I'm neither gui, namib-wannabe, nor any of the top players.
I am bad or at least feel like that at warlight, and feel I am no longer improving.
I am looking forward to somebody tutoring me, and/or analyzing my losses.

No, I wasn't focussed, nor playing my best here.
As a matter of fact i was relaxed and played entirely for fun.
Still, i find this a good enough material for advise.

kind regards,
Poundland.


ps: You all owe me £1.

I dont have 1£ Im not European!

People won't want to tutor someone that doesnt try. Its a waste of their time.

Poundland vs Micha_

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6731921

Turtle - i will try to focus.

Bad picks.

if you really want to learn in earnest, why are you using an alt? if you've played a lot, people would probably have a lot more to say to help.

6 losses, 6 posts. Posting losses only, interesting.

I dont have 1£ Im not European!

You mean £1, not 1£

An actual question arising from the last game posted:

When attacking from Central Russia to Scan should you arrive in Moscow or should you wait an extra turn and use more armies to arrive in Murmansk?

If opponent probably has the bonus then wait the turn.

"6 losses, 6 posts. Posting losses only, interesting."

I noticed that too. He had 75% 1v1 last I looked, but only posts the losses.

Dear Diary - They say I'm weird. They say I post only losses instead of bragging how amazing a player I am. I indeed could post my wins like most people do, but it would not make my strategy any better, would it? Unfortunately posting losses is not very helpful either as they all think i am just another forum troll. That's sad. You know my intentions are pure. I think I will make an exception for this player I've just met, as he is such a nice person! I wonder if he's handsome - oh come on! He has to be! Ugly blokes are not that open. Guys on the forums will be soo jealous. Yes. I will post it! Will do it now!

Poundland vs Taurus:

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6747971

Turtle - what would you have changed in the way I played against The swimming potato?

Slammy - My intentions are pure. There will be no clever reveal, and I am by no means anyone's clone, nor copycat. I am using an alt, so that people are not biased by my weak record and poor in-game reputation.

Ace Windu - I think it all depends on predicted income of the player compared to your.

Swimming Potato - where would you pick better? What would you have done differently in my shoes?

G.Arun - more often than not I would agree with that, but not when there's another front open. The idea of waiting or taking a longer route is to have a doubleborder with the enemy together with approaching with slightly bigger stack. However - when one front's already been opened you may want to rush to make sure the enemy will not secure the open one before you approach him on the other side of the map.

What's the point of rushing if you may not be successful? You should only rush if you have a sizeable stack already in the area (one that won't be combatted by the opponent's income easily, or cause you to overdeploy there allowing you opponent to gain cheeky ground on the other front).

G.Arun - I was referring to a situation where you already have some advantage on one side of the map, but you need that single confusing contact elsewhere in order to force enemy to split deploy.

Another Walmart agent kicked my parking lot.

Poundland vs verve

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6748129

I think we both picked pretty badly, but I have misplayed big time. Any suggestions?

Edited 8/4/2014 12:51:33

Yes, Poundland, but what I meant still stands. If I know you have the advantage, and you rush the attack and I know for a guaranteed success against my income you need to commit armies in Russia, I will take the risk on the other front, full deploy there and rape you.

Verdict: If you rush attack you MUST have enough armies to not require mass deployment next turn. If you already have an advantage, you shouldn't have to rush anyway :)

Edited 8/4/2014 13:39:39

Poundland - you should not be surprised. you totally looked like a troll since the very beginning of this thread.

Arun - I must take Pound's side on this. If he is an aggressor, and he'll take you to a stalemate at one side with his slight advantage, then after getting to you on the other side, he will force you to at least guess and deploy somewhere. It may be a single-turn shot, but it can be enough to break the stalemate.. think about it for a while :)

It will break the stalemate for sure, but which way? If he intends to attack Scand, and must deploy to ensure attack success, I (the defender should win). It all depends on player skill. A noob aiming to smash Scand would lose. A master using the attack to wrong foot me may well win.

"I indeed could post my wins like most people do, but it would not make my strategy any better, would it? "

Why wouldn't it? You don't actually think you play perfect in the games you win do you? Typically both players make errors in a game, the winner just typically makes fewer or less severe mistakes. There's still much to learn from ones wins.

For example, that game vs. Taurus:

The 2v1 turn is is a mistake as far as I am concerned. Your chances of actually completing Central Russia turn 1 were a measly 6.14%. Your chances of wasting armies and needing to deploy more than you would by not gambling in order to finish the bonus were much higher.

Turn 3, the deployment to South America was not worth it, you gave yourself a 51.2% chance to finish the bonus.

One of two other decisions were better IMO.

1. Attack in South America turn 1 or 2 with a 3v2 to attempt to set yourself up for turn 4, this way a 3v2 failing turn 3 doesn't set you behind on finishing SA, because you can then choose to deploy 1 more army to 2v1 it if necessary, but not deploy anything there till turn 4 if successful.

2. Deploy 1 to SA, just enough to ensure the 4v2 succeeds, but still leaving yourself a 64% chance of success rather than 51.2% in Russia.

I like the first option the best of the three (the two I mentioned and what you chose).

Turn 5. You know he hasn't finished West Africa. Hit him. 6 + 22 = 28 to attack with. You can assume he has 13 income fairly easily by viewing the board (yes even with fog, there's only so many sane spots to pick, you can see CA and AA, and Scand.

You not only could expect a 4 income lead, but you had a bigger stack so hitting first order (and getting first order) ensured a 28v21. Totally profitable.

You kill 17 armies, he kills 15. You knock his stack to 4 armies, if he tries to finish the bonus he has to succeed a 3v2, and even if he succeeds the next turn you have equal income but a staggering stack advantage setting you up for a 13+4+17=34 v 18, which breaks West Africa.

This is close to what you did, but I wouldn't have reccomended deploying the armies to hit Central America. If it was turn 4 and you needed another card piece, yes. But not on turn 5, on turn 5 the card piece didn't much matter since the chances the game was going to reach turn 9 (the next reinforcement card) were nil.

Edited 8/4/2014 15:00:20

Very good analysis Good Kid. Thank you. I must admit, you got it all right.

Now a game with bad picking, and bad breaking strategy. After going into the scandinavian bonus, the game should have turned into an easy win for me, but I have been vastly outplayed, and soon outexpanded. With some neutral attack luck a humiliating loss to Sainsbury's was inevitable:

Poundland vs GoDL1k3

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6752884

edit:

A question to pro players: What should i have picked there?

Edited 8/5/2014 05:37:40