Odd picks in world 5~10k

So i play a lot casuals world 5~10k and i have noticed a lot of players pick in poor and distant regions like south america, oceania and africa (except north africa,which is understandable for a quick expansion through europe and asia).

Whats the point of picking in those areas? I never saw a player succeed playing them without allyfaging... i can understand that sometimes a player may want to avoid a crowded europe/asia/na but its preferable to risk a shot in the title in those areas than to an almost sure defeat in poor regions, right?

Most frequently i observed that what happens is, even if that player manages to make a rapid expansion in a poor region, when he reaches the rich ones there are already players with dominant positions that can easily beat them or, in the worst case scenario, delay them enough for another rich player glob them both...

So, i am missing something here? There are some viable (not luck dependent) strat for this places?

If you are experienced enough you can play strategies like Imperialist / Guerrilla Warfare / Perfect Defense in South America, Middle East, Africa, etc… it's by no means easy but certainly possible to win starting in these areas if you play it smart.

Ecrit par Acquiesce, 03.03.2015 at 10:03

If you are experienced enough you can play strategies like Imperialist / Guerrilla Warfare / Perfect Defense in South America, Middle East, Africa, etc… it's by no means easy but certainly possible to win starting in these areas if you play it smart.

Ty for the answer, but i still dont see why play those strats in those regions when you can play them perfectly fine in the rich ones, unless they are very crowded and the poor regions empty.

Ecrit par Laveley, 03.03.2015 at 20:56

Ecrit par Acquiesce, 03.03.2015 at 10:03

If you are experienced enough you can play strategies like Imperialist / Guerrilla Warfare / Perfect Defense in South America, Middle East, Africa, etc… it's by no means easy but certainly possible to win starting in these areas if you play it smart.

Ty for the answer, but i still dont see why play those strats in those regions when you can play them perfectly fine in the rich ones, unless they are very crowded and the poor regions empty.

The countries you named don't have a lot of fighting going on early on. While others kill each other off you gain in units (if played correctly). This is a pretty good strategy if it weren't that most of the times either asia or europe is won fairly quickly by someone, who then can gain units easier through their income. That's why it becomes so hard playing those countries

Well to be fair, there are some really good South African strategies to play with...
http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=10277

But on a more serious note, there are numerous reasons why people would pick a country in a poor region.

South America isn't that poor, and there are parts of Brazil, notably in the south, that have really high incomes. Brazil also has a strategic location of being close to Africa, but still across an ocean. This means that you can expand into Africa and fight against any given European (or African) and not have to worry about losing there, because if you do lose there, it is expensive for the European to cross the ocean, and even harder for them to do it without getting a sunken ship.

The Middle East is actually a fantastic starting place if you know what you're doing. A GW Iran or Egypt is almost on par with any good Europe player. And that is assuming that there is only one European. GW is cheap and effective, and the Middle East has high reinforcement in every fertile crescent country except Israel really, plus Iran, Turkey, and Egypt. It also provides you with a lot of starting cash. The only real problem with the Middle East is that you are lodged between China and Europe, so you will have to strategize how you will follow through with defeating both of them.

A very good Africa player can overwhelm a European player with a unit spam, but only if the EU player is sub-par. Generally, Egypt and Morocco are the only good choices in Africa.

Ecrit par Dbacks, 03.03.2015 at 22:23

The countries you named don't have a lot of fighting going on early on. While others kill each other off you gain in units (if played correctly). This is a pretty good strategy if it weren't that most of the times either asia or europe is won fairly quickly by someone, who then can gain units easier through their income. That's why it becomes so hard playing those countries

Yes, thats what I observed, 9 out of 10 times the poor region guy will be defeated when he reaches the good regions. That's why i see no point picking in those areas unless you want a real challenge or the good regions are really crowded and the poor ones really empty.

