Play
Multi-Player
Coins
Community
Settings
Help
Community   Maps   Forum   Mail   Ladders   Clans   Recent Games
Sign In | Sign Up
<< Back to General Forum   

Posts 1 - 17 of 17   
Game analysis: 3/22/2016 22:46:41


{Shredtail2}
Level 56
Report
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10792827

This is a ladder game that I feel like I could have won. Where did I go wrong?
Game analysis: 3/22/2016 23:20:55


Le Count H 
Level 56
Report
Wasted too much time trying to get east Africa.
Game analysis: 3/22/2016 23:30:20

alwayswimmin
Level 55
Report
You lost a lot of armies trying to break Africa: one turn, you lost 30 armies while the defender only lost 20. To be fair, he baited you into attacking that turn by deploying adjacent and moving in the turn afterwards, but you probably should have given up on Antarctica the turn immediately following. He has a huge armies advantage, and though you manage to defend for a few turns, his attacks will kill far more of your armies than your defenders would. Furthermore, you shouldn't have blockaded where the enemy was going to attack. Blockades happen at the end of the turn, not the beginning, and positionally, it makes no difference whether you blockade at that position rather than at, say, South Pole.

Your expansion could be improved -- you put a lot of effort into Canada, only to never take the whole bonus. This is something to keep in mind moving forward but is probably a more long-term fix as you get the hang of when to expand. If you redirected some of the troops you spent in Antarctica to expansion, you could have taken West US and Canada, leading to an easy win.

However, one easier thing you should keep track of in no-luck games like 1v1 ladder games is good numbers to attack with. It is pointless to attack with 17 armies on that last turn; 17 armies kills the same number as 16, since 16 * .6 and 17 * .6 both round to 10. You did get unlucky by guessing incorrectly which territory he would defend more heavily, but if you split your attacks into 3 and 16 instead of 2 and 17, even with guessing incorrectly you would still break a bonus, albeit running an army deficit in the process.

Edited 3/22/2016 23:40:45
Game analysis: 3/22/2016 23:58:13

Scorched Earth 
Level 48
Report
Turn 1: Take E US first, not Indonesia.

Turn 4: Don't finish E US and hit him on the same turn, or minimally, hit him with 1.

Take SEA or Canada, not both at the same time. SEA is the better choice of the two IMO, due to positional dominance over Russia.

Turn 11: Fold AA, do not defend it, deploy into charging russia instead.

Edited 3/23/2016 00:03:27
Game analysis: 3/23/2016 00:08:20


Semicedevine
Level 59
Report
time for sum deep analysis shtz: (wtf am i doing with my life)


Starting Picks:
No clear mistakes here other than Indonesia (it's almost completely isolated). Some counterpicks would have also been nice.

Turn 1:
You chose to expand in Indonesia first rather than East US? It is a mistake because of how both bonuses can be taken in 2 turns, but yet you chose to go for the smaller bonus first. (Makes no sense to me.)

Turn 2:
No mistakes.

Turn 3:
This may sound silly, but you took 1 territory in East US instead of splitting up your armies and taking 2. This is because taking 2 territories would give you 1 extra leftover army for use in taking over East US on next turn. Now I understand that you may have been checking to see if he was in Canada, but the better question to ask here is: why would anyone want to start in Canada when it's worth 5 income for 7 territories? Since Quebec had 4 armies instead of 2, it's also very unlikely for him to take it from Greenland if he were to spawn there instead, making East US an extremely safe pick in this map layout.

Turn 4:
You got too greedy man. You tried to deploy just enough to take over East US, but to also wage a frontal assault on South Africa at the same time. And for god's sake, South Africa isn't even worth that much either. A bonus of 3 for 5 territories means there's a very unlikely chance that he actually plans to take it over. Instead, he could have used it as a way of getting a border with you at Antarctica. Fortunately, he did try to take it over (you got lucky).However, you canceled out this luck but throwing your 8 armies into his 13 wall, forcing you to have to deploy lots of armies there next turn for defensive measures.

Turn 5:
...aaaaaand you do just that. You were forced to place almost your entire income in Antarctica just to make up for lost armies, which completely slowed your expansion in other places.

Turn 6:
Also, I don't get why you'd take Ontario instead of Alberta. Ontario gives you no new borders in Canada, whereas Alberta gives you tons of new territory borders (gives the option of completing Canada sooner). You may have been doing this because you wanted to use the one leftover army to take Canada by a specific order (Alberta next turn, and then etc.), but at the same time, you could have just used the leftover that you already have in Tennessee instead. (Transfer them to Great Lakes so you'll only need to deploy 2 to take Ontario).

Turn 6:
Nothing much. Just the usual stack race.

Turn 7:
Meh.

Turn 8:
You made a great decision with attacking South Africa unexpectedly. Caught him off gaurd and definitely leveraged the game closer to your favor (though risky).

Turn 9:
You really couldn't be bothered to attack with your whole income? You could have also played a priority card to attack before he made the transfer, which would have 100% gotten your attack to go first before his transfer because you had first order on that turn anyways. (You can tell because of how he had the first order on Turn 6, which he only has the first turn order on turns with even numbers since it switches back and forth.)

