Gotta say I agree with boston here, into Africa would be my top choice

Guys, keep in mind here this isn't a one person against another type of thing. Everyone is welcome to post their ideas and have them voted on by the general public and the top vote is the turn we proceed with. The democracy is the challenge and the beauty of this game. No person who posts on here (myself included) will get their idea picked 100% of the time and we will all need to adjust to that and be able to come up with a new set of ideas on a turn by turn basis.

Fred: I've already asked you for a detail of your plan of attack. I'll gladly add it to the vote list if you could draw something up for me to base it on.

Duke: I've added your ideas as per the description in your post.

Mediator role aside, my personal opinion is to agree with Duke in the fact that we have the army advantage over Imp in South America right now and we will have the income advantage back on him next turn and going into Africa right now only opens up the door for Imp to take South America behind us. Remember that Africa is ultimately a death trap with not a lot of great exits and not a ton of great bonuses inside either. If we can potentially knock Imp out of South America, we would gain huge ground for whatever we wanted to do from there and could easily march into Africa then unafraid of anything happening in behind us, even if he manages to bonus up in Africa in the meantime. Again, that is just my personal opinion. I think I might still like option #4 which splits up our attacks and tries for the sweep in South America but I hear Duke's logic in the load and hammer method as well with Imp having a reinforcement card...lotta options guys, we can't guess everything but I'm confident as a group we can beat this guy!

Ok, first let's see what we all agree upon:
We need Greenland, and we have to make sure we really get it this turn, so that binds 6 out of 12 armies. 6 remaining, and we need to invest them effectively.
Assuming Imp has 17 armies at his disposal, he outnumbers our reinforcements almost 3 to 1. Of course unless he reads our little discussion he won't be aware of that fact, he will most likely assume he is up against 12+x.

South America:
Imp has to assume we get at least 12 reinforcements.
We have 1 in Argentina and 29 in Brazil.
He has 1 in Columbia and 6 in Venezuela.

Scenario 1 - biggest stack vs biggest stack:
Imp's perspective:
We put 12 in Brazil, total 41. He puts 17 to Venezuela, total 23.
We attack with 40 vs 23 ->
99% chance of success
he loses 23
we lose 16.1
net gain = 7

World's perspective:
We put 6 in Brazil, total 35. He puts 17 to Venezuela, total 23.
We attack with 34 vs 23 ->
0% chance of success
we lose 16.1
he loses 20.4
net gain = 4

Scenario 2 - split forces vs split forces:
Imp's perspective:
We put 12 to Brazil and attack Col and Ven with 20 each and thus try to complete SA in this turn. Imp can put 11 to Col and 6 to Ven and have 12 in both of them (not very likely, I admit, but anyway).
We attack 2 times with 20 vs 12 ->
86% chance of success per attack; chance of both attacks succeeding = 74%
we lose 2x 8.4 = 17
he loses 2x 12.0 = 24
net gain = 7

World's perspective:
In order to complete SA, we have to take Bolivia as well. This binds another 4 of our reinforcements, leaving only 2 to put to Brazil for a total of 30. We attack Col and Ven with 15 each and thus try to complete SA. Imp can put 11 to Col and 6 to Ven and have 12 in both of them (not very likely, I admit, but anyway).
We attack 2 times with 15 vs 12 ->
0% chance of success per attack; chance of both attacks succeeding = 0%
we lose 2x 8.4 = 17
he loses 2x 9 = 18
net gain = 1

There are of course, endless more combinations thinkable, but for me this boils down to:
a) We don't yet have the strength to take Greenland AND SA at the same time.
b) As long as we attack with ~27+ we don't risk losing more armies than Imp.
c) If we split our forces now, we give up the advantage of having an unpredictable stack of armies, capable of taking any territory it wants.
d) If we don't split-attack, we can effectively deny him SA.

West Africa:
I half expected Imp to already be present in Nigeria. The fact that he is not, together with Lybia being a wasteland, tells us he is at least 2 turns away from completing West Africa, unless he took a detour around Nigeria through Niger to get to Ghana, which is absolutely not likely.
I therefore revise my earlier statement: as of now, it is not necessary to move into West Africa in force. It would be nice to do so in smaller numbers, so we can possibly threaten East Africa/South Africa in 2 turns, but taking Nigeria can wait another turn IF we leave enough troops in Brazil to outnumber him in West Africa next turn.

Central America:
Taking Ven or Col would bring us into a position to get into CA next turn, which always is a big plus.

Antarctica:
If we don't blockade now we WILL have to deploy troops there next turn, else he can take that bonus freely.