Ecrit par KYBL, 04.03.2015 at 06:45

Well to be fair, there are some really good South African strategies to play with...
http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=10277

But on a more serious note, there are numerous reasons why people would pick a country in a poor region.

South America isn't that poor, and there are parts of Brazil, notably in the south, that have really high incomes. Brazil also has a strategic location of being close to Africa, but still across an ocean. This means that you can expand into Africa and fight against any given European (or African) and not have to worry about losing there, because if you do lose there, it is expensive for the European to cross the ocean, and even harder for them to do it without getting a sunken ship.

The Middle East is actually a fantastic starting place if you know what you're doing. A GW Iran or Egypt is almost on par with any good Europe player. And that is assuming that there is only one European. GW is cheap and effective, and the Middle East has high reinforcement in every fertile crescent country except Israel really, plus Iran, Turkey, and Egypt. It also provides you with a lot of starting cash. The only real problem with the Middle East is that you are lodged between China and Europe, so you will have to strategize how you will follow through with defeating both of them.

A very good Africa player can overwhelm a European player with a unit spam, but only if the EU player is sub-par. Generally, Egypt and Morocco are the only good choices in Africa.

I agree about middle east and north africa, i think i said that already, those are indeed good or at least playable regions.

But I disagree about Brazil. For me, south america is par-to-par with oceania for the worst picks of the game. You say that a south brazil player can expand to africa without fear to loose there.... but, if he looses than what? Its just a matter of time for him to get annihilated. Even if he wins there, so what? He will have 2 regions with poor income and difficulties to reinforce the front due to distance, an europe player can easily defeat him, even if it takes time.

Problem with those regions are that they are too desolated, even if they have 2 or 3 countries with good income and manpower, europe, asia and north america have way more in a relative smaller peace of land, which makes expansion and "snowballing" much easier.

Ty about the south africa topic indication

Ecrit par Laveley, 04.03.2015 at 11:01

I agree about middle east and north africa, i think i said that already, those are indeed good or at least playable regions.

But I disagree about Brazil. For me, south america is par-to-par with oceania for the worst picks of the game. You say that a south brazil player can expand to africa without fear to loose there.... but, if he looses than what? Its just a matter of time for him to get annihilated. Even if he wins there, so what? He will have 2 regions with poor income and difficulties to reinforce the front due to distance, an europe player can easily defeat him, even if it takes time.

Problem with those regions are that they are too desolated, even if they have 2 or 3 countries with good income and manpower, europe, asia and north america have way more in a relative smaller peace of land, which makes expansion and "snowballing" much easier.

Ty about the south africa topic indication

I disagree about South America.I do not know about your upgrades, but personally (i have all) the only situation in which North America can beat me is if it is alone there ( no enemy) and is also a good high rank.Otherwise picking Uruguai in small fund games and going GW i can steamroll my way up to USA pretty fast.Just expand to Argentina with your general and minimum units and go the other way to start taking brasils with the rest and a transport.Do not wall your capital at this point.Keep taking Argentina cities until u reach Chile and take the port the same turn.Then try to rush up with transport as fast as possible, while on the east, you keep going up taking all Brasil caps and cities on your way.Dont spam marines yet, just keep a combo of militia and marines.The transport to Peru should have 14 militia and general.your first priority is to secure Peru while using marines to take other cities and caps.Once you are close to north south america you will have about 1500 income and already 3-4 transports.This is the time to start building submarines and start stealing islands and countries that are undefended, either in central america, caribean, usa or africa.Depends on your enemies.Your west force should be defensive mostly (militias and general) with some offensive support and your east should be mostly marines with support from the militia you gather on your way up.Once you secure all South America, you start an assault to take and secure central America and Mexico while on the same time , you send submarine up to usa to steal his stuff and harass him.If he didnt had free expansion or isnt really pro, you can rape him, just watchout for your transports cause it really hurts if you loose them before taking Mexico.Whenever u have time wall your transports on your way somewhere cause with GW sea transports are really slow and you risk the danger of the enemy bomb them and sink them.You can do that by when being close to land, about one range before, click your trans, select all units except one militia and then proceed to dock the transport.Then use 2 more militia to link with the unit in the sea and make a triangle wall.That way you are protected and next turn can reach your destination.( for eg to take Peru from Chile , you need 2 turns to reach, so it works)
try it


