I just thought this was a very close match and was wanting to share it with others. So please give feedback on what I (or him) did wrong this game, or right and whatever else comes to mind. Please no harsh comments, I can take criticism, but please don't be rude. Here is the match - http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=4377562

I am also accepting tips for future games.

Analyzing both players as I watch it, and writing anything that comes to mind:

Turn 0:

Pedrinha makes 3 picks, and they're bad picks, he doesn't know how to pick, he shouldn't win unless he gets incredibly lucky or his opponent makes so many mistakes that he can't help but win.

I think Canadian's 1 and 2 picks are okay, I really dislike the rest of his picks though, he needs to have better map coverage and have something in the AA/CA/SA/Africa region, I'd personally probably pick something like (these might not be the best picks, I am giving what I'd pick less than a minutes thought) 1 CA, 2 SA, 3 Scandi, 4 WR, 5 Europe, 6 EC because of the first turn bonus on Scandi that is countered effectively by Europe.

Post-picks turn 0:

Canadian should win, their starts are nowhere near each other, but he has better expansion options.

Turn 1:

Pedrinha should hit Bolivia 3v2, not 4v2. He should also deploy 1 to Siple to raise his chances of finishing both AA and SA on turn 2, this alteration can't lead to not getting SA on turn 2, so isn't a risky gamble.

If I were Canadian I'd have played turn 1 like one of the following:

Deploy 3 to Norway, attack Svalbard with 3, then attack Sweden with 3.
Deploy 1 to Pakistan, attack India with 4.
Deploy 1 to Shanghai, attack Hong Kong with 4.

OR:

Deploy 1 to Pakistan.
Deploy 4 to Shanghai.
Attack Taiwan with 4 (to check for someone in Indonesia).
Attack Svalbard with 3.
Attack India with 4.
Attack Hong Kong with 4.


The first option has a decent chance for 11 income turn 2, and that would be "better", but it is also likely to get screwed over by someone in Europe and the opponent may be there if they picked that way to counter the Scandi/Russia first-turn-bonus.

Turn 2:

Pedrinha plays it right, Canadian doesn't.

Turn 2 should have been played one of the following ways:

Deploy 5 to Hong Kong.
Attack Thailand with 4.
Attack Myanmar with 3 from India.
Attack Jiangxi with 3.

OR
Deploy 1 to India.
Deploy 4 to Hong Kong.
Attack Thailand with 4.
Attack Myanmar with 4.

If you hadn't deployed in Scandi first turn you'd be in a much better position, able to finish SEA and take Jiangxi or sure. As is you can either play it safe, or gamble on 3v2's, I'd gamle, it has a 64% chance of panning out better than playing it safe, and a 80% chance of panning out "at least as well" as playing it safe.

Jiangxi is ideal to take because it lets you get 12 income turn 3 instead of 12.

Turn 3:

I don't like the way Pedrinha plays this turn.

Attacking Mexico would have been useful, I'm not sure attacking Cuba was, I'd have hit Mexico or Nigeria with a 3v2 instead of the sure-fire 4v2's that he sent since Cuba doesn't actually enable CA to be finished any faster.

Another option would be not hitting Central America and hitting Nigeria harder so as to better defend SA from a player in Africa, but IMO if you were in Africa you'd be visible by now.


You still haven't hit Jiangxi by now, that's a problem, you're about to fall behind in income by a sizable amount due to finishing your initial 3 bonuses much too slowly.

Both sides have made lots of errors by this stage, though you've made more than he has, going to skim over the game from here on out or I fear this'd turn into a novel due to the length of the game.


He expands badly, often going for 2-3 bonuses at the same time, splitting up his armies too much, he seems destined to run into you on several fronts at the same time without a sizable stack on any of those fronts. Marginally higher income doesn't matter if your opponent has much larger stacks on the frontline than you do.

Skip to turn 10: He has slightly higher income, and larger stacks on every front despite his reckless expansion earlier on, the game is his at this point, he should win, only pointing out his mistakes from here on out since they are what changed the game, and are why he didn't win a game he had no business losing at this point.

Turn 11:

He hits Indonesia hard, doesn't hit Japan at all.

This potentially grants you access to Hawaii and it removes the threat from East China and West China, which are a much larger portion of your income than Indonesia is.

turn 14:

He doesn't hit Ukraine to border Scandinavia and Caucasus, and instead uselessly chases you into Europe despite the fact that he can't catch you before you reach Africa rom this direction, he should be attacking North Africa from West Africe if the plan is to intercept you before you reach his bonuses.

He also deploys 2 in Japan for some bizarre reason, staying alive there was critically important as it positionally threatened West China much more than the stack in Indonesia did.

