If you win 60%+ of your 1v1 games, you probably already know this.

For everybody else:

In games where you don't know where your opponent is and you don't meet for 4-5+ turns, only focusing on growing your income is the mistake. You need to grow your income, but even more important than that, is finding your opponent. And very closely related to that, you need to make sure they don't find you first, particularly in a vulnerable spot.

Some ways to do this:

When you're making attacks on a neutral that your opponent may also be attacking, never attack with 3 armies. If they attack with 3+ then they'll take it from you. That can cost you the game. Attacking with 4 can work but if you're playing a good player who knows this, and attacking a neutral you think there is a high probability they'll attack, you may need to attack with even more. For hot spots like Iran, Georgia, Thailand, Malaysia, Egypt etc, send 10+ armies in if you can. And make them your first attack.

From turn 1, plan where you will go looking for your opponent. And maximize every single move for getting there as fast as possible. Try hard not to take a single turn without advancing that search for your opponent.

Sometimes you wont know whether you are earning a new bonus or looking for your opponent. Don't take any neutrals you don't need to in those situations. The most obvious example is taking Australia from the north. Until you know your opponent is not in Antarctica, just cut through the middle. On the last turn when you take Australia, send at least 4 armies into Antarctica. (If you have good reason to believe they are not in Antarctica, that changes things). Some bonuses are really hard to take due to this. West China is the worst. You have to make sure all sides are covered before you take it. Don't waste any armies on neutrals when doing that. In situations like that, taking the bonus is something you reward yourself with once you've done your reconnaissance. It's almost an afterthought. When you take it, you're off looking for your opponent in new places.

Maybe others can add more tips on how to do this. It's a nuanced concept, there are lots more things to think about.

The end result is that, hopefully, when the fight does go down, you wont be at risk. Your bonuses will be protected and safe and you'll be trying to break your opponents bonus. If they win the first battle, you can retreat if necessary and not lose any income. Whereas if they win the first battle on your territory, the game is usually over.

Awesome!!! thanks for the advice

Here is an example:

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10989343

I (essentially) won the game on turn 2, because I went into Antarctica hard, instead of focusing on the South Africa bonus, which is what most people would have done. I planned to do that from the beginning, placing an extra 2 armies on South Africa.

you are soooooooooooo right

i never really thought about things like that till turn 3, always more to learn

Billy that game was horrible, you had not won turn 2, any player half decent still would have beat you turn 4.

He wins 22% of 1v1, I was messing around.

But that move into Antarctica is a perfect demonstration of what I was referring to.

The biggest mistake people make is coming onto Warlight.

Turn 4 I guess you're saying he would have come in through Iran?

1. I only made those picks because he wins 22% of 1v1...
2. If I somehow did make those picks, I would have gone through Iran myself in turn 3 if he were a stronger player. See what I said in the OP, I violated my own rule by not looking for him! Because once I blocked Antarctica, I knew the game, against him, was over.

Edited 4/19/2016 13:07:04

Hey there. I put this into use and I think I won because of it :)

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10989617

Anyone care to analyse my picks because I wasn't too comfortable with them :S

And he lost the game for not doing it!

See what he did taking West Russia? He didn't know or care whether you were Scandinavia. Big mistake.

The advice is fair, even in team games. Sometimes I wonder why people spend armies killing neutrals to incompletely take a bonus when they can immediately break their opponents. You have an advantage if the 'fighting' takes place close to your opponent's bonuses. Aggressiveness is key

Edited 4/19/2016 13:22:57

^ Yea, being passive is a bad idea 90% of the time.

But sometimes being agressive is a fast way to lose, it's all about making the right choice in the right situations.

Thx for this advice. I'm using it right now

The advice to find your opponent is fine, but that game doesn't illustrate the benefit of it. You could have won just as easily completing South Africa instead of attacking Antarctica. What that game really shows is the problem of wasting your armies attacking neutrals when your opponent is on your borders AND the problem of taking multiple bonuses simultaneously instead of focusing on 1. You found your opponent's bonuses, and instead of pushing you back with his superior income, he decided to start taking 3 separate bonuses simultaneously. That's why he lost.

^

Yeah, this is more a case of how the opponent lost, than how you won...

And Ox you won but if he had first order on turn 2 im not sure you would have won as his strategy was based on clearing africa. Picks from both players were decent I thought (but im not an expert on picking).

im pretty bad at wl and i tried scouting before taking bonuses like you said so what did i do wrong in this game https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10993117

Every game is complicated, usually with multiple factors leading to a win or loss. The sole purpose of showing the previous game was to demonstrate what I meant in the OP and how it can help. It's not a Silver Bullet which will win you every game. You can debate whether or not that move 'won' the game or whether he could have beaten me anyway. But that move certainly helped me and hurt him. It also is not what most people would do right there, they'd go for the South Africa bonus.

Here is another game where the concept in the OP played a big role:

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10994428

Turn 1: I went to Kenya and Egypt to give me visibility and to setup advances outward in Turn 2. Going to Mexico is standard here but that also setup going to Cuba in turn 2 (to see if he was in East US). So three moves here, all searching for him.

Turn 2: I decided to take the Central America bonus instead of expanding North or South in Africa, to search for him. That's a difficult tradeoff and I would have preferred to search for him instead. I did go into Cuba which setup me going into East US to look for him. I only attacked Cuba with 3 armies because he could not have gotten that far yet.

Turn 3: This is where I really go hunting. I only use a 3v2 on the West Africa bonus, most people would probably go hard on that bonus here. I instead send 4 armies each into East US, Antaractica and Middle East. 4 because if he uses a 3v2 on the same territory, I'll win. I'm not going for bonuses here, these are all searching for him. If I find him in one, then I can probably take the bonus later in the other 2, but that's not the goal right now. I want to find him.

Turn 4: I spend a few armies on the West Africa bonus but this is still largely a hunting turn. I send another 4 into East US. At this point, I'm pretty sure he's not in East US, but I'm checking to see if he's in Canada. I'm not going to take East US until I know he isn't in Canada. I ignore the South Africa bonus and head straight through to Antarctica, again with 4 in case he tries to complete that bonus with a 3v2. If he's not in Antractica, I'm going to head straight through to Australia looking for him. These bonuses are a secondary consideration right now. I also send 6 armies into Turkey, setting up to go hard into Iran in turn 5. Taking the Middle East isn't even on my mind. Using this strategy rarely results in taking the Middle East, given how many popular picks are in that area. It's all about doing a lot of damage from Iran and/or Turkey -- and protecting my Africa income.

Turn 5: We had the same idea on Iran. He made the mistake of not putting in his attack first, so I held it. I kept advancing in both Antarctica and East US. That 6v4 in East US was pretty risky, I'd like not to have done that. But it gave me visibility into Canada and set me up to take the bonus.

At this point we met and were fighting in the Middle East and Canada so this concept doesn't apply. Except for what I was doing in Canada, which turned out to be really important. I kept advancing with 4v2's in the most efficient manner possible to find him. My goal was to break through Alaska and hopefully find him on the other side. I'd take Canada later and probably slowly. That doesn't work out as we met. And when we did, he was attacking 3v2's trying to take the bonus, instead of trying to find me. If he had sent those 6 armies (or even 4) straight toward East US, I'd have been in a much worse position.

Again, you can debate all sorts of aspects of that game. The point is that if he had been using this concept, it would have been much better for him. And if I had not been using it, that would have been much worse for me. It helped me and hurt him.

Edited 4/20/2016 04:36:47