You could have won that ΦÐAZUSΦ, by taking Africa. You had that in the bag, why only surrender after turn 19 anyway? Odd play imo, don't attack your enemy when you can simply defend and get a better income than him.
Oh, just read your chat... You're a lazy 13 year old yet you're not lazy enough to bother us with your failed stategy? Go away child...
Judging from history, he is one army short from taking africa in a turn. Also, I believe that he is concerning about the counter Black Dragon might have done to africa from Australia in a long run (not sure what he was thinking, but I assume it), so why should he risk it? :) But, it is really interesting about the fact that the game could continue forever lol.
P.S. Fleecemaster, I thought Dazus won?? I am confused about your statement lol
Dazus could of won by taking Africa in 2 turns after which he would have a reinforcement card + an extra 3 income by that time black dragon would not of made it to Africa from Australia or be able to take america
Yeah, I didn't mean take Africa in 1 turn, it could easily have been done in 2 turns.
It was pretty bad play from both of them really. Black Dragon was in a losing postions, and should have stopped his defense of USA, and focused on getting to Africa from Australia. Probably would have still lost, but that was a better option.
This is a really weird dicsussion, the only reason this was a "stalemate" is both players wanted it to be... Nothing to do with luck or the map, any 2 players could set this up if they wanted to, like in this case... I'll stick to my opinion that this is a pointless thread.
Posts 1 - 8 of 8
Post a reply to this thread
Before posting, please proofread to ensure your post uses proper grammar and is free of spelling mistakes or typos.