relevant information in the minimum amount of time, without paraphrasing or social formatting. Obviously, don't declare yourself to be operating by Crocker's Rules unless you have that kind of mental discipline."


As such I care about the message and whether it contains any worthwhile information, not the verbiage. If someone wants to call me an utter fuckwad while pointing out mistakes I've made I'll still learn just as well from their criticisms as is they were polite about it, the information is the same regardless.

The bottom picking suggestion is a style I've used in the past with relative success, usually aiming to complete small 3-bonuses while fighting immediately, trying to pressure them hard enough that they can't deploy enough to survive in the bordering bonus unless they expand slow enough that I get off 5 income 1-2 turns before they do, at which point the game is typically won.

Haha, Crocker sounds a bit autistic to me =D. I will optimise my message for information then, as well as to amuse my self (you nob head).

Would you like a game?

Omniscient, the reason why you lost to Grona is cards. If you counted carefully, you should have known that he had a reinforcement by turn 6. Thus, you should not have attacked him in Antarctica, but rather taken SA. In addition, you went many turns without getting any card pieces (that is, attacking a territory). Meanwhile, Grona is slowly getting Antarctica to get cards (and an extra bonus).

about picking wastelands: i only find it effective when you know you have your other 2 starting points safe and that your opponent will most likely have 2 of his area picks around your wasteland pick. if he only has 1 pick around there then you have no real advantage by blocking him, unless you can wipe him out fast or expand more safely then he does.

Although I answered the question more directly, I will agree with Piggy and ps that you should avoid picking wastelands. If you know enough about the game to know this advice is wrong in a specific case (big hint, you have a rating of 2000+), then go ahead and try the wasteland counterpick. If you do not have such a rating, the chances of you doing it right are worse than the chances of you successfully triple picking. It's just bad odds.

There are a lot of picking strategies, too many to discuss in a thread in my opinion, though Dead Piggy and Duke are doing a good job.

Therefore I propose we play a match, where we discuss the picks before picking, exactly why one would be better than the other and so on. I may not be a top-quality player, but I hope I can help you to improve your picking-style.

Trippe picking is the best strategy for ladder games:

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=4167776

Game finally ended on turn 15, here's the triple-pick I mentioned above.

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=4228730

Worked well against him, not sure how it'd have worked against most decent players though. (Opponent did have 84% 1v1, but not sure who he'd been playing to get that win %, but, he certainly could have been worse.)

i looked at picks, he made 8 picks and a poor double pick, completely leaving asia and europe untouched, doesnt seem like a good player

His number 2 was East US and his number 4 was South Africa. On top of that, as mentioned above he left himself almost no access to Asia. Most picking strategies can win against a guy who essentially gives up one of his picks.

omniscient you sad excuse for a human being, i have 3 suggestions:

1. don't listen to anything dead piggy says. he talks a lot but nobody knows what he is saying unless he speaks in specifics
2. watch dead piggy's ladder games. he is the greatest thing since sliced bread was put in little baggies. if he wins that frequently he must be doing something right.
3. watch every ladder game sze won, because when he wins he is the greatest player ever. don't look at the games he lost. those are computer errors (his brain is like a solar calculator: when there is no light he counts with his fingers instead).

Oh stop it you.

Omniscient, in my opinion, you probably should have picked India first, and Antarctica 4th. Consider if you do not get your 3rd pick (India), and you get your 4th (Greenland). What are you possibly going to do? Getting W China (too risky) or Greenland (too time consuming). Looking at the map setup, it's unlikely your opponent will pick W China or E China. However, India is a fast and well protected bonus (which I guess you got lucky in this game that your opponent did not pick it). Thus you stand a better chance to get your triple pick if you pick India first.

Hmm, gotten first pick in all 4 ladder games so far.

That's...unexpected.

Aaand, I've done it again. Lost a game I had no business losing. Game was completely within the palm of my hand and I blew it by making an incredibly stupid move.

I love the ego of the some of the members who posted.
Anyways

1. If there is something considered a "safe choice" and you are playing a top opponent, then he will have noticed it too. Then the question depending on the map becomes is it worth taking the spot knowing your opponent will probably know your location. As discussed before, it is sometimes good to make a safe pick your third pick and a counter to the safe spot your fourth pick.

2. I would only do so if you think you are going to get all 3 spots for sure, you don't think your opponent will have a spot nearby, and you will lock in a bonus after turn 1. And with all of that, I still probably wouldn't do it. If you've seen someone do it, they're probably lucky their oppnonent didnt have a counter spot nearby, you really have to bank on uncurbed expansion for a few turns. It can only really be done in west russia area or in africa, america and australia dont really work well with it, perhaps india china area could work.

3. Impaller used to occasionally use that strategy (and also to pick in crappy bonuses purely as a counter). Its a huge gamble, if youre playing someone much better than you you might want to use it, but its never really worth it.

4. Generally it depends how good the opponent you are playing against is to how unconventional your strategy becomes. Its kind of like poker, if you are playing an okay player, he will be pretty predictable so you can be pretty predictable yourself, since you have a good chance at guessing some of his picks and using the information (also against players you play frequently). If your opponent is good he will realize you are analyzing his likely spots and plan accordingly against your plans for his potential spots if that makes sense (i.e. he knows where you expect him to go so he might go elsewhere but might not causing him to be way more unpredictable).

Hope that helps

my personal theory is that when behind or playing against someone better than you you should definitely gamble as much as possible, try to get the upper hand, but if you're against someone you should be able to beat you should play safe, one example of this was a game i played against szew, he was playing extremely safely taking no risks and i took a risk which did not pay off at the start which put me behind, but i still nearly came back by taking a ton of risks. nearly. :P
as for advanced picking i'm not sure how much this will help you but you could try my guide, search "the art of war" in the forums and it should be the top result.
I can also do some practice games with you if you want, if you invite me.

btw, i'm guessing you're nauz? or am i mistaken?

"my personal theory is that when behind or playing against someone better than you you should definitely gamble as much as possible,"

That might make you win the specific game, but it's counter-productive long-term.

The goal in my eyes is to improve to the point that it isn't necessary to "steal" games against players better than you. ie. Get good enough that you legitimately beat them, not gamble and win occasionally despite being outclassed.

i mean if you're playing an important game you want to win, the best chance you have is doing that. as long as it's not cheating i don't really care what strategy i use. i hardly ever take risks tbh because there're only a handful of players i think can beat me consistently when i'm really focussed