Conclusion:
....
I have no idea :-)

I think this is my preferred move. I definitely want to go into West Africa. The other bits are wide open for discussion:

Place 6 in Greenland
Place 4 in eastern Antarctica
Place 2 in southern Greenland

Attack with 12 from Brazil into West Africa
Attack with 4 from Antactica into the left of the two Australias
Transfer only all but 7 remaining armies from Brazil to Argentina
Attack with 4 from Brazil to the center of South America
Take the last piece of Greenland
Attack with 3 into northeastern Canada
Transfer other Greenland armies towards Canada

The reasoning:
Place 6 in Greenland * Duh. We need the bonus.
Place 4 in eastern Antarctica * He's going to be forced to try for Indonesia soon
Place 2 in southern Greenland * There are other places you can use two armies, but It will be a lot easier to take Canada in four moves this way

Attack with 12 from Brazil into West Africa* This is enough to threaten a big attack in East Africa, which he won't be able to defend unless he already started this turn. It is very possible that he is already moving into East Africa to prevent this.

Attack with 4 from Antactica into the left of the two Australias * I'd like to do this earlier in the turn to keep him from seeing it.

Transfer only all but 7 remaining armies from Brazil to Argentina * Unless he makes a risky hard attack into Argentina as one of his last moves, he won't take Argentina. These armies can be sent south to hold Antarctica if needed.

Attack with 4 from Brazil to the center of South America * By saving our blockade card, we have the ability to blockade the South America bonus if we're forced to. We leave two in Brazil in case he tries for a last move 2 on 1 attack.

Take the last piece of Greenland
Attack with 3 into northeastern Canada
Transfer other Greenland armies towards Canada * Our goal is to take Greenland this turn and get Canada in four turns. Going forward, we'd like to be able to use our full 17 wherever we want as often as we can. We can place two armies somewhere, but they won't be that helpful

Fred -- That was a pretty obnoxious post, especially since I explained my reasoning at your request.

1. I don't care how I achieve that strategy THIS TURN. Because there are few options available with only one stack in Brazil.

2. Loading up to attack Brazil was not my idea. I think we sacrificed 5 armies for no gain by attacking Brazil last turn. I am not conceding Brazil by attacking from it.

3. I also suggested attacking South Africa that turn. You suggested a larger attack there. So what? Guessing is guessing -- sometimes you guess right, sometimes you don't. Had my suggestion of attacking with 8 been selected, we would've had enough armies to defend it the following turn (Imp would've had 5 there instead of 10). Sometimes you win by guessing, sometimes you don't. I continue to think it's not worth it to risk a lot of armies guessing when you have an income advantage.

4. We don't know Imp can get the South Africa bonus this turn. Again, I am not conceding Brazil by attacking from it. You hypothesize that Imp is already doing things every turn even though you've seen where he's deployed all his armies each and every turn. Why?

5. You seem to have a problem with the word "opportune", that's unfortunate for you. I'm guessing you are quoting it over and over again in an attempt at sarcasm. It is opportune when you have a large stack next to a small stack -- try and get over it.

6. I want to regain the income advantage by taking Greenland. I said that the last 5 turns. I want to gain a net advantage by attacking with a stack in SA this turn.

7. Busting his bonus is now several moves through neutrals away. I was interested when it was through South Africa, as I mentioned a few times, but now it's inefficient as Imp is putting all his armies into taking SA.

8. I am not "dying" to do anything other than take Greenland this turn. You literally accuse me of not caring and being obsessed in the same post with regard to a stack attack in SA. Stop ranting and look up "opportune". I am neither indifferent nor obsessed, I think there's an opportunity to pick up a net gain and I suggest taking it.

9. I said that I've been paying closer attention than you because you keep saying Imp is pursuing bonuses and expanding when he's put 100% of his income into attacking us every turn. Where is all this expansion you keep talking about happening?

10. You're welcome for my remembering that Imp was due to get a card.

11. Guessing is always a part of the game, but some guesses are more substantiated than others. I don't think attacking for a net gain is wasteful. There's no guesswork in attacking Venesuela -- those 6 armies there are not a mirage.

12. I don't think I'm a genius (let alone a "super genius"), I'm surprised you think I do, insecure much?

13. I think your plan this turn is seriously flawed. You aren't blockading, so you are permitting Imp to move on Antratica (perhaps you're betting he pulls back into Africa). 9 armies in Argentina is not going to be enough if he heads that way. Imp will have more armies than us in SA next turn if that's where he puts his income (minus the 4 he needs to set up South Africa) and, assuming no attacks, we'll be left with 10 in Argentina and 7 in Brazil. Moving into Africa has merit and is worth talking about. Threatening the bust on EA in a few turns will force Imp to adjust how he deploys. Sending 4 into Australia makes no sense to me. It just puts Imp on more even footing with us in our face off in SA. I think we need to exploit our income and army advantage in SA to try to get that bonus. You want to head for EA to get a bust. Doing so requires leaving enough forces behind to hold SA. That part of your plan is interesting, but you're spreading us very thin.

