Say you are in a 2v2 game. your partner gets ganked and dies somewhat fast. However you have been left alone. You now have 100 income. And somehow you know that both opponents have 50 income each.

Disregarding map layouts and army stacks (among other things) what is the general rule of defeating these opponents? Is it better to attack one with a huge ammount of troops and ignore the other, or just play defensively deploying even on both fronts?

too many variables. what bonuses can you break or lose? attacking 1 might give you access to much of their income (say breaking Nigeria when they have all of Africa). There is no simple answer, you'd have to post a screen shot or game link (without fog).

also, card setting matter a lot. if there are no cards, or they have little value (like maybe recon), there is not incentive to attack. but if the cards are worthy, then the longer both of them are alive they get more card pieces. Also, is the board full (can they even take a card piece without attacking you)?

The point is there is no general rule. The best generic thing I can say is whatever tips the income scale the most.

Edited 1/19/2015 18:57:30

Disregarding map layouts and army stacks (among other things), the team of 100 income with one player has more freedom with deploying his 100 armies then the team with 2x50 income, and therefore has an advantage.

Yes, should be an easy win since the two 50 guys are more predictable with their deployment. The 100 guy however is capable of doing stuff like running one of the 50 guys into a big stack and stuff.

Again, it depends on the cards. What if there are large reinforcement cards, sanction cards, airlifts, diplomacy cards, abandons, blockades. Team of 2 gets double pieces potentially. If cards are not a big factor, then the team of two loses most advantages. They do have the advantage of teamwork discussion. Always better to have two minds than 1, unless the 2 don't work well together.