I get what your saying Zaeban but the problem is by next turn Imp will likely have a big stack in South America AND a big stack in Antarctica and even tho we'll net a +5 bonus this turn, we still won't be able to deploy enough troops to really go toe to toe with him in both areas. By blockading Antarctica this turn, it allows us to load up in South America next turn (where we currently have the army advantage on him already) and hammer at him while his stack in Antarctica can't do anything but watch from behind the blockade. It also protects us from that end quite nicely if we end up taking the South America bonus completely.

I haven't had the time to read this thread this week, but looking at the voting options I was a little disappointed that something like this wasn't proposed:

Deploy 6 to Kangerlussuaq and 6 to Scott.
Attack Colombia with 19.
Attack Tasmania with 4.
Attack Nigeria with 6.
Transfer 2 to Kangerlussuaq.
Attack Qaanaaq with 7.
Blockade Scott (3=11).

I'm sure some of this has been covered (this is page 4 of the thread afterall), but I'm not going to look back. Read on, if you dare.

If Imp wants to continue to expend armies to fight in South America, that is fine by me. I am not willing to. There are too many defense points for it to be worth it (Central America and Antartica - yes you could blockade Siple; this does not even account for his potential progress in Africa). I don't want spend armies trying to secure a bonus that I will be desperately trying to defend every turn. We have enough of an army advantage already that he will be forced to place armies in the bonus to defend it.

Taking Greenland this turn with 7 is a no-brainer to me - we need the income, badly. The ability to slowly expand into Canada (away from any threat) is also a huge plus here.

Attacking into Colombia with 19 ensures that if he doesn't go first or spend ALL his armies in Colombia, we will probably take the territory. If he spends all his armies there, it means they aren't going for additional income, which I am happy for especially since we'll get a positive gain on the attack unless he slides his armies from Venezuela over first move.

Moving into Australia isn't a must for me, but I like it. It's a solid bonus, or another unexpected access point to India (if we can take Tasmania before he takes South Pole). Yes, there is a Warlord (4) in Malaysia, but that's not a big deal to me. Blockading Scott with only 3 to leave 11 is plenty for my tastes and enough of a deterrent that I highly doubt Impaller will knock it down because a) I'm guessing he sends 7-8 armies back into Africa this turn to work on the South Africa bonus and b) we would still border the bonus from Argentina, and who wants to spend extra armies for a bonus you're going to have to worry about defending every turn? I'd want to obviously get to Western Australia to check on the Indonesia bonus before expending armies to take the entire bonus. Yes, that would mean concurrent slow creeping in two large bonuses (Australia and Canada).

I'd like to get into Africa to a) make sure he doesn't get the West Africa bonus and b) get closer to his East Africa bonus. 6 should be sufficient in case he attacks Nigeria before/after us. This also leaves a few to protect Brazil, not that it really needs protecting if we're already in Africa and Colombia (assumptions, obviously).

Pretty late in the game for this to really matter, but throwing the thoughts out there anyway.

Did you make it this far? Congrats!

Troll: I actually like that suggestion, it's something fresh that we haven't really discussed quite like that yet. I'm putting that exact scenario as vote option #13.

err #14, my bad...

Troll, that's almost the same thing I want to do. The main differences are that I'd like to go into Africa in force, and I'd like to get into Australia this turn instead of next.

If we want to take Australia this turn, we can't blockade Siple very well. That's why I suggested moving armies south from Brazil to Argentina, which allows us to move more armies south from Argentina to Siple next turn as a pseudo-blockade.

The benefit of taking Nigeria with 12 instead of 6 is that we threaten a stack of almost 30 on our next move, and if he puts all or most of his armies this turn into South America and/or South Africa, which seems likely, then he will be out of position to defend a brute force attack in East Africa.

The reason I don't like attacking him in South America is that we lower both our army counts. He could try to vigorously defend himself in South America, but he's very unlikely to try to do it by attacking Brazil (since it has more armies than he can) and fairly unlikely to attack Argentina (since we could stack up there and attack him from two spots. Which means he won't border the center country in there - so if we take that this turn, and don't use our blockade, we could blockade it next turn in the likely event that he loads up the max in South America, slide our armies south into Siple to defend down there, and still send a huge attack towards East Africa - which is really the goal here.

My goal is to strand his big stacks, reclaim the income advantage, threaten his bonuses while he doesn't threaten ours, and border all of his room to expansion. That's really the recipe to winning a game. Your goal seems to be similar. Duke's seems to be more of a war of attrition, which is also reasonable, but inconsistent with our attack on Brazil last turn, and it risks losing our position in Brazil. I just want to make sure we're consistent - I'd hate to give up a lot to make sure we get Brazil, then waste it the next turn.

Darnt can't tell the colors apart >.<

Wait nvm found the differance finally being colorblind sucks -_-

Number 11 has won! The next thread will be posted shortly.