The board looks as follows:



As a recap, here is what happened last turn:

The world deployed 3 to Vorkuta (WR)
The world deployed 2 to Moscow (WR)
The world captured Murmansk (WR) from Moscow(WR) with a 4v2. The world lost one army
The world transferred 1 from Norway (Scan) to Murmansk (WR)
The world captured Arkhangelsk (WR) from Vorkuta (WR) with a 4v2. The world lost one army

---

The options for the following turn are as follows:

Option A
Deploy 1 to Murmansk (WR)
Deploy 4 to Norway (Scan)
Deploy 4 to Bolivia (SA)

Transfer 2 to Ufa (WR) from Arkhangelsk (WR)
Take Finland (Scan) with a 4v2 from Murmansk (WR)
Take Sweden (Scan) with a 4v2 from Norway (Scan), completing Scandinavia
Take Brazil (SA) with a 7v2 from Bolivia (SA)

In this set we are still kind of playing it the safe way. The intention is to take Scandinavia safely with attacks of 4, and trying to pick up the fight in South America. If Rufus went into SA already, we can pressure to kick him out next turn and if he didn't we can decide on whether to be super greedy and go for the whole SA or just go towards CA and start either Central Russia or go another way (f.e. Georgia to check Midlde East). This kind of is the standard approach to the position, however it is a bit ignoring what Rufus is doing, or just hoping that he does nothing that is too dangerous for us yet.

---

Option B
Deploy 1 to Murmansk (WR)
Deploy 4 to Norway (Scan)
Deploy 4 to Moscow (WR)

Transfer 1 from Arkhangelsk (WR) to Ufa (WR)
Transfer 1 from Arkhangelsk (WR) to Moscow (WR)
Take Finland (Scan) with a 4v2 from Murmansk (WR)
Take Sweden (Scan) with a 4v2 from Norway (Scan), completing Scandinavia
Take Brazil (SA) with a 3v2 from Bolivia (SA)
Take Georgia (Cauc) with a 4v2 from Moscow (WR)

This set is trying to get to Georgia and/or taking Georgia back from Rufus if he moves there himself while at the same time taking Scandinavia safely. However, attacking Georgia with 4 is not safe, even if rufus attacks with 4 as well, it is not guaranteed that we take it back. At the same time, Brazil could go wrong, which would allow rufus a free play in CA even longer. If it works tho and we end up with Brazil and Georgia after the turn, we have a good position to continue from with out 12 income.

---

Option C
Deploy 3 to Norway (Scan)
Deploy 6 to Moscow (WR)

Transfer 2 from Arkhangelsk (WR) to Moscow (WR)
Attempt Finland (Scan) with a 3v2 from Murmansk (WR)
Attempt Sweden (Scan) with a 3v2 from Norway (Scan)
Take Brazil (SA) with a 3v2 from Bolivia (SA)
Take Georgia (Cauc) with a 6v2 from Moscow (WR)

This is like option B, just that we take more risk with our expansion in Scandinavia and less risk with our attack into Georgia. It makes sense for Rufus to take Georgia with more than just 4 armies, otherwise he can maybe not back up his attack into russia with enough armies.

---

Option D
Deploy 3 to Norway (Scan)
Deploy 6 to Ufa (WR)
Attempt Finland (Scan) with a 3v2 from Murmansk (WR)
Attempt Sweden (Scan) with a 3v2 from Norway (Scan)
Take Omsk (CR) with a 6v4 from Ufa (WR)
Take Brazil (SA) with a 3v2 from Bolivia (SA)

This option is trying to win the game by going for a crazy expansion. We try the SR expansion in Scandinavia as well as Central Russia. If it works tho, we might be able to complete CR next turn while moving towards Central America. And this would allow us to build a huge income before rufus gets the chance to challenge us in russia, because there is still much uncertainty in the Middle East pick at all, and even if he has it, it might take more time until he shows it.

---

You may submit your vote by posting on this thread, or, if you'd rather vote anonymously, mail me.
Voting ends three days after this post.

If you want to see the board on picks, check out the game here: https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=22959869

To check the previous threads, refer to these links:
https://www.warzone.com/Forum/433434-rufus-vs-world-picks
https://www.warzone.com/Forum/436073-rufus-vs-world-turn-1
https://www.warzone.com/Forum/437146-rufus-vs-world-turn-2

first!

All in: C.

I would have prefered a tiny bit less extreme option like attacking Georgia with 5. If Rufus plays it exactly as I predict him to, he won't have income to hit Georgia with more than 4.

The mean thing here is that some pros don't vote but I'm pretty sure that once Georgia turns out to be wrong I sense a few "I told you so" coming.

C.

I agree with Norman that a 5v2 option would have been preferable. Not comfortable with A or D because we might as well actually check whether Rufus is in ME or that uncertainty is going to taint our play for the next however many turns failing to protect CR could also turn fatal, especially if our next bonus is Scandinavia (which is probably the only viable option since we know he's in CA and he likely has CA). B is risky because if Rufus hits Georgia with a 4v2 he's got a 60% chance of 3 leftovers, in which case our 4v2 would fail.

I'm probably missing something here, but why is the Georgia 4v2 the last move in B? Do we expect Rufus to try a late-turn 3v2?

I suspect Rufus is about to crush us soon with an income advantage he built by not playing as conservatively as we are.

