1) The best defense is not always the best offense. Stop just attacking whenever you meet another player on the map in the first 10 turns! Use your resources wisely instead of wasting them in killing one person then having someone stronger come along and kill you. Cause all your income was spent on me. It's like the worst prisoner's dilemma ever, I know, but ohmygod its annoying.

2) Turn down the luck on games. It's the worst. I've seen 14 attack 6 and lose. If you really want to test your merits of strategy and tactics, go luck free!

3) The smaller USA map is horrible. Unless you start on the west coast, you have probably lost the game. The east coast is so crowded its impossible to get any bonuses without threatening someone and having them attack you. The midwest, you are surrounded. Dont make games with this map!

These might be more like complaints...

Feel free to add your own observations.

You may want to quality #1 by adding "in big FDA games." The statement doesn't hold true for 1v1 :)

FFA. Stupid phone autocorrect.

Goood point.

I will also admit that I have made mistake #1 in the past. Dark days when I was young and impetuous.

Point 1 occurs often enough that I'm thinking about swearing off large FFAs that don't take place with designated starting team areas (or at least have private messaging on so I can explain that Mutually Assured Distruction is not a good opening strategy). Half to 2/3 of the time somebody just throws all their income at me fron he first turn on. I usually end up successfully killing them off, but it's enough to leave me no shot at winning and usually leads to elimination in the midgame. There are exceptions (like if you start on an island or surrounded by wastelands so it's just you and 1 other guy -- obviously then kill him fast. But in large map FFA, you have to expand to have a shot.

Of course Impaller and Troll think immediately suiciding against me is actually a good game plan -- for everyone else in the game. ;)

most the time in larger ffa's *4 or more* i try to secure a smallish bonus early and secure my borders and expand into neutrals.. only exceptions are when i am in an automatic draw and get a handful of poor locations, as in the game i 'was' in with duke, in which i figured my best shot to survive was to take over his bonus, which of course failed..
If you are spread across a huge map, with enemies on all your borders and only big bonuses to take, you really don't have that much of a chance anyways...

"Of course Impaller and Troll think immediately suiciding against me is actually a good game plan -- for everyone else in the game. ;)"

Correction: I wouldn't say it's a good game plan. I'd say it's the only game plan.

I agree with #1 to some extent, although I actually think it's not entirely true. I think the FFA games where I am most successful involve being aggressive, but only against one person at a time, and likewise someone who is making less than you, so you can actually progress against them and start to acquire their territory.

Situation #1 occurs all the time in FFA games. For me it comes down to this, depending on the number of players and map size, there is going to be at least one player who will end up with poor starting spots. For this person or people they have no choice but to wreck other players and hopefully have enough troops to secure a good bonus. So in the end a few people get screwed over no matter what. Quite frankly that is the nature of FFA games. It takes diplomacy, and lots of skill to be successful at these games and that's all there is to it. You just gotta hope for the best in terms of starting spots and where your opponents start to build.

- Poop

I'm inclined to agreed with you Poop. However, there's some debate among the people I play with over whether diplomacy should be a part of large FFAs or shoulg be deliberately discouraged. I favor it and like to see public and private chat used for it, but others would rather go further to elminate it with heavier fog and/or an anonymous player option.

I can often employ diplomacy to quickly negotiate mutually agreeable borders so both players benefit. After all, most players finding themselves in a shitty starting spot would rather have a chance at recovering and actually playing the game as opposed to suiciding and hoping for the best. Besides, you can always offer them a really generous deal because to avoid conflict (e.g. strategically giving up a bonus for a "safe border").

killing a few players early can often be for fun the winning by just stayin neutral while every1 else fight

for = more*
the = then*

u should really add a edit/delete post function on this forum <.<

then* = than*
stayin = staying
while every1 else fight = while everyone else fights*

this is the internet, lrn2speaklikeit

Just out of curiosity, in which games(s) was the 'Troll suciding against you' strategy employed, Duke?

I didn't say you suicided against me ever. I said you thought it was a good idea that other players suicide against me early and often. I've noticed that you're particularly good about keeping borders calm in the early going. Generally you don't attack unless provoked or its strategically clear. We've had low army borders for long stretches at the start of games.

It was actually Imp's somewhat tongue in cheek comment that it's always a good idea to suicide against me, I thought you endorsed that sentiment for some reason.

Sometimes sarcasm is hard to pick up online. I didn't think either you or Imp was serious.

I