Ultimately it's numbers. Imp has 26 in position to attack us and 17 income this turn or 43. We have 29 and 6 extraneous income or 35. Your plan sends 18 of our 35 away from Imp (12 into WA, 2 extra in greenland and 4 into Australia). Next turn Imp likely has 43 in position to attack us and we'll have 17 in position to attack him. That's a risky plan.

Fred -- missed the "dick" remark before. Stay classy.

Diabolicus/Eitz -- nice summaries. That's what I was thinking as well.

I hope people learned something from that exchange. Specifically, I hope they learned not to lead with "I've been paying closer attention to you" and then be surprised someone thinks you're a dick.

Diabolicus: your last post doesn't look ANYTHING like your first one =P
I agree with what you're saying tho about keeping the squeeze on Imp in South America, I think because Imp has a Reinforcement Card this turn and 6/12 of our armies are going to be tied up taking Greenland we really need to focus the rest of our deployments and attacks as much as possible and spreading too thin right now would just be begging Imp to get back in this game...Fyi on your mention of Central America: Imp blockaded Baja to 11 on Turn 3. Obviously I agree with your blockade idea as well. Actually the only thing different I would've loved to see from your post would be the conclusion ;)
Would you like me to adjust/remove your original idea from the vote or would you like to leave it as it is?

Fred: You mentioned that the only thing you know for sure is to take Greenland and move into West Africa but "the other bits are wide open for discussion". Does this mean you'd like me to hold off on adding your idea to the vote until you give me more of a "final answer" or would you like me to put up exactly what you've posted? I still believe that you're spreading us too thin this turn and giving Imp the option of potentially pushing us out of South America next turn and/or taking Antarctica behind us (without blockading it this turn) AND/OR maybe he takes South Africa too next turn and suddenly we are WAY behind in a game that as of right now we have firm control of. Also any troops that we send to Australia without blockading behind us are just going to be lambs to the slaughter when Imp pokes his head over that way (and in my mind there's zero chance he won't). Again, that's the beauty of democracy that my solitary opinion doesn't really count for a whole lot but I felt compelled to give it anyways =P
I will still gladly add your idea to the vote if you can clarify on my point above.

ALL: Keep in mind we have today & tomorrow to really hammer this out and then we should really be focused on voting Saturday as by Sunday the turn will be happening and Monday I will be posting the results.

Fred -- I learned you're an insecure putz.

Even your putdowns are pathetic. I said I paid closer attention than you. You said "someone" didn't like that. Be less of a pathetic pussy and say you didn't like it.

I think you didn't like it because it's true. It was also legitimate, substantiated criticism, not name calling. I hope people learn the difference from this exchange.

I'm calling an end to this bickering and name-calling right now. You guys should be more mature than this. If you can't contribute without attacking eachother, then don't post.

Eitz, I don't really care what you put up as an option. I was hoping to hear some discussion before we come up with the list to vote on, but if you want to post something soon, post that. I understand your concern that we risk giving up South America next turn, but I strongly disagree. This move gives us a chance to reevaluate next turn based on what he's done, which may be to put 17 in South America, or it may be to put a small number there while he starts towards Brazil from East Africa, or it may be that he works South Africa, or spends a bunch of armies on Indonesia. It's hard to know for sure, because they're all valid objectives for him.

If I were him, I'd probably want to take Indonesia, and close us out of Antarctica so I can work Australia after that. It's his cleanest room for expansion. I don't want to concede our position off of Australia, especially because it's one of only two routes to his eastern bonuses. All of the other options seem to give that up too easily.

And my apologies to Duke and Fizzer. I shouldn't have called Duke a dick. Sorry about that.

I will try to explain once again why I think we shouldn't blockade, with example.
First, think what should we do next turn if he go in south pole with all units.
Should we defend Scott then ?

Lets assume that this turn he will put most of his units in S.America and defend our attacks. In same time he can go with all units in south pole. What will be the situation after this turn?
- We will have similar forces in South Africa, that doesn't allow us to take any action.
- He will have 18-19 units in south pole and we would have 1 in Scott(It would be stupid trying to defend Scott). BTW he will know that. So what would be our actions then? We can not predict what he will play next.
However, most probably is that he will take S.Africa and maybe do some maneuvers in S. America. And go in Scott!!!
After that he will have available units to expand in Australia and (15 vs 17 income) to fight with us which I think is enough if he play good some battles. After he take Australia bonus he will have more income then us and chance to continue expanding in Indonesia.
Conclusion1: With this scenario we should win eventually anyway, as I said in some previous post, but it would be hard and long and we shouldn't make mistakes, cause one mistake can turn over the game.
Conclusion2: If we decide to defend Scott from reasons I described, than blockade card is unnecessary!