Turn 10:
With this many armies in South Africa, you should have immediately blockaded South Pole, which would trap his attacking stack from further use.

Turn 11:
Nice decision taking Georgia, as it exposes lots of his territories. But if I were you, I would have gone through Eastern Kazakhstan instead as it exposes even more of his territories.

Turn 12:
GG NO RE
Game analysis: 3/23/2016 00:08:21


Semicedevine
Level 59
Report


Edited 3/23/2016 01:09:04
Game analysis: 3/23/2016 00:15:39


Kenny • apex 
Level 59
Report
Turn 2:
No mistakes.


Wait, if he takes Indonesia first then how is not taking East US 2nd not a mistake..?
Game analysis: 3/23/2016 00:31:41


Semicedevine
Level 59
Report
He has already chosen to go down the path of taking Indonesia.

Because of this, it would be a mistake for him to not complete Indonesia at that point.

(just to further clarify, I meant no mistake as in, no mistake for that turn)

Edited 3/23/2016 00:33:10
Game analysis: 3/23/2016 00:32:39


Semicedevine
Level 59
Report
The reason why it was wiser for him to take Antarctica second was because of how Antarctica could be completed on the very next turn. East US, on the other hand, would take at least 2 more turns to complete.

Edited 3/23/2016 00:32:55
Game analysis: 3/23/2016 00:39:15


Buns157 
Level 66
Report
Your picks could have been improved. Besides east US you have no picks which give expansion. Then you also gave him a free russia, which had the best expansion.

I would have took east us after indo, it was possible, and by then any possible counter would be discovered from moving the initial armies towards the canada warlord.

turn 4 you made a silly attack, from your starting bonuses you should realise you would be behind on income, so attacking while using alot of your income to complete another bonus is wrong.

turn 9 attack first, you have a much bigger army stack, you didnt know he kept armies behind so its better to crush his armies still there from the turn before.

turn 11, come on what even was that blockade.
Game analysis: 3/23/2016 01:41:28

Mike
Level 57
Report
Hi im not a pro but you lost on picks for me.

- US is safe but takes ages to complete, i dont think its good.
- Indonesia is surrounded by wastelands of 10 so no expansion from there, not good either (its safe and you could use leftovers for delay but overall I dont think its worth it).
- Pick in AA is not good as you can see there s a straightforward counter for it. If you want AA, you pick south Africa.

Now you re lucky red played bad as he had much better picks (apart from pick 3 he should have taken scotland before north africa for combo west russia and secure south africa in 2 latest but anyway), he should have broken AA before it was completed.

Edited 3/23/2016 01:42:56
Game analysis: 3/23/2016 03:56:06


Semicedevine
Level 59
Report
@Mike US takes 2 turns to complete lol

and so does Antarctica... and Indonesia... and pretty much every other bonus aside from SEA/ME pick (and that's a double pick too so shouldn't count)
Game analysis: 3/23/2016 04:16:07

Scorched Earth 
Level 48
Report
Leave critiquing to others Mike, please. I know you mean well, but seriously, South Africa is not superior to Antarctica, like, ever. South Africa is a terrible pick, you should not anticipate the opponent picking it.
Game analysis: 3/23/2016 05:39:49


Kenny • apex 
Level 59
Report
Semic, count it out. He moves into South Pole with 5 giving him 3 attacking leftovers. He could've done the same at East US. 6 territories -1 starting -1 after 5v2 now 4. He has 3 attacking leftovers + 9 income after Indonesia. That's 12 total. He takes 9 income in 3 turns vs 7 and then has a massive stack heading to Africa when he takes AA. Yes, not taking East US as his 2nd bonus is an obvious mistake.
Game analysis: 3/23/2016 10:38:12

Scorched Earth 
Level 48
Report
I'd consider it a mistake to take E US last for sure, but I'd still consider Indo first rather than E US first a mistake, but ofc by the time he took Indo first he couldn't go backand fix that error.

End of turn 3 that game he should have had Indo, East US, and Novo. Novo vs. Siple could be argued, both have advantages - but I feel Novo's are more important. Novo lets you hit Africa turn 4, which is better in terms of maximum expansion opportunities, but it also means you hit Novo 3v2, and risk them hitting it after you but in the same turn causing you to lose your armies. No good opponent should be there though so I find that to be less of an issue than it would be in other situations.
Game analysis: 3/23/2016 11:07:21


{Shredtail2}
Level 56
Report
Thank you everyone, I'll try my best to implement what I heard into my future ladder games.
Game analysis: 3/24/2016 00:08:53


Semicedevine
Level 59
Report
yes, bordering south africa should be somewhat prioritized but only for terms of expansion, not as a counter strategy

because if you use deductive reasing, who tf would be in South Africa at that point?
Posts 1 - 17 of 17   

Contact | About WarLight | Play Risk Online | Multiplayer Strategy Game | Challenge Friends, Win Money | Skill Game | Terms of Service