I'm analysing my old ladder games because I'm in a rut. All input appreciated.
A squabble over south east asia, that i would usually say i got the wrong end of, but i very nearly made it work. I think I made the right play trying to take SEA first. This was back when I used to be a lot more bold. The niger pick, going for SEA first, 3v2s in SAm, attacking myanmar first move turn 6. I need to play more of this. I should have attacked nigeria turn 7, might have been a win.
I would pick SAm, ant, Echina, SEA, scand, central america; without a thought go for the 2nd turn 11 income. I wrote that without looking at zibiks picks and he did almost exactly what I suggested. central russia is very good, and the option zibik left himself of countering SEA on turn 2 is useful combined with scand or central america. SEA is always strong against russia and zibik gets good luck through out, but all of this is still inconsequential compared with the importance of guessing. I could have turned that into a win in a turn with just a few good guesses.
My picks again are pretty weird; just picking the bonuses in order of best to worst. Not special, but there is no way timi would counter them. Greenland is 3rd for intel (if i dont get it i assume he clustered it) and so that if he picks greenland, canada, europe 3 4 and 5 then he can end up with canada and europe. I should have completed indo first. I focus too much in the americas which arent really important. My shit ton of delays are great. Noobs expansion is ballsy. I turn it into a win from a very bad position just by chugging along making obvious moves and always making my attacks last.
LAWM (very interesting)
We pick similarly, I combo ant with east africa knowing I can let africa go and then ambush from ant a turn or two later. I play well and get bad luck in that I dont get leftovers turn 1 and dont get first move turn 3. I had the intel to know to not attack turn 4 and turn 7 but I didnt calculate much back then.