FYI - We don't have an order priority card.

Ah, so true. Used it last turn.

The weakness with 8 are pretty apparant. We're allowing the strategy that Imp has employed the last 5 straight turns to work if he tries again this turn (on the assumption that he won't try it a 6th time in a row). Imp typically does not give up when he determines a startegy is the right one. If he has a +5, he hits Argentina with 25 (and if he hits it with 20 it's the same result) and either catches are 5 or finds a 1. Contrary to Fred's analysis we do not get another +5 next turn to defend with. We also don't have an OP to be sure the attack gets to Brazil before Imp's attack. If Imp does come at Argentina in force again, we lose Antartica. 14 will not be enough to defend it. If he goes first we lose South America as well -- Imp wins the game!

This is collossally stupid. We risk losing the game for a completely hypothetical advantage. If you were trying to come up with a move that would most help Imp, this is close to it.

Frankly I don't much care if you expand in Greenland or send armies into South Africa -- but WTF would you give up Argentina when it's the key to our position and all that we've worked for?

What a bummer that this is the likely move. Has anyone voting for it even looked at it?

Fred -- you twice said your goal was to defend argentina -- you are leaving it totally undefended.

Even if you had an OP, you don't have your first attack coming out of Argentina (where Imp is likely to attack), so what good is it. Are you are so concerned about a hypothetical 1st move attack with 100% of Imp's income into South Africa that you want an OP for your 11 atatck? Your 11 becomes 9 and he kills 7.4 with the 12, so you're down to 1 or 2 regardless.

Duke - I didn't say that "my goal" was to defend Argentina. I said the goal of option 5 was to defend Argentina, while I explained why it was my favorite of the options that had bee posted up to that point. It seems like you totally misread that post, because the first three paragraphs, including the thing about having a card next turn, were all about option 5. The rest was about option 8.

I know you expect him to do the same thing this turn. I disagree. This turn is different from other turns because we have good reason to believe that Impaller has shown us his entire income of 12 each turn, and we showed him a 14 income last turn. If he hasn't been hiding income, then it would be very difficult for him to have a second card on turn 9. I asked earlier in the thread, if he's not in India/E Africa or India/Indonesia, then where is he? Walk me through it. Do you think he's in Canada? East Russia? Help me out here.

Again, if he has more than 12 income, shouldn't we have seen the results of his secret expansion somewhere by now? If he doesn't, then do you think he'd make a first turn attack with 19 against our 6 in Argentina, knowing that we have at least 14 income and a card, and put all of it in Argentina last turn? Tell me what you think his move is going to be.

As a reminder of the history:

Turn 1: http://warlight.net/Forum/Thread.aspx?ThreadID=1356 - he went for Central America and missed
Turn 2: http://warlight.net/Forum/Thread.aspx?ThreadID=1366 - he takes Central America, but we immediately break it. He uses 3 or 4 other armies somewhere else.
Turn 3: http://warlight.net/Forum/Thread.aspx?ThreadID=1379 - he concedes Central America and blockades Baja.
Turn 4: http://warlight.net/Forum/Thread.aspx?ThreadID=1398 - he deploys 8. We have 12 income but deploy 8 that he can see.
Turn 5: http://warlight.net/Forum/Thread.aspx?ThreadID=1436 - he deploys 17, showing that he'd gotten another bonus, and uses his card. We deploy 17 that he can see.
Turn 6: http://warlight.net/Forum/Thread.aspx?ThreadID=1449 - he deploys 12, and does not attack anywhere that we can see. We deploy 12 that he can see.
Turn 7: http://warlight.net/Forum/Thread.aspx?ThreadID=1493 - he deploys 12, and fails to take Argentina. We deploy 14 that he can see.

So it's pretty likely that he's still sitting on exactly 12 income. I know you're very afraid of him getting South America. But it would be almost impossible for him to submit a move that would take South America this turn without reading this thread. He'd have to attack Argentina with almost everything on his first move, but also put enough armies in Brazil to attack on his second move, and also leave enough armies in place to stop the 2 on 1 with our last move. It's possible, but it would be such a disastrous strategy against everything we've shown him so far that I would have to assume he was reading along.

This has basically been Duke vs Impaller all game, though, so if you want to keep that going, I'll withdraw the option I proposed so we can see how your move would work instead. You've put more time into this game than anyone, so you may as well see it through. I'm sorry you don't like the move I suggested.

Oh, and the reason I'm "so concerned" with a hypothetical first move attack by impaller into south africa isn't that I think that he's guaranteed to do that, but that I'd hate to attack with 4, and have him attack with 12, and we end up wasting armies there. If we go there, we go big and we go first, IMO.

Debating and displaying different perspectives is the purpose of this exercise. There is no one right answer. All input and debate helps those reading the thread to go through the critical exercise of evaluating the situation and available strategies/options and then making a decision. Personally, I am grateful for all feedback that is given to each turn, and while Duke has been a main contributor, many others have offered their opinions as well. Hopefully others, like bostonfred, will continue to share their thoughts to help all readers to improve their critical thinking skills as they pertain to Warlight.

Personally I'd do number 3. It's a conservative choice, but it accomplishes a few things.

First, holding Argentina keeps Impaller from being any immediate threat (either of breaking our bonuses or taking one himself.)

Second, we've already invested some armies in Greenland and those won't pay off until we finish the bonus. Since we have extra armies coming in behind the front lines there, we can slow-play it to make best use of them. Doing two 3 attacks ensures we most likely still get a card piece, while allowing the back armies to catch up.

I probably wouldn't jump into opening a new front this turn.

I agree that he's deploying 12. I would be shocked if Imp sends nothing into Argentina this turn. Going big into South Africa has some logic behind it (although not at the expense of defending Argentina altogether). I proposed 8 before you challenged whether it made sense. Your proposed amendment is to make the 8 12 and forego defending Argentina in favor of expanding in Greenland.

My opinion is that the turn starts with defending Argentina with at least 17 and then the surplusage goes wherever the concensus thinks best -- Greenland, South Africa or elsewhere.

My concern with #8 is all about foregoing Argentina. I think it's a big mistake to throw away superior position for a gambit.

Having said all that -- I am not trying to persuade Fred not to post and persuade. I came across strongly because on first read I thought it did defend Argentina and then when I realized it didn't and that it was winning -- thought I needed to call attention to the flaws. I don't really care whether it's 1,3 or 7. Just not 8 (or any option that foregoes defending Argentina.

Fred - I realize I may have ccme across as personally criticizing you. I meant only to criticize #8 with no comment on you. I do the same thing to T's proposed options every turn. Frankly I voted 1, 3 and 7 at five stars each. I'm really agnostic about which prevails.

voted 1 and bit on 3 as those are the closest to what i would do
I dont like going into africa this tun

Number 1 has won! The next thread will be posted soon.

The suspense is killing me.