edit:
i just realized you prob dont have general and many upgrades, so that means no op range for your general-militia stack.Beating Usa on your own would be harder this way, but you can still take all south america relatively fast and force him to ally you, because you will still be strong.A combined America is very strong, its isolated and he can attack Europe while you attack Africa.Africa stands no chance really, because due to its position, its gonna get gangbanged from all sides.

e
dit2:
columna jealus, he deleted my serenade to Acquisce

Ecrit par Khal.eesi, 04.03.2015 at 11:30

Ecrit par Laveley, 04.03.2015 at 11:01

I agree about middle east and north africa, i think i said that already, those are indeed good or at least playable regions.

But I disagree about Brazil. For me, south america is par-to-par with oceania for the worst picks of the game. You say that a south brazil player can expand to africa without fear to loose there.... but, if he looses than what? Its just a matter of time for him to get annihilated. Even if he wins there, so what? He will have 2 regions with poor income and difficulties to reinforce the front due to distance, an europe player can easily defeat him, even if it takes time.

Problem with those regions are that they are too desolated, even if they have 2 or 3 countries with good income and manpower, europe, asia and north america have way more in a relative smaller peace of land, which makes expansion and "snowballing" much easier.

Ty about the south africa topic indication

blablabla

nice trying to become mod! sucking up

Ecrit par Khal.eesi, 04.03.2015 at 11:30

I disagree about South America.I do not know about your upgrades, but personally (i have all) the only situation in which North America can beat me is if it is alone there ( no enemy) and is also a good high rank.Otherwise picking Uruguai in small fund games and going GW i can steamroll my way up to USA pretty fast.Just expand to Argentina with your general and minimum units and go the other way to start taking brasils with the rest and a transport.Do not wall your capital at this point.Keep taking Argentina cities until u reach Chile and take the port the same turn.Then try to rush up with transport as fast as possible, while on the east, you keep going up taking all Brasil caps and cities on your way.Dont spam marines yet, just keep a combo of militia and marines.The transport to Peru should have 14 militia and general.your first priority is to secure Peru while using marines to take other cities and caps.Once you are close to north south america you will have about 1500 income and already 3-4 transports.This is the time to start building submarines and start stealing islands and countries that are undefended, either in central america, caribean, usa or africa.Depends on your enemies.Your west force should be defensive mostly (militias and general) with some offensive support and your east should be mostly marines with support from the militia you gather on your way up.Once you secure all South America, you start an assault to take and secure central America and Mexico while on the same time , you send submarine up to usa to steal his stuff and harass him.If he didnt had free expansion or isnt really pro, you can rape him, just watchout for your transports cause it really hurts if you loose them before taking Mexico.Whenever u have time wall your transports on your way somewhere cause with GW sea transports are really slow and you risk the danger of the enemy bomb them and sink them.You can do that by when being close to land, about one range before, click your trans, select all units except one militia and then proceed to dock the transport.Then use 2 more militia to link with the unit in the sea and make a triangle wall.That way you are protected and next turn can reach your destination.( for eg to take Peru from Chile , you need 2 turns to reach, so it works)
try it

p.s. columna jealus, he deleted my serenade to Acquisce

Unfortunately i still dont have all upgrades for GW yet (i'm planning on buying though, i play mostly MoS and GW attracts me too due to the use of marines, which i think is the best unit in the game, and i already bough some of the upgrades for this unit).

Yeah, your strategy seems way better than going to africa, good thing is that USA have infantry defending their cities, which can delay expansion and snowball (specially if there's more than one player, which frequently does) and with an empty South America i think your strat is quite possible.