He should have deployed at least 2 to Great Plains to hit Alberta so you didn't border West US anymore or at the very least made his transfer attack/transfer and not transfer-only, since it was very unlikely you'd have deployed hard to hit his border there since you had too many other fronts to do so so that way his attack/transfer would have retaken the territory from you.

This mistake didn't actually cost him, but it could have.

From here on he fights badly and lets you slowly catch back up in armies due to your higher income.

Not trying to be rude, but the reason the game was close was not due to great play by both sides but repeated errors by both sides.

picks were terrible, all too clustered.. you left the western areas empty. Try to aim for a balance. 4v2s are sure wins, no need to use 5 armies.

Thank you for that massive report! I do agree that my oppenet should have attacked Japan and Ukraine and two points in the game, I really Appreciate you took the time to do this! I never realised that 3v2's had such a great success rate, I would have expanded entirely different if I was aware of that. Thank you!

That was pretty awful. You expanded badly, and were not aggressive enough. You used a pretty advanced picking strategy but it was a bad fit for this map. When there are so many options something simple like scand/wrussia/europe/SAm/CA/ant is fine.

The red guy was shit start to finish. That should have been a walk over.

Once again, don't bother commenting if you're just going to bitch.

he's not trying to bitch, Canadian. Piggy's a decent player and he's doing exaactly what you asked, giving advice. But it seems like you want us to gather around you and all praise you...

i'll do that and then everyone can leave this thread to rot.

[imghttp://www.portlandmercury.com/images/blogimages/2010/11/22/1290445797-busey_clapping.gif[/img]

i hope this works...

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=4377891

More or less in-line with the name of the thread Piggy?

I made mistakes. I should have won faster than I did, but I think I was solidly ahead every turn after we met each other on the map.

lol, he isnt really bitching, best player on warlight analyzing your picks, you should be groveling as opposed to complaining about him doing it

Sorry for upsetting you, try this:

You need to work on all aspects of the game. You expanded inefficiently, and were not aggressive enough. You used a pretty advanced picking strategy but it was a bad fit for this map. When there are so many picking options something simple like scand/wrussia/europe/SAm/CA/ant is fine.

The red guy played very badly, you should have beaten him much more easily than you did (you stinky fart face).

Purple, a few things made me cringe but it was basically good. Going to brazil instead of columbia turn 5. Taking tazmania and NZ on turn 6. You played tons of good stuff, especially in caucasus vs Wchina. He had more delay moves than you, that hurt you less because there were so many fronts; only if he guessed the ones on which you would attack was he able to counter attack effectively.

"Going to brazil instead of columbia turn 5."

Makes sense, Colombia would have given me potential intel, Brazil had none to give. Colombia also would have allowed me to finish CA a turn faster (or in this case, finish it, period, before running into schmidt in Baja).

I think I probably decided to do so so I was moving leftovers towards my front, rather than moving them away from it to finish a bonus (as the way I did it resulted in more leftovers bordering CA the turn after).

The leftovers being slightly more convenient though certainly didn't outweigh never completing CA.

On turn 6 I imagine you'd have hit Tasmania full-force instead of splitting between the two? I wanted to know for sure if he was nearing the AA border, but can see how the larger stack in Tasmania would have likely been more useful than the added intel.

One thing I definitely know I need to work on is fighting on several fronts more effectively. I assumed I'd win by turn 12, but the constant income fluctuations from bonuses being broken and re-completed kept me from being sure till the very end, I tried to be somewhat conservative in regards to fighting and protect my bonuses moreso than break his simply because I figured I had an army advantage and that since defense killrate is higher than that of offense I could afford to mostly defend and come out ahead slowly but surely. Not sure if being bold and more aggressive would have helped though.

For example near the end he retook West China, I had contemplated trying to take it myself at various points, but always felt it wasn't worth it since it'd be way too hard to defend even if I got it (he didn't even bother defending it when he got it, and he'd have had an easier time defending than I would have since I only bordered it with 2 territories, and not with Eastern China). That he even tried taking west china IMO was rather bold, but I'm guessing he was only that bold because he was behind and needed to take risks whereas I didn't need to as much and could be more conservative and not take large risks.

I do feel though that he likely made picks he wouldn't have in a ladder game and that I as sch moreso won off picks than I did from superior play. Specifically that my bonuses weren't as vulnerable due to not having triple-picked.

I think his picks were his downfall. When one player has all their bonuses connected (schmidt) and the other has 2 seperate areas of bonuses, one on either side (you), then the one with 2 seperate areas wins unless they have significantly lower income. You had the option to let half of your bonuses go in exchange for an opportunity to get stuck into all of schmidts bonuses. He had to win on both fronts to stay safe and you only had to win 1. When you did (in caucasus) then his bonuses fell like dominoes.