Btw, I never use triple picks now. Besides what Styxie has told us, a triple pick might also not be a fast way to gain early income in Strategy MME when:

1. There are wastelands in nearby bonuses or in the picks you selected
2. There are double picks available

So when there is a triple pick offered in MME, 99.9% of the time you shouldn't pick it.

Sara C says great things.

All her picks are efficient.

All else being equal, don't start at West US, Canada, Europe, North Africa, South Africa, or Middle East.

For each of these bonuses there's another bonus that is of the same value but with 1 less territory, and thus takes less men to take. Sometimes taking an efficient bonus enables you to get the bonus a turn faster, which is an extra turn of earning the bonus.

E.g. compare starting off with East US vs West US -

If I expand efficiently then I can take East US in 2 turns at a cost of 10 men. So, by turn 4 my investment will have paid off. Whereas it takes me 3 turns to complete West US at a cost of 12 men. So, it's not till turn 6 that my investment is paid off. At turn 6 East US has given you 7 armies more profit than West US.

The gap is less big for the inefficient bonuses that are worth less than 5 as you can complete them in 2 turns.

Thinking about expansion as investing armies for future payoff is a fundamental skill. You want to know how long it takes for a bonus to payoff and be able to rank your expansion options against how profitable they are (e.g. all else being equal from Central America expand to East US not West US).

Also, your picks at West Africa and East Africa and Indonesia, while efficient bonuses, had bad starting points. Generally, you want a central starting position so that you can take the bonus quickly. Because the starting positions are at the edge the fastest that you can take those bonuses is 3 turns.

E.g. with Antartica, Indonesia, and West Africa compare starting in a good position vs a bad one (although actually with Central America and Antartica the central position is worse because you then have to use an extra army to complete the bonus or else wait an extra turn) -

With good position I can take say Indonesia on Turn 2 and then complete Antartica and West Africa on Turn 3. Over 4 turns that would give me army income of 5, 9, 16, 16. In contrast, if I have bad starting positions (the same as on the map) then the best I can do is take Antartica on Turn 2 and then say Indonesia on Turn 3 and then West Africa on Turn 4. That would give me army income of 5, 8, 12, 16. Over 4 turns the good scenario gives me 5 more armies.

If you study the bonuses you'll see where this matters. E.g. you can start anywhere in East US and always complete it in 2 turns. Whereas with Australia and Greenland it depends.

Edited 8/13/2016 09:20:20

Very true, but efficiency however is at the basics. When a scenario like above is created, efficiency should not be prioritized.

Also, an efficient Australia may not be better than an inefficient Central Russia (or in the other way round) depending on offense/defense values and the actual scenario.

Edited 8/13/2016 12:34:22

So when there is a triple pick offered in MME, 99.9% of the time you shouldn't pick it.


More like 90-95%.

I pick Boston Triple quite often. I win with it over 80% of the time I pick it.

Caucasus is also perfectly reasonable to pick as a ftb with Southeast Asia, despite not being used as a counter like you are describing.

"The gap is less big for the inefficient bonuses that are worth less than 5 as you can complete them in 2 turns."

This is wrong. Sure, it can't be taken in 3 turns, but that's not a huge deal. Why? You have three starts, just because you start in W US doesn't mean it needs to be the first bonus you take. You should always strive for 9+ income at end of turn 2. Sometimes that won't be possible since being that greedy will get you eliminated somewhere, but in those circumstances the opponent should be slowed down too.