Ty for sharing sharing

Ecrit par Waffel, 04.03.2015 at 11:47

Ecrit par Khal.eesi, 04.03.2015 at 11:30

Ecrit par Laveley, 04.03.2015 at 11:01

I agree about middle east and north africa, i think i said that already, those are indeed good or at least playable regions.

But I disagree about Brazil. For me, south america is par-to-par with oceania for the worst picks of the game. You say that a south brazil player can expand to africa without fear to loose there.... but, if he looses than what? Its just a matter of time for him to get annihilated. Even if he wins there, so what? He will have 2 regions with poor income and difficulties to reinforce the front due to distance, an europe player can easily defeat him, even if it takes time.

Problem with those regions are that they are too desolated, even if they have 2 or 3 countries with good income and manpower, europe, asia and north america have way more in a relative smaller peace of land, which makes expansion and "snowballing" much easier.

Ty about the south africa topic indication

blablabla

nice trying to become mod! sucking up

Im always willing to help and share with the people.
I share my hot body in real life and i share my knowledge in atwar

Ecrit par Laveley, 03.03.2015 at 09:30

I agree about middle east and north africa, i think i said that already, those are indeed good or at least playable regions.

But I disagree about Brazil. For me, south america is par-to-par with oceania for the worst picks of the game. You say that a south brazil player can expand to africa without fear to loose there.... but, if he looses than what? Its just a matter of time for him to get annihilated. Even if he wins there, so what? He will have 2 regions with poor income and difficulties to reinforce the front due to distance, an europe player can easily defeat him, even if it takes time.

Problem with those regions are that they are too desolated, even if they have 2 or 3 countries with good income and manpower, europe, asia and north america have way more in a relative smaller peace of land, which makes expansion and "snowballing" much easier.

Ty about the south africa topic indication

Just fyi, I dont know if you ever had full south america ( country bonuses included, dont forget country bonuses, (full city bonus) are verry important in poor regions like these. but South america is 1.6k income each turn with blitz, now I know blitz is pretty expensive strat so probably around 2k income eachturn with pd/gw/nc/etc. With imp maybe even more. Once you have retrieved full south america I should assume your transports ar mid on their way to africa. Since nigeria is pretty rich and cameroon too and west/north africa too. You should also get the islands like Dominican republic and puerto rico/jamaica, they are pretty rich too. With all of this you can probably hit hard in north america. Every strat is possible in any region, its just about the way you play/economize.

Ecrit par Khal.eesi, 04.03.2015 at 11:51

Ecrit par Waffel, 04.03.2015 at 11:47

Ecrit par Khal.eesi, 04.03.2015 at 11:30

Ecrit par Laveley, 04.03.2015 at 11:01

I agree about middle east and north africa, i think i said that already, those are indeed good or at least playable regions.

But I disagree about Brazil. For me, south america is par-to-par with oceania for the worst picks of the game. You say that a south brazil player can expand to africa without fear to loose there.... but, if he looses than what? Its just a matter of time for him to get annihilated. Even if he wins there, so what? He will have 2 regions with poor income and difficulties to reinforce the front due to distance, an europe player can easily defeat him, even if it takes time.

Problem with those regions are that they are too desolated, even if they have 2 or 3 countries with good income and manpower, europe, asia and north america have way more in a relative smaller peace of land, which makes expansion and "snowballing" much easier.

Ty about the south africa topic indication

blablabla

nice trying to become mod! sucking up

Im always willing to help and share with the people.
I share my hot body in real life and i share my knowledge in atwar

uhu not without a reason mostly paid in natura

I think the real question of this thread is: Where are the 5-10k world games and when can I join them?

