Avoiding early risky play is a great way to rack up win streaks against people worse than you, but you will suffer playing it against someone as good or better. I dont understand why you are against a strategy of turn 2 australia, why wont it pay off? cant you see any virtue to it? when you say fast bonuses do you mean first turn like the one you went for that game or do you mean lots of seperate bonuses of 4 territories?

Avoiding early risky play is a great way to rack up win streaks against people worse than you, but you will suffer playing it against someone as good or better.

Agree. That's basically what I just said. If you play a risky strategy you are basically admitting your opponent is better than you are. However instead of resorting to taking risks to beat people better than me I would rather improve my game so that I am better than them, instead of resorting to cheap tricks as my only way to beat good players.

To each his own, I guess.

I dont understand why you are against a strategy of turn 2 australia, why wont it pay off?

For the same reason you told me triple picking is bad. It's easily broken and once broken you are basically dead.

I don't think you understand what are "aggressive picks"... For example a cluster pick of any kind should be considered aggressive meaning it opts for an early income edge giving up some positional stability. If it is not, you should redefine specifically which are aggressive picks and which are not... On the other hand maybe I am the crazy one trying to argue with a moron... If you know a bit about game theory and mixed strategies try viewing picking "aggressively" and "not aggressively" in that context, maybe that'll help...

szeweningen,

you seem mad. you should relax.

my 1vs1 is suck then hell blender. and why this post got 27 pages? why?

Your last post is a gem, so Im going to quote it

"the top players know how to play loose and tight and they alternate between the two depending on the situation" "playing your opponent" "there is a lot of meta-game and misinformation"


Yeah I dont know a lot about poker but that sounds exactly like what I do. It was fun for a bit, its getting extremely boring.

"i think avoiding risk is the best strategy, assuming i'm better than they are."

this is exactly what i find myself being railroaded into doing, trying to get towards the top of the ladder. If thats what you like to play the ladder will be kind to you. My 'philosphy' is to play the position and not the player and I get crucified for it ='(. It seems very un-proactive to sit back and give the other guy concessions and hope he screws up. Its arrogant too (and im sure noone would accuse me of that =P) to say that youre so much better you dont even need to bother threatening the first turn bonus, showboating.

The "need to take such risks" comes when you play someone who will take the risks and hoover up all the advantages you disdain. Because that person will beat you 51%+ of games you 2 play, which I guess is what its all about?

see that is what legitimate broken english looks like

juggernaut, not u piggy :D

indeed billy walsh, my english is really bad, i don't use it.

I agree with Billy for the most part: pick in such a way as to neutralize the enemy's chances to get an unearned win and increase the chances that the game is won based on who is the better player in open space. Sze likes getting angry when people speak about game theory but don't use the words he knows from his textbooks.

The way I see the philosophical side of the game, there are at least four philosophies inherent to warlight:

1 Art of War: based on historical battles, wars, strategies, tactics, etc. from Chinese and Western sources (me)
2 Game Theory (sze)
3 Systems Theory: engineers, programmers, others think like this based on their educational background (unknown, fizzer?, hhh, faith, saladin, retro)
4 Daoism: for flow of game and balance (Chinese art of war is intimately linked to Daoism)

Ultimately, the essence of all four are more or less the same. Only the perspectives differ, which accounts for the differences in how we rank our options and what we eventually decide to do. None of us fully represent these theories, however, so our imperfect adoption of these ideas also accounts for differences.

Billy Walsh you could also stomp an AI an post it here.
Its a joke rofl
(Btw enemy didnt have double income.)

hahaha

one thing that sucks about the ladder: less time to take candy from babies in real time games :(

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3514762

billy, i challenge you again! you can redeem yourself.

hes not gonna accept 69! i have asked twice now and he is to scared to play those that have already beaten him

691, i will play u again once i have refined my strategy for cheap turn 1 tricks

but you still wont play me again?

Ok but if I beat u, u have to change your name to CPU BW#1 for one week