Imported Post
King
Posts:232
 |
| 16 Mar 2007 9:46 AM |
|
This idea just suddenly comes to me when I am thinking about the importance of Middle East. Say it's a four player game, everyone is trying to get their continents, and I hold Australia and Middle East from the beginning. After a couple of turns, Europe and Africa may be closed to be conquered by the other players, and I will have a large army in Middle East (provided I didn't use too many to fight in order to get my cards). I now can threaten to attack the two players who just control europe and africa, and prevent them from getting their bonus armies. Probably at least one of them will agree a treaty, or even better, both. As I haven't tried this strategy before, I am wondering what are the chances that both players will agree a treaty across Asia border.
If indeed I make a treaty with both players, I can use all my forces to conquer Asia, and try to invade N. America to stop the player from getting his bonus armies. Even I fail to conquer Asia, I can at least stop worrying about enemies coming from Europe and Africa. |
|
|
|
|
Imported Post
King
Posts:232
|
| 16 Mar 2007 9:46 AM |
|
I can't see this effectively working. Either Europe and Africa are fighting one another and it's better you don't interfere by threatening either one; or they accept your proposal but then they're looking for somewhere to expand to and you're only leaving them the Americas - which works out better for them than for you, really.
You might want to work as an ally with one or the other, but I can't see it being very effective to make friends with both of them.
Middle East is a key province, as you've determined, but mostly when it's in the hands of someone who already holds either Europe, Africa or Asia - not so much as means to begin doing so. |
|
|
|
|
Imported Post
King
Posts:232
|
| 16 Mar 2007 9:46 AM |
|
| Furthermore, by the very fact that you would have the power to exert a threat by holding the Middle East, this makes your Middle East units a highly desirable target at the first opportunity either of your opponents (Europe or Africa) can take to strike at it. |
|
|
|
|
Imported Post
King
Posts:232
|
| 16 Mar 2007 9:47 AM |
|
Middle East is usually claimed by Africa since it is a better defensible border against Asia and Australia than splitting their forces between Egypt and East Africa. So holding onto Middle East invites attack from Africa.
Europe won't exactly appreciate a large standing army on its southeastern frontier either.
OldTimer |
|
|
|
|
Imported Post
King
Posts:232
|
| 16 Apr 2007 12:06 AM |
|
No territory is worth defending simply because of its tactical advantages. It's always better to avoid a full-out fight and give up an insignificant Asian territory than try to hold it.
You can't manage to get a treaty with both Europe and Africa if you're trying to take Asia. No one in their right mind would ever honor such a treaty. If they say they want a treaty, they probably just want you to go over and bother North America while one of them takes your swag.
Kikuichimonji |
|
|
|
|
Mr Strategist
Strategist
Posts:29
|
| 30 Apr 2007 3:28 PM |
|
| Remember, if you threaten many players at once, they may come back to threaten you too. You then have to deal with all of them on all fronts. If you put a lot of armies in a territory that has access to many locations, make sure you don't piss someone off. An annoyed player is going to do something about it sooner or later. |
|
|
|
|
cyray7
Diplomat
Posts:121
|
| 26 May 2007 10:51 PM |
|
| it works, until everyone around you attacks and destroys you. |
|
|
|
|
Bismark08
Strategist
Posts:14
|
| 19 Feb 2008 7:38 PM |
|
| I agree with the last posts. Plus as soon as you get asia a coalition will slaughter you. Nice thought though. |
|
|
|
|