Ecrit par KYBL, 04.03.2015 at 12:23

I think the real question of this thread is: Where are the 5-10k world games and when can I join them?

ikr!? i miss oldskool worldgames FFA ;-;

Ecrit par Waffel, 04.03.2015 at 11:53

Ecrit par Laveley, 03.03.2015 at 09:30

I agree about middle east and north africa, i think i said that already, those are indeed good or at least playable regions.

But I disagree about Brazil. For me, south america is par-to-par with oceania for the worst picks of the game. You say that a south brazil player can expand to africa without fear to loose there.... but, if he looses than what? Its just a matter of time for him to get annihilated. Even if he wins there, so what? He will have 2 regions with poor income and difficulties to reinforce the front due to distance, an europe player can easily defeat him, even if it takes time.

Problem with those regions are that they are too desolated, even if they have 2 or 3 countries with good income and manpower, europe, asia and north america have way more in a relative smaller peace of land, which makes expansion and "snowballing" much easier.

Ty about the south africa topic indication

Just fyi, I dont know if you ever had full south america ( country bonuses included, dont forget country bonuses, (full city bonus) are verry important in poor regions like these. but South america is 1.6k income each turn with blitz, now I know blitz is pretty expensive strat so probably around 2k income eachturn with pd/gw/nc/etc. With imp maybe even more. Once you have retrieved full south america I should assume your transports ar mid on their way to africa. Since nigeria is pretty rich and cameroon too and west/north africa too. You should also get the islands like Dominican republic and puerto rico/jamaica, they are pretty rich too. With all of this you can probably hit hard in north america. Every strat is possible in any region, its just about the way you play/economize.

Humk. I still think that going straight for NA a better idea, but if you say so.... what about oceania? Australia naval commander? I feel that a rush to indonesia would be crucial to have a chance of success... also, too bad that the map isnt spherical like the real world, because than a new zealand player could attack south america crossing the south pole, just like some risk games, how cool would be that?

Ecrit par KYBL, 04.03.2015 at 12:23

I think the real question of this thread is: Where are the 5-10k world games and when can I join them?

I play mostly casuals an there are a lot of world 5k there, i'm playing 3 of them right now...

Ecrit par Laveley, 04.03.2015 at 15:45

Humk. I still think that going straight for NA a better idea, but if you say so.... what about oceania? Australia naval commander? I feel that a rush to indonesia would be crucial to have a chance of success... also, too bad that the map isnt spherical like the real world, because than a new zealand player could attack south america crossing the south pole, just like some risk games, how cool would be that?

Ecrit par KYBL, 04.03.2015 at 12:23

I think the real question of this thread is: Where are the 5-10k world games and when can I join them?

I play mostly casuals an there are a lot of world 5k there, i'm playing 3 of them right now...

Look, the thing is you think right. But the problem is, if you pick a country like new zealand or any country in oceania, you gotta think about how long it will take before you hit ''dry-land'' > asia/america/middle east. In these turns you travel across the seas your opponent in these areas most likely have 5x your amount of troops and thats why they can easily crush your units. The thing about worldgames is you need to make few good expansion turns and then create your army. Some people rush fast into people so they can kill him and make their army later. Other people like to play a bit deffensive and go less hard on expanding and make alot of walls and take everything slowrolling. You just gotta search your style . I like playing poorly areas and beating peoples asses like africa raping europe/middle east/america >:D

Ecrit par Laveley, 04.03.2015 at 15:45

also, too bad that the map isnt spherical like the real world, because than a new zealand player could attack south america crossing the south pole, just like some risk games, how cool would be that?

Em... it is already possible.... a different matter would be to consider your possibilities of victory.

Ecrit par RaulPB, 07.03.2015 at 10:39

Ecrit par Laveley, 04.03.2015 at 15:45

also, too bad that the map isnt spherical like the real world, because than a new zealand player could attack south america crossing the south pole, just like some risk games, how cool would be that?

Em... it is already possible.... a different matter would be to consider your possibilities of victory.

It is? How? Last time i checked units couldn't trespass the bottom and upper limits of the map. Is there some kind of secret passage or something?