My opinion is that beside my plan with not blocking Siple and defend Antarctica from Scott in next turn, only bostonfred plan is fine(although very hard to play precise, because to much option will be opened then). Going in Africa and attacking his bonuses will also result with fast win and keep the fight here. That is good way how we should use our advantage.

correction on my previous post

• We will have similar forces in South America, that doesn't allow us to take any action.

Fred. Thanks for apologizing. I'm sorry I insulted you as well. I'll try harder to follow my own advice and stay classy.

One thing to remember is Imp's perspective of our actions. We've gone hard into SA almost every turn now and in his mind we want still want it pretty badly and he's going to make sure we don't get it. Do we know if he has an order priority card? if so he'll just slide to argentina to avoid our blob and we're in the same position.

I feel like we're in a dance situation where neither will take either bonus unless one of the parties get's lucky.

Also, Duke with one of your suggestions I can see him sliding his blob and then delaying enough to retake brazil to make sure we don't gain access to africa, I don't like moving our blob so far north. I think we should stay put in brazil (attacking with only small amounts to colombia and venezuela), blockade antartica, take greenland, and send a small group into africa. What this accomplishes is that we are making sure we withhold the bonuses from Imp while getting our +5(greenland) to be the overpowering factor.

One thing to think of as well is that Imp has got to know that we are blockading. Do you think he'd bank on that and use those troops to just scout antarctica and bring his troops back up. We can use some of our deployment to block that scout attack.

Here is my suggestion:

Continue withholding the South America and Antarctica bonus while taking Greenland and expanding to put pressure on Imp's homefront.

Deploy 6 to Kangerlussuaq, 4 to Siple, 2 to South Pole. Attack Colombia with 10 from Brazil. Attack Qaanaaq with 7 from Kangerlussuaq. Transfer to Kangerlussuaq with 2 from Danmark Havn. Transfer to Kangerlussuaq with 1 from Nuuk. Attack Nigeria with 4 from Brazil. Attack Venezuela with 4 from Brazil. Attack Only to Argentina with 3 from Brazil. Transfer 2 to Siple from South Pole. Blockade Siple.

I like this because it is making sure Imp doesn't get any progress from our fight, we have an opportunity to take South America if he doesn't deploy there (doubtful) but we still hold the advantage in South America either way. We get Greenland, and we also start making a move towards Africa to disrupt his EA bonus.

He slid his blob first move last turn, no idea if he used a card, but he went first. He'll either move to protect those 6 armies by reinforcing them or sliding them (or a combination of both). I don't think he slides them into CA cause it's too easy to get SA if he does. So that only leaves Columbia. We either hit Venesuela 1st move or we hit Columbia 1st move. When it was 12 income I was sure Columbia was going to be the move. But now that it's 17 income, I'm less sure. I think there's no way he limps into South Pole so those two armies would be thrown away. Small attacks in SA don't make much difference -- we might as well stay put and maybe throw an attack only at Argentina last move. I'm not that worried about Imp getting a midsized stack in Brazil next turn. That just becomes are next target for our stack to hit first mvoe. Eventually we win that exchange decisively. if he leaves SA for Africa or CA he's screwed, so I'm fine chasing a smaller stack around untilw e hit it or get a OP card.

I think Imp will deploy 13 into Columbia and 4 into South Africa. Then transfer only the 5 from Venezsuela to Columbia, transfer 8 from Antartica to South Africa, attack South Pole with 11, attack the spot in South Africa that lets him clear it next turn, delay moves in CA (and anywhere else he has 1s), then attack Argentina with 2 from Columbia and Brazil with 2 from Columbia.

If this is what Imp decides to do, then hitting Columbia with 30 1st move would be the most devastating option. My next favorite option for Imp is to put 2 in Columbia, 11 in Venezsuela and 4 in South Africa and then attack Argentina 1st move with the 2 and on his last two moves: attack only Columbia and and attack Brazil. If this is what Imp does, then we would want to hit Venesuela first move with 30. We'll net up a bit and hold our position in Brazil.

Because these are my top two guesses on what I think he'll do, I proposed those two varients.

Maybe it's just me, but when I am looking at Snappyvote and trying to decide how to vote I would prefer it if I could see all the turn actions for the turn and not just the turn goal. Having to dig through the thread to see how that goal is trying to be achieved is very painful. How I would go about achieving a somewhat vague goal and how the proposed order go about it may be completely contrary.