It's interesting to watch top 2v2 players do what they do best. Team C got better picks. Tri had a slight advantage over sze due to Ireland>England. Gnuff had better picks than myhand due to iceland benelux being the same number of neutrals for 1 higher income than denmark portugal. It doesn't seem like much but it was an advantage they carried the entire game.

Turn 1 Sze just resigned himself to the fact that he wasnt going to get a bonus this game, not realising trilussa was the person he was facing off in all 3 places and she would struggle for a bonus too. He left the fight in the centre to myhand and took on the islands as best he could. He gambled that someone would take ireland which was a mistake team A couldn't afford after getting slightly worse picks. Mid-game gnuff wisely focused on the narrow Iceland->denmark fight where his income wins out and simply avoided elimination in the centre.

WM rule =P

As you know, each turn leads to new strategic options for the next turn. So the turns that matter:

1. "[Your] assumptions from turn 1 were wrong." You said in the video (paraphrasing), "I assumed Gnuff was in Ireland. So I absolutely had to deploy 100% to ensure Gnuff does not get the Ireland bonus." Tri was in Ireland. Your absolute certainty was a 50-50 guess in my book, unless you know that Gnuff always picks Ireland and that led you to believe it was a certainty.

2a. You said in the video you were sure Gnuff was in Ireland but after seeing Ireland not being taken, you knew Tri was there. So why enter Ireland if Tri was there? Have you watched Tri play much? I assume you have. He's worth watching. He doesn't attack neutrals much unless he thinks it will lead to something. There was a good chance he'd not attack in Ireland. But that is based on your second certainty: Tri is in Ireland now. I wouldn't have been so sure about that. Maybe Gnuff was there but he was focusing on his other two bonuses. So your second certainty was also a guess, not a certainty. You guessed right though. But if you were so certain it was Tri, why enter Ireland that turn? It's not ME 1v1. You don't need card pieces. Tri likes to let the enemy kill neutrals for him so he can steamroll the weakened enemy. Your aggression gave him a second advantage over you.

2b. Because of your first turn assumption (certainty to you, 50-50 guess to me), your second turn's situation meant you did in fact have to do something: deploy 100% in Aust. So, what could you do? Drop 5 and let Tri hit you 14v10? Or attack Switz? Attacking Switz would lead to a slow war of attrition. If you stand strong 14v10: Tri loses 7; you lose 8-9. Standing armies next turn: 7 versus 1 or 2. Not good, but you'd give myhand 1 more turn to make something happen. What next, if you stand strong turn 2? If you have 2, you face an 11v7 attack by Tri. 58% chance he kills you. Or you could run to Switz. Overall effect of standing strong 1-2 turns: Tri doesn't get Switz so quickly. Tri wouldn't have expanded in Austria so quickly. Though he'd be more likely to go for Ireland, especially since Gnuff ended up transferring extras to him (though the Gnuff I know doesn't usually do that unless he has a selfish reason to). But your bad situation here is still due to your first turn assumption. Attacking in UK was not necessary, even if Gnuff had Ireland. So you hit that one neutral. You followed that up with attacking Ireland and trying to stay alive with an attack on Switz (see 2c below). So you hit three neutrals already. Tri only hit you so far. He's about to steamroll you. Thus: You ATTACKED TOO MANY NEUTRALS too early. The effect: Myhand LOST TIME working his magic. "[You] attacked too many neutrals and didn't give [your] teammate much time to turn things around."

2c. Your choice: Kill more neutrals. Hit Switz. Effect: Instead of a 14v10 war of attrition (you could buy time, let myhand try to win it), you end up with standing armies of 13v8.

3a. A 17v13 attack is what you're looking at now. With 17v13, Tri loses 9 you lose 10. Effect if you stand still: standing armies of 9 (Tri) and 3 (you). 13v8 (turn 4's situation, if you stand strong this turn) is successful 70% of the time. The time to run would be then.

3b. Tri wants your blood. You try to run and (a) you get to France but give control of Switz to Tri or (b) Tri hits you before you run and your 2 hits France and likely just makes you look pathetic. You got lucky and moved before Tri would've made you look pathetic. But now Switz is his if he wants it. But at least you can bust Benelux and give myhand a chance to win the game with superior income, since Benelux might go down. He can grab the middle and cut back to mess with Tri in Switz/Aust.

4. You had first turn twice in a row. You think you'll get it a third time? You do: You deploy 3 in Ireland, unnecessarily. Put everything in France and you have a chance to get first move and attack with authority. Gnuff didn't even care about you. Your only hope ends up being a 4v3 attack. In the video you express surprise that the 4v3 didn't work! Focus 100% on your primary objective (busting Benenlux) and those extra 3 would've been more than enough. And since Tri ended up hitting you first, it would've given you distance between his stack and your conquistadores of Benelux. But you didn't. At the moment focus would've helped, you lose focus. "Jumping from strategy to strategy to strategy...didn't give myhand time to win the game." The effect: "[You] wasted armies without really doing much."

5. Now your situation is pathetic. Tri rapes you.

6. So you jump to Southern Ireland. This is your best hope, delaying the inevitable...Game is over unless myhand can clear the middle immediately. He isn't able to. GG.

In only 4 turns you became useless. You didn't give myhand time. He was facing an opponent who was not randomly wasting armies on neutrals trying to be clever. So he needed more time. You had a chance to possibly make your approach work (turn 4), but you take your foot off the gas. Why commit to a strategy and then change strategies at the last moment, when success is most possible?