Ecrit par Laveley, 07.03.2015 at 11:32

Ecrit par RaulPB, 07.03.2015 at 10:39

Ecrit par Laveley, 04.03.2015 at 15:45

also, too bad that the map isnt spherical like the real world, because than a new zealand player could attack south america crossing the south pole, just like some risk games, how cool would be that?

Em... it is already possible.... a different matter would be to consider your possibilities of victory.

It is? How? Last time i checked units couldn't trespass the bottom and upper limits of the map. Is there some kind of secret passage or something?

Why would you have to do that? Just go straight towards SA.........

Ecrit par RaulPB, 07.03.2015 at 11:43

Ecrit par Laveley, 07.03.2015 at 11:32

Ecrit par RaulPB, 07.03.2015 at 10:39

Ecrit par Laveley, 04.03.2015 at 15:45

also, too bad that the map isnt spherical like the real world, because than a new zealand player could attack south america crossing the south pole, just like some risk games, how cool would be that?

Em... it is already possible.... a different matter would be to consider your possibilities of victory.

It is? How? Last time i checked units couldn't trespass the bottom and upper limits of the map. Is there some kind of secret passage or something?

Why would you have to do that? Just go straight towards SA.........

You forgot to bold the most important part in the quote

Ecrit par Laveley, 04.03.2015 at 15:45

also, too bad that the map isnt spherical like the real world, because than a new zealand player could attack south america crossing the south pole, just like some risk games, how cool would be that?

Also, isnt obvious why i (and anyone really) would want to do that? Saving time, it would be a great help in pacific scenario.

Ecrit par Laveley, 07.03.2015 at 12:14

Ecrit par Laveley, 04.03.2015 at 15:45

also, too bad that the map isnt spherical like the real world, because than a new zealand player could attack south america crossing the south pole, just like some risk games, how cool would be that?

Also, isnt obvious why i (and anyone really) would want to do that? Saving time, it would be a great help in pacific scenario.

Have you ever thought about the south pole being actual land? How do you plan to cross it?

Btw, it's easier to go through the pacific... and I don't know which risk game has the option of crossing the south pole but I've never seen it.

Ecrit par RaulPB, 07.03.2015 at 12:16

Ecrit par Laveley, 07.03.2015 at 12:14

Ecrit par Laveley, 04.03.2015 at 15:45

also, too bad that the map isnt spherical like the real world, because than a new zealand player could attack south america crossing the south pole, just like some risk games, how cool would be that?

Also, isnt obvious why i (and anyone really) would want to do that? Saving time, it would be a great help in pacific scenario.

Have you ever thought about the south pole being actual land? How do you plan to cross it?

Btw, it's easier to go through the pacific... and I don't know which risk game has the option of crossing the south pole but I've never seen it.

Ships tend to travel through the atantartic ocean when in the australia/south africa/south america rote because its actually shorter than through the pacific due to the curvature of the earth. Since atwar map is flat the distance ends up tho be the same. A solution to this problem would be to create such a "bridge" between those regions and south pole.

I already seen this in risk maps, like this one:

http://sillysoft.net/lux/maps/Global%20Risk

also, even if it doesnt exists, it would still be a good idea to shorten the travel time between those regions.

Ecrit par Laveley, 07.03.2015 at 12:36

Ships tend to travel through the atantartic ocean when in the australia/south africa/south america rote because its actually shorter than through the pacific due to the curvature of the earth. Since atwar map is flat the distance ends up tho be the same. A solution to this problem would be to create such a "bridge" between those regions and south pole.

I already seen this in risk maps, like this one:

http://sillysoft.net/lux/maps/Global%20Risk

also, even if it doesnt exists, it would still be a good idea to shorten the travel time between those regions.

According to that map, you literally go through the south pole.... that's not even close to it works, the movility mechanics aren't the same in this game either... How are you supposed to make a "bridge" in this game? What you ask seems unrealistic. Atwar can't have a spherical map and even if it had, that wouldnt change the path too much...



