I have two games I played which I felt I played well, and was wondering if any of the better players here could critique them for me. I want to find out what I did well, what I did badly, and how I could overall improve.

Thanks for anyone who helps!

VS Alcarmacil
http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=2208225

VS Soyrice
http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=2164536

Problem with second game is that you're playing against Soyrice.

You're "oh so helpful."

Thanks.

I'm looking for actual critique, I'm trying to become a better player, and I feel like I can be.

Anyone with actual help, thank you.

There is a time and a place for expansion in 1v1...I don't feel either you or your opponents executed that with much finesse. I think in both of these examples, your opponent could have taken advantage of your errors in deployment and won the game were they not doing the same thing you were only worse.
Basically, there's a certain space that's created in some games- either through inevitability of losing a bonus, or through gaps in the action, or the futility of deadlock that creates an opportunity for expansion. Expanding when there is no such space (when you could be fending off an enemy bonus capture, threatening one of his bonuses, or you could seriously upset the balance of play in a critical area, etc.) is generally inadvisable. Acknowledge your position's vulnerabilities as well as your opponent's, respect the pace of the game, and most of all-- pay attention! To incomes, intent, subtle flow, and whatever details you can.
Hope this helps!

It would be more helpful if you posted games in which you lost, rather than won.

A bad choice that works out isn't always a bad choice. Knowing your opponent is a big part of playing at higher levels, as I learned recently from a game against Gui. He didn't do what he should have, because he knew me better than I knew him. Since your choices worked out well in these two games (you won), then it's hard to say that you did much wrong.

Nice Diplomacy card work against Alcarmacil, by the way. You perfectly denied him easy expansion when you had a lead, and forced him to expand right in front of you, instead of building a defensive army.

Thank you both for the comments, they were quite helpful.

In game on Ive noticed only one mistake - you should have blockaded earlier. In general this game was lost by your opponent (he/she has done a lot of mistakes).

Also I would pick a little diffrently (most liekly the same picks, but with diffrent priority). In general I dont think that picking cluster 1+2 is a good way to go.

There might be smth else, but I didnt look that throughly at the game.

In game two what strikes me at first glance are picks - you got Australia - a counterpick as 2nd. Thats too soon I think. Also greenland wasnt optimal here. All it accomplished is to weekly counterpick scan and thats not enough in my opinion.

This time I think you wasted a blockade. It accomplished you nothing - youve seen that the enemy wasnt takeing antarctica and you at least had some time left. Card + 5 troops. If youd commit them to getting russia, you most liekly would be in Mongolia 1st, which would be extreamly important.

Just a few thoughts, I hope they help.

Yea, agree with artham, in game 1, should have blocked middle east 1 turn earlier

In sencond game, i didn't get the Australia pick

South America and South Africa were both wastelands, so I guess Antartica would seem to make a lot of sense as a safe spot. Australia offers both a potential counter for that, but also good access to Indonesia and SE Asia, which he did not have otherwise.

But I'm not sure why it's choice #2 while he didn't put a single pick into Antartica. It makes more sense to me as third or fourth pick (Ant being third in that case) to [nearly] guarantee some access to that part of the board. That would give him better odds on his #2 pick elsewhere. Granted, he got all three of his top picks, so that's moot in this case, but still something to consider.