https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9697533

Turn 6 was nice.
But the best thing is turn 7. If You go deeply into that turn You will see that blue player gain his reinforcement card so his income is 16. My income is 12. In long term i can not defend both territories Scandinavia and South America and here starts the best: if blue atacks full power Scandinavia i would brake his bonus in Antarctica next turn, so game will still goes but if blue goes hard into South America and i will reatack him full power in couple turns i would have lost that bonus and eventually may loose the game. Here starts the best: i used an order to atack only my backs with 1 army to make sure if blue goes hard on me in South America i will only atack him with 8 instead of 9 wich would mean i will eventually loose my bonus in some turns if blue didnt atack me there and decide to go Scandinavia i will atack with full stack minus 1.
At the beggining i did calculate everything and made strategy of getting reinforcement card first then my enemy.
Anyway if You enjoy turn 6 i am telling You that turn 7 is way more better. Only possibility for my enemy was to split his amrys in that turn but with reinforcement card it was unlikely so i needed to adjust my strategy for atack of big stack.
This game is maysterpice of defence strategy and a proof that 0%sr is way more better then 0%wr in which i would have lost it deffinitly.

Wp.

turn 6 was a good prediction. made possible by 0%sr. but what you say about turn 7 is just exaggerated.

if you don't defend South america hard he wins of course... why should he attack scandinavia and leave antarctica open? he knows your income so he also knows you can't have greenland. no reason for him to waste 16 armies on scandinavia while he loses antarctica. also you had delay Cards so not that hard after the good prediction in turn 6.

This is not so obvious. You forgot that when You play You cant see the board, cant see enemy. That top level prediction and strategy isnt so clear to make. He could have done many things that turn also including taking Scandinavia. Why he did atack it on turn 6 when there was 7 armys and he wouldnt have done atack at turn 7 when there is only 6 defenders? Its all predictions but not so obvious as it looks on end game when fog is down and its all finished.

Why didn't he hammer your bonus ?

Large stack difference when he finally got the card.

with 0%sr you could exactly calculate what to do. gnuffone had to predict wheter you would deploy on scandinavia and SA or only on SA. so he decided wrong. really not hard to calculate after the first few turns when he and you deployed full on the SA antarctica border.

Had he hit you on turn 6 in South America and you reduced Scand to 1 army, you would be screwed. I think it's kind of silly for Gnuffles to try late orders when he's down 1 income and has first order. (There's no possible way to win the delay war)

And there's no way for Gnuffles to win last order on turn 7 since you got delay card and he didn't, so you had 2 very distinct advantages turn 6 and 7 to play with to aid you on your predictions. Gnuffles had nothing.

I have a feeling you like this game so much because you beat Gnuffles. I think he picked badly as well. Playing Ant vs South America/Central America gives him a disadvantage. He went for all 3s to win early game, but it doesn't work when your opponent can just get more income than you and stall it off.

Ohyeah, if this was 0% WR then you still should've won.

Edited 10/30/2015 17:29:49

Every time I pictured the "best" warlight game, I never thought the winner would make 9 picks in 3 pick per player game :P

But in all seriousness, you predicted well.



"""This is not so obvious. You forgot that when You play You cant see the board, cant see enemy. That top level prediction and strategy isnt so clear to make."""

You are wrong here in my opinion. On the contrary since it is SR, it is very easy to make such calculations. There are theoretically only so many possibilities. A diligent player can calculate all of them and then play given all of those scenarios. This is exactly what the WR fans dislike. The fact that everything is so deterministic means the one who calculates more(Not best!!) wins. I'm not saying these don't make for strategic games of course. These games just get very static and play out the same way once you've experienced about 50 of them.

Your predictions are good, yet they would be made by many players who take the time to count. With 0% SR, it is very simple to guess exactly what the opponent is doing each turn, and it is not hard to predict their moves when you know exactly where they are. It's almost like playing with no fog at times.

I used to love 0% SR Medium Earth, yet I see that games are often decided by which player puts more time and focus into the game, rather than the player with more skill.

Calling it the best Warlight game is a joke; however, I think it is a good game, and shows how easy it is to make predictions in 0% SR.

Little true. I dont like this guy. So every time warlight crosses our roads i am happy to win every game. I wonder how many of You would have won it. Its deffinitly chance to learn something. Maybe not for MOD and other top warlight players but for others for sure.