Edited 8/5/2020 18:40:49

D

I'm probably missing something here, but why is the Georgia 4v2 the last move in B? Do we expect Rufus to try a late-turn 3v2?

If both players attack a territorry with 4v2 in the same turn, the player who attacks last has higher likelyhood of ending up with the territory. (64%)

I suspect Rufus is about to crush us soon with an income advantage he built by not playing as conservatively as we are.

@Knyte: With weighted random luck if both players attack with 4, the guy moving later has a higher chance to end up with the territory. Let me think:
- First mover loses 2 -- 40% chance of it happening --100% chance of you winning
- First mover loses 1 -- 60% chance of it happening -- 40% chance of you winning

So 0.4 * 1 + 0.6*0.4 = 0.64 meaning that if you attack later with 4v2, you have a 64% chance of getting the territory.

So what you got wrong is that if the first mover only loses 1, we still have a 40% chance of killing his 3 remaining armies.

Edited 8/5/2020 19:21:34

- First mover loses 1 -- 60% chance of it happening -- 40% chance of you winning

D'oh that's what I'd missed. Calculated odds for 3v3 for second mover rather than 4v3 because I'm so used to attacking 2's with 3's. 3 defending has a 10% chance of killing 3, 90% chance of 2; 4 attacking has a 40% chance of killing 3, 60% chance of 2. So odds of a 4v3 are 40%, while 3v3 is 0% and can be fatal.

Thanks, Norman and AI.

Edited 8/5/2020 20:16:41

Some good analysis already, keep it up. I'll put in my vote in two days, as I'm now mixing myself into the discussion. Bias, here we come!

Option C.

My theory of the game is Rufus picked ME, and we need to take Georgia now. I see no reason to change course now.

C, taking Georgia is was we have prepared to do last turns, so lets complete that

I vote for A.

I dislike assuming Rufus has Middle East with 100% certainty. If we fail Scandinavia (36% chance) and he is not in ME, we auto-lose the game. If he is in ME, what says he'll show up this turn? Maybe he takes the fight to SA. I'd prefer to take the fight to Central America, as we're 100% sure he's there.

C

its possible rufus didnt go for central america and already blockades in south america so that would make a stack in south america very useless for the next couple of turns

I believe that we should not take Georgia this turn.
The scenarios:

In one case he doesn't have ME, ok fine, in that case, Georgia is a wasted move anyways, right?

But now let's assume he has ME, why would he move to Georgia this turn? He could only do so if he went for the strategy of taking Central America in turn 3 from the beginning while at the same time moving ME consequently towards Georgia. This ignores tho, that he probably does neither know about our exact picks in Russia nor that he has to be prepared for us eventually trying to take South America in 2 turns. (we almost did that!) Both those things prevent him from playing in a way that would allow him to take Georgia now.
Then there is also the option that he takes Georgia without bothering to take any more income before showing up there. He would go into his counter with a 9 vs 12 disadvantage, why would he do that? And on top, this would mean anyways that our attack of 4 or 6 armies into Georgia doesn't succeed, so no need to even try it.

To conclude, I would honestly even say that moving to Georgia in this turn is just an objective bad move, no matter of predictions.

I agree with Farah's reasoning and vote for A. I would even vote for D maybe if the leftovers would be a bit better than what we have.

I agree with AI. True words, true words....
If there's one thing I would change though, it's nothing, because his analysis is flawless

Let's consider Rufus' options at 3rd pick.

1) He has ME. In this case CA + EA matches Scan + CR income for income. Beating Rufus to Georgia or counter taking him does a lot. It protects our WR double border and threatens ME. If Rufus is ME, all we need to do to win this game is take Iran and not play catastrophically bad. Taking Georgia is both proactively defensive and gets us closer to that goal.

2) He has EC. In this scenario he likely countered SA already and is working on EC (I don't think he can take it this turn in most scenarios but will leave that to the WR wizards). Taking Georgia here isn't ideal, but we can still use the armies for card piece and working on caucasus.

3) He has something else like ER, WC or Eur. We probably just lose in any of these scenarios, but I don't see how our other options are all that better.

D

I'm very sure that the thought process of AI is wrong. I have already pointed out how super bad we are assuming Rufus to play here (all assuming it's Central America + East Africa + Middle East):
- Turn 2 Rufus takes East Africa (9 income)
- Turn 2 (or maybe also turn 3) Rufus smashes into South America (which he can do with a 4v2 attack at best if turn 2). (9 income)
- Turn 3 Rufus takes absolutely no bonus. (9 income)
- Turn 4 Rufus can then take Central America (12 income)
- Turn 5 Rufus surrenders because we have 12 income since turn 3 and am breaking him easily in Central America.

Playing like that Rufus would have issues beating Blowfly. Blowfly takes his big bonuses.

Bad / careless play IMO would be to take Mexico in turn 2 from Rufus' side. I just do not see why he should have done that. I also do not see how being at an 9 vs 12 disadvantage for one turn while going for position in the meantime is game losing. Mybe I am missing something, why exactly Rufus shows up in Georgia this turn.

@AI: After turn 3 we could not only have 12 income but could also be bordering Central America already. In fact this kind of play would be the most obvious choice from us IMO if we weren't so "paranoid" about a Russia counter. So if Rufus would play like that he would risk not getting Central America at all. He would just be stuck with his 9 income for probably the end of the game. He also can't take Middle East and especially not while getting slapped around in Central America.

Edited 8/6/2020 17:52:27