I'm curious to see what others think about this game: http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6599753.



Am I right in assuming that I was completely lost if my opponent had simply left those four armies in Finland, on turn 2?

And I'm also guessing that there's an error in my starting picks somewhere, because that opening position was extremely awkward. My only compensation was a safe pick (Caucasus) and that I knew all of his picks.

You cant complete caucasus from 1 warlord in 2 turns, which makes it a bad choice as a safe pick. It also isnt very safe which makes it a terrible choice as a safe pick =D.

Was the turn 1 attack to norway instead of finland a guess, or a mistake? If you had cleared him from scand on the first turn then it wouldve been a straight forward win.

Edited 7/11/2014 01:08:02

A mistake. :D

You were lucky. With a stronger opponent it was completely lost :)

You cant complete caucasus from 1 warlord in 2 turns

That is not entirely true. If both 4vs2 attacks lose one army, you can make three 3vs2 attacks next turn.
0,6 * 0,6 * 0,8 * 0,8 * 0,8 = 18,432%
It's slightly more, because if you lose more troops first turn, you use some 2vs2.
But overall it's below 20%.

Edited 7/13/2014 16:48:09

Your opponent lost it even more by only deploying 5 in Murmansk after seeing you get Scand.

He had a chance all the way til turn 5, when he stubbornly threw his hands up and said, "No, I don't want to win anymore.".

Deploy 2 in SA, finish SA. Deploy the other 11 in Murmansk, hit Moscow. He wins, you lose.

Edited 7/14/2014 12:08:47

The main issue that I see was that your opponent had no grasp of the importance of completing bonuses. On turn 2, he stupidly attacked Baja with 5 armies even though it was a neutral, even without having Cuba. Later on, he went two turns of not capturing Mali, which required only two armies to attack. Right there are eight potential armies that he could have kept to sway the game.