I don't think you necessarily had to make the choices you made to win this game. Once it becomes 12 vs 11, defense becomes your best option until Gnuffles makes a mistake. The only thing you had to make sure of is that he couldn't take back Scand, so I would probably end up hitting Scand with 11 on the turn you did. (not 10, because you still win the delay war -1 delay.) Idk though, because I might've made a larger blockade in Scand. Either way I think once it becomes CA/SA vs AA/SEA you win so long as you draw a mistake from your opponent without making one yourself.

i used an order to atack only my backs with 1 army to make sure if blue goes hard on me in South America i will only atack him with 8 instead of 9 wich would mean i will eventually loose my bonus in some turns if blue didnt atack me there and decide to go Scandinavia i will atack with full stack minus 1.

I don't understand this. What's the advantage of attacking with full stack -1 army, compared to attacking with all of your armies in Argentina?

Edited 10/30/2015 20:23:09

@Silly: 1 extra delay, and he probably wanted to see if Gnuffles would attack him first since for the entire game he could force last order.

Its not a delay its 1 army less to loose, now i can see You do not understand turn 7 at all, if i wolud atack by 9 instead of 8, Gnuffoff could brake me in SA if he goes full power there in couple of turns.

instead of loosing 8 i would have loose 9. thats the point of atack only order.

I quickly replied without realizing he was talking about turn 7. Chill out :P

instead of loosing 8 i would have loose 9. thats the point of atack only order.

I must do the math, apparently. You're making a calculation that I'm missing.

Lol, after spending some time to make this post to explain why he did not want to attack with 9 but with 8, I've come to a conclusion that it was not even necessary (unless my calculation is wrong, but I don't think so). Well, I'm posting this anyway in order to explain why it was still better to what Mike did, and also to explain why Mike thought it was really great skill.

So here is my original post:
That's not for the extra delay. Attacking with 0 does not count as delay. The point of that move is that 1 extra army will stay in Argentina in the next turn, which will prevent Gnuffone from taking it in the coming turns. If Mike had attacked with 9, all 9 would have been killed (because 14 defending armies kill 10). And in the attack, 8 and 9 armies both kill 5. Now, here is why Mike is so inspired by that move:
Now it's 9 in Siple (Antarctica) and 3 in Argentina (again, if he attacked with 9 there would have been just 2 in Argentina). Since it's SR 0%, we can count if Gnuffone has a chance to take Argentina in the coming turns. Let's do it:
If Gnuffone attacks with everything, that's 19 armies against 15. It will become 9-4 at the end of the turn. In the next turn, Gnuffone attacks with 19 against 17 (notice that Mike will transfer 1 army to Argentina this turn). That will leave us with 7-6. As you can see, Gnuffone will not be able to take Argentina in that scenario.
Now, let's check what would have been if Mike had attacked with 9 on turn 7:
Argentina=2, Siple=9
So, in turn 8 it'll be 19vs14. That leaves us with 9-3. Next turn it will be 19v16, leaving us with 8-5. next turn, 18vs17 ---> 6-6.
Well, seems to me that even if you did not make that attack only move, Argentina would stay yours. Am I mistaken? Maybe you forgot that you will transfer 1 army to Argentina?

That being said, I think turn 6 was nice :)
And I think Gnuffone could try playing a bit more, although there is a low chance that he can do something (he would need you to make a mistake, of course).

Also, @Lolowut

Idk though, because I might've made a larger blockade in Scand

He couldn't make a larger blockade. Look at turn 3, he needed exactly all armies to take CA+defend SA.

sillynamenace just calculate how many armies you lose with a 4vs 6 attack for example. you kill 2 and lose 4. if you do a 3vs2 attack you kill 2 and lose 3. so only attack with 2/3/5/6/8/10 armies. never with 4/7/9 etc. you'll save armies then.

If he attacks with 9 troops into a full deploy from Gnuffone, he will lose all 9, which will let Gnuff break South America in the future. If he only attacks with 8, he loses all 8, but still has enough to keep Gnuff from breaking South America.

The one thing I can see is that his move maybe kept him from being FORCED to full deploy in Argentina to protect it, so maybe gnuff could've deployed small in Antarctica and done something in Scandinavia? Idk and I don't have time to calculate it.

Edited 10/30/2015 22:00:24