yay, i made it to top 20 1vs1 ladder! \o/

just wanted to prove to dunga i could place decent on the ladder if i bothered having a go at it again.

hate middle earth with these settings relying so much on the luck of early 3 vs 2
hope to see a 0% luck CLOT ladder popping up to replace the current one

1 v 1 ladder based on luck with early 3 v 2 attacks? LOL :)

yeah, i find that some of the games where you already know where your opponent has started are often decided by who gets their +4 army bonus on their second turn (and extra area on the next one). and having to risk for two successful 3 vs 2 attacks on same round can often be a win or lose gamble, which i'm not a great fan of. atleast that's one of the small things that makes me dislike these middle earth settings. ofcourse it's subjective, but yeah, i don't like it.

One would hope you will learn to not draw attention to your accomplishments. Rather, let Dunga notice and seek you out.

3V2 luck does play a role in the ladder, for example when you try to take a second +4 on turn 3 (you need to succeed 2 or 3 3V2s usually), but it's rarely a deciding factor

with christma lots of players left the ladder, it ws easier to rise... parabens, se isso te faz feliz

whodpdy doo

rarely a deciding factor my ass

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3703502
lost on turn 3 thanks to 2 lost 3 vs 2 in a row.

no, i just don't like these settings. i'm gonna retire from the ladder. hope to see better ones pop up using CLOT in a near future.

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3680264
luck can play a role, i had lost this game on deployment but if we had gotten equal positionning i would have lost badly
i got like 0 leftovers and failed both 3V2s first turn

ps, if you think your game vs zibik was lost due to 3 v 2 attacks, then you have no idea why did you loose.

Warflowvet: your game had even less to do with it.

Yes, you both had bad luck with it, but it wasn't even close to a decideing factor.

Artham: i'm sure you would have played it differently, and my options don't make much sense to you since we don't have much similar style.

but yes, i believe my loss was mostly due to missing the two 3 vs 2 while he did not. i knew about the possible combo in australia and i knew he was in brazil. i expanded first in china to be able to storm indonesia to check for australia. and if he was there i would blockade indonesia and defend on the indian side of east china while expanding safely on russia until i had number advantage. he would be unable to expand and i would have had the game.

and yeah, i could maybe have had "better" picks to make sure i had a combo combo, but i wanted him to have australia and surprise him. and if he wasnt there i would have quickly gotten indonesia bonus which would be also safe. and that would mean he was in the other part of russia and i would have enough income to break him.

Mate... zibik hit 1 3 v 2, which all in all didn't matter that much (he would have made that bonus on turn 2 even if he didin't). Yes, you were unlucky with your attacks, but think of the reason you were unlucky and why zibik didn't need that luck at all.

It's easy to say I was unlucky, so I lost, but that's a straight way to mediocrity. Think about what you could have done diffrently to offset that luck and you will get better.

In this game you simply got outsmarted by zibik. Plain and simple. Turn 3 zibik didn't attack to CA to break you (at least I don't think that was his intention). He attacked to make you commit there and he could take his starting bonus - Indonesia. Had you attacked to Indonesia on turn 5 (you wouldn't have to even decrease the number of troops you deployed to CA), the game would look very diffrent then it did. You said yourself you suspected an australia combo, if so why didin't you go there?

As for picks, yes you could have made better ones, far better ones to be honest. That's another (and a very important one at that) factor.

Stratigic 1 v 1 is easily 60% picks, 30% gameplay and mayby 10% luck.

Artham: i understand your point, but i disagree on the strategy. playing more safe is more predictable, i'm striving for risky surprise factor. it can go horribly wrong of course, but for me that risk is part of the game. and it's frustrating when i have a "smart" strategy that won't work out of 3 vs 2 attacks luck. sure i could just go for strategies which require less of that luck, and sometimes i do, but in certain cases it's still worth just risking it. or at least that's been my prerogative. but yeah, ofcourse i know my game can still improve, i know i'm not at zibik's level yet.

Some might think strategies that require you to get lucky are not smart...

against someone as good as zibik i think it's pretty legit to count on 80% luck, i usually play safe vs people rated below me and risky vs people higher (mix vs similar rating)

Warflow, I wouldn't agree with that really, but that's beside the point. If you do make such an assumption and decide upon such a strategy, then ok, so be it. But why do you afterwards complain it was based on luck?! It's like saying: I bet 10 000$ on the lottery and lost, so to earn any money you only need luck!!!

If you decide to base your strategy on luck, then obviously it will be highly dependant on that luck. The thing that Im questioning is that you DON'T have to base it on luck. If you play well luck is pretty much irrelevant. It's as I said no more then 10% of the games outcome. Of course you can play in a way to increese that dependancy on luck, but even then it won't count for much more, if your opponent won't. For a game to be highly dependant on luck both players would have to want it so.

counting on a 3v2 to complete your first bonus isnt like the lottery, and it also isnt the end of the game when you miss.

PS you had a great plan. It was so good that you didnt need to make the 3v2, all you had to do was follow the plan and you would have been winning. The problem was that you didnt follow the great plan you hatched =s. Turn 4 when your plan says he will be completing indo you expanded into russia =/. If you had hit Philippines late with 5 then you would have been fine with great chances once things settle down, and thats after missing a 2nd turn bonus against zibik. Thats how great your plan was!

I know you didn't ask but I couldn't resist pointing this out. I also cant resist pointing out that ambushes work so much better when you dont have contact somewhere else, in this case SA.

dead piggy: i guess i assumed he would be focusing full power on SA to try and wipe me out from there instead of finishing his 2nd bonus elsewhere, and so i decided i needed more income to have the upper hand later, and i also probably wanted to scout if he was in the other russia, if he wasnt there then the probability for the australia combo was much higher (almost certain considering the map layout). having income disadvantage with a direct border i was already without much of a chance imho, so more income and stalling in SA seemed like my only option. even if he really was finishing indonesia and i could have managed to get my foot in that door, the probability of him wiping me out clean on the next turn from either indonesia or SA was pretty high without the extra income.

artham, i mean that i take gambles a lot more vs high ranked players, i have 0% of beating szew playing safe, while playing risky maybe 10-20%.