| Author |
Messages |
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
 |
| 06 Jan 2008 5:12 AM |
|
I like the debate here. I tend to agree with dan12. It seems better to place in NA. So I like to add a bit of calculations here to see where we stand considering our choices.
Ok, if Red places in Argentina: Red loses 1 army, Red is one territory behind in North America, so Red needs to spend armies to get it. Green loses bonus and also needs to attack Red’s 1 army country to get it. So:
Red loses: 1 + X spent getting a country (around 3 or 4).
Green loses 2 + X spent getting a country (around 3 or 4).
If Red places in NA, he gets his country and Green will get his too. In the first turn Green will get an extra 2. That's all the difference because even if Red got Argentina, Green would attack it anyway and will get the bonus the next turn.
So if we now measure the difference, Red is 1 army worst off if Red places in Argentina, and Red is 2 armies worst off if places in NA. There is only 1 army at stake. For this Red gets to finish his continent sooner, which he is already struggling to get, and so will be happy to pay the price. It is a fixed risk Red can count on. With the other case, dice also plays a role and Red can get unlucky and lose even more.
So, in short I will agree with the choice of going for NA instead of SA. Any counter-thoughts Grant?
|
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
Dan12
Diplomat
Posts:81
|
| 06 Jan 2008 5:54 AM |
|
Ehsan’s calculations are pretty much what I had in mind.
I don't think other players would look down on Red just because he is trying to get his own continent. And why should they criticize Red for not putting in South America, when they haven't done it themselves. Team bonding works both ways. So, no Red shouldn’t be worried about that at all.
If I was playing as Blue, I just worry about Brown. Green is so far away I have no reason to make an enemy of. So I expand in Asia hoping that I can lock Brown in and eventually eliminate or make brown leave.
|
|
|
|
|
|