Btw, the ships that actually travel through the antartic ocean need icebreakers, woudn't we need those too?

Btw, the kind of map we have already makes the travel shorter than it would be, why making it even shorter?

Ecrit par RaulPB, 07.03.2015 at 12:54

Ecrit par Laveley, 07.03.2015 at 12:36

Ships tend to travel through the atantartic ocean when in the australia/south africa/south america rote because its actually shorter than through the pacific due to the curvature of the earth. Since atwar map is flat the distance ends up tho be the same. A solution to this problem would be to create such a "bridge" between those regions and south pole.

I already seen this in risk maps, like this one:

http://sillysoft.net/lux/maps/Global%20Risk

also, even if it doesnt exists, it would still be a good idea to shorten the travel time between those regions.

According to that map, you literally go through the south pole.... that's not even close to how this game works, the movility mechanics aren't the same... How are you supposed to make a "bridge" in this game? What you ask seems unrealistic. Atwar can't have a spherical map and even if it had, that wouldnt change the path too much...

Btw, the ships that actually travel through the antartic ocean need icebreakers, woudn't we need those too?

Obviously, It would be a more of a gameplay directed feature than a realistic one. For a perfectly realistic scenario the map would have to be spherical.

But hey, i get it if you dont like the idea, you have the total right to do so. I was just digressing a little in the first place. Also, If i was gonna purpose this for real, it would be in the right part of the community and not in a world 5k question topic.

Ecrit par Laveley, 07.03.2015 at 13:01

Obviously, It would be a more of a gameplay directed feature than a realistic one. For a perfectly realistic scenario the map would have to be spherical.

But hey, i get it if you dont like the idea, you have the total right to do so. I was just digressing a little in the first place. Also, If i was gonna purpose this for real, it would be in the right part of the community and not in a world 5k question topic.

My doubt still is the same, how would some "bridge" improve the gameplay? It would make ridiculously fast to travel long distances and incredibly vulnerable SA when the long distance is its best defense. And if you have one bridge to SA, you'd also add another to South Africa right? It's the same situation.

Well, I guess that would be the normal... lol

Ecrit par RaulPB, 07.03.2015 at 13:31

Ecrit par Laveley, 07.03.2015 at 13:01

Obviously, It would be a more of a gameplay directed feature than a realistic one. For a perfectly realistic scenario the map would have to be spherical.

But hey, i get it if you dont like the idea, you have the total right to do so. I was just digressing a little in the first place. Also, If i was gonna purpose this for real, it would be in the right part of the community and not in a world 5k question topic.

My doubt still is the same, how would some "bridge" improve the gameplay? It would make ridiculously fast to travel long distances and incredibly vulnerable SA when the long distance is its best defense. And if you have one bridge to SA, you'd also add another to South Africa right? It's the same situation.

Well, I guess that would be the normal... lol

lol dude, do i really have to explain how it would be easy to do such a bridge without it being ridiculously fast to travel those long distances? You dont have any imagination at all? dont you think that it could take at least some turns to cross the bridge or it would be in the middle of the ocean or whatever?

Seriously, gee, dont you read what i just said? Whats wrong with you? I was just digressing, i get it if you think is a bad idea. I get it. And i respect it. Do you want me to say its a bad idea too? Its a bad idea. There, happy now?

Now, can we come back to the topic?

Ecrit par Laveley, 07.03.2015 at 13:55

lol dude, do i really have to explain how it would be easy to do such a bridge without it being ridiculously fast to travel those long distances? You dont have any imagination at all? dont you think that it could take at least some turns to cross the bridge or it would be in the middle of the ocean or whatever?

Seriously, gee, dont you read what i just said? Whats wrong with you? I was just digressing, i get it if you think is a bad idea. I get it. And i respect it. Do you want me to say its a bad idea too? Its a bad idea. There, happy now?