I stand by my initial assessment: "[You] attacked too many neutrals and didn't give [your] teammate much time to turn things around. [You] wasted armies without really doing much. The other team didn't waste armies in [your] area. They won."

What would I have done differently, aside from having different picks? I wouldn't have gambled everything on a 50-50 assumption first move. But if I did end up with your ugly situation based on the picks, I probably would have put 5 in Austria first turn and see what happens. Gnuff and myhand were the wild cards. If Tri was in Ireland, he probably wouldn't go for it: they don't know who is in the UK and Tri saves his armies. I like to gamble too. So if I was bored, maybe I would have checked Southern Ireland with a 4v2 and execute a soldier in Russia 1v2 to try to get last turn and then attack Switz 9vX third order to make things interesting. Chasing windmills full power in Ireland is something I wouldn't have done, given you had to hit a neutral just to see Ireland and it isn't an interesting/fun move.

Anything else that I would've done differently would have depended on (a) how my first turn influences turn 2's options (and how that influences turn 3, and so on) and (b) whatever discussion I have or don't have with myhand, to find a way that I can make our approaches/moves work as much as possible towards the same strategic goal(s).

Ladder or brand new templates would've been better in my opinion.

Ok I see the point.

And I understand why you did that, infact when you thinkn of being in disadvantae sometimes is ok to make risky moves.

I still diasgrre with a point.

You said that you wanted to stall Gnuffone in order to let myhand enonugh time to clear the center, my point about this is: how could myhand have had the center if you would have left me austria on turn 2?

What I'm trying to say is that if Gnuffone would have been in Ireland you cannot do anything to win the game, so if you really had to take a risk, i think that it would be better to assume that I was in Ireland, and play as you knew that.

This is a worth-taking risk, because in that way you could have won the game, instead to me the risk you took if it would have succeded, it would allowed you to be alive a little bit more, but still you were in a deadly situation.

epic answer to a long post hedja :)

Reza, I meant for this week, last week it was fine :P

i have anew respect for gui that was the most in depth answer anybody i know has given ever you must have used the 10000 character limit in that post

what time does it start EST in america?

About the templates: Too many ME 1v1 junkies. Maybe they are chain smokers too. Just facilitate their weakness. But I think that 2v2 template is the best 2v2 game I've played. It requires a great deal of thought. And people familiar with Europe have an advantage. That means many of the ME 1v1 junkies would crash and burn. They don't like looking like fools. So many won't join and face embarrassment. This is how WL has always been.

Hellbender, it is in roughly 3 hours and a bit from now

Gui, some people just get bored after having overplayed the EU map. I would prefer to play on nearly any another map, to try something new out, I'm not saying it has to be Middle Earth.

thankx but take me off the list im going toplay paintball today i forgot ill do nex time thanks:)))

scratch that ill b here my ride canceled on me

ME 1v1 junkie here,

Gui/Sze anyone who wants to play: I think you all usually play when I am asleep, but I'd like to play these settings with you. It looks like a larger map, without cards or wastelands to make it less complicated, but very similar to strat 1v1.

Hit me up.

hedg, the settings make each game unique. But maybe it is not for everyone. If you prefer games with less tactical requirements and more uncontested growth, you wouldn't like the template. Or maybe you just want something new. That's the way it should be. If the 2v2 ladder were as balanced, as fair (with respect to luck), and as strategically interesting, I wouldn't have stopped playing with this account.

Ideally, the 1v1 ladder would be what it is with a modified ME map (that goes further than the new ME map), the 2v2 ladder would be this template, and the seasonal ladders would each be on a different map. If only Fizzer were as good at creating templates as he is at programming.

It's easier to get bored from Med.Earth than from Europe :)

I know, its off topic, but i took a look at that game sze/myhand - Gnuff/Tri. I can only conclude: its always the picks. With only 3 picks for each player bad luck with the picks sure has a bigger influence than with 4 picks. And sze/myhand sure had some bad luck with them. But in this case it was not only the picks. Both teams knew where the other teams picks are from beginning. Right after start myhand and sze should have elaborated a game strategy how to deal with the overall situation. As Gui already mentinoned it sure was a risky strategy for sze to take 2 neutrals in order to get to Eastern France. It you do something like this you need to put all your forces into it, because the likelyness that you are dealing with 2 opponents when you get to Eastern France is really big. So putting the first bonus income to England sure was a mistake. If the two had elaborated a better overall game strategy, it would have been quite clear, that myhand should have used the paramount strategic situation of Denmark more quickly by moving asap toward Benelux, even before taking Denmark and later, Norway. Myhands tries to kill Gnuffone in Center were totally useless without a serious threat on the bonuses of Gnuffone. From turn 8 on both, sze and myhand played a great game, but it was too late to catch up the deficits of prior moves.

My conclusion is that one factor sure was some bad luck with the picks. But much more important was the lack of an efficient synergetic game strategy of sze/myhand.

About the luck for Greece - The template was originally made by Szew who does not have a membership. The luck will always default to 75% because of this, and I think will do that if you don't have a membership as well. I assure you the real tournament is at 16% luck. :)

Ah, good. Don't want to lose my game because of luck.

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?TournamentID=3384 <-- 1v1 Tournament
http://www.twitch.tv/wargaminglive <-- Stream

congrats Timinator. i was so close and yet so far :)