Now, can we come back to the topic?

If you're gonna make it last some turns then just let it as it is. Or else you become too predictable when using the bridge as well.

Anyway, yup, this is ridiculous XD no, I'm not happy

Back to the topic, the only thing I could add to this debate is one question, would you beat an experienced player if he starts in SA and you play Eu (not being a 1 vs 1, but rather a FFA world game)?

Ecrit par RaulPB, 07.03.2015 at 14:25

Back to the topic, the only thing I could add to this debate is one question, would you beat an experienced player if he starts in SA and you play Eu (not being a 1 vs 1, but rather a FFA world game)?

It would depend really i guess. If Europe is not too crowded i guess i could. I have already beaten an experienced nigeria player with half europe (west) starting from ireland.

Also, take a look at this game; http://pt.atwar-game.com/play/#g/9743140465

There were 2 other players in NA, one in ontario and another in usa south. I managed to beat both of them fast with a little luck. Now, i must have more than double the income of the central america guy and more units than him, even though he didnt faced any opposition (the other south america guy is his ally).

Also, Pink and green already starting to have dominant positions in europe, i dont think the SA guy have any chance to beat any of them, he's expanding painfully slow, i think he should have at least half africa by now to have any chance (and hes alone, no excuses).

I think i will still have to play a lot more games to ever see somebody succeed in latin america, africa or oceania.

Ecrit par Laveley, 08.03.2015 at 11:18

As far as I see, those two in central and south america are complete noobs. You just got to see how central america hasn't gone for Cuba and Puerto rico islands yet. Also, ecuador as a starting pick seems awful in my opinion, he doesn't even have a single city walled. Also, he seems to have fought someone in SA earlier since I see that bolivia is surrounded by some neutral units. European countries are still fighting in between so a fast rush over them would probably do some harm on them. Also green is terribly poor and noob in my opinion, he will get rekt by pakistan. Pink might have some nice income but really needs reinforcements fast or else he'll get rekt easily as well. If you could see south african country, you'd realise he has no units in his cities and none of those is walled, a stealh attack would kill him in 1-2 turns. Only north korea and pakistan seem strong enough right now in that game and they're enemies it seems, if SA had a better starting pick and faster expansion, he would actually be able to do some damage to Eu. And central america... just needs to learn to expand more efficiently.... A GW Uruguay would have done some good moves in this map.

Btw, I really doubt you'll ever see a victorious Oceania player, unless everyone else is a complete noob XD

Ecrit par RaulPB, 08.03.2015 at 11:38

Ecrit par Laveley, 08.03.2015 at 11:18

As far as I see, those two in central and south america are complete noobs. You just got to see how central america hasn't gone for Cuba and Puerto rico islands yet. Also, ecuador as a starting pick seems awful in my opinion, he doesn't even have a single city walled. Also, he seems to have fought someone in SA earlier since I see that bolivia is surrounded by some neutral units. European countries are still fighting in between so a fast rush over them would probably do some harm on them. Also green is terribly poor and noob in my opinion, he will get rekt by pakistan. Pink might have some nice income but really needs reinforcements fast or else he'll get rekt easily as well. If you could see south african country, you'd realise he has no units in his cities and none of those is walled, a stealh attack would kill him in 1-2 turns. Only north korea and pakistan seem strong enough right now in that game and they're enemies it seems, if SA had a better starting pick and faster expansion, he would actually be able to do some damage to Eu. And central america... just needs to learn to expand more efficiently.... A GW Uruguay would have done some good moves in this map.

Btw, I really doubt you'll ever see a victorious Oceania player, unless everyone else is a complete noob XD

There were a player in bolivia, but all he did was join, ally the other 2 latin americans and USA:south and than leave (go figure). Green got a nasty fight with poland earlier, so give him a break (yet probably pakistan will take over him). Anyways, this is the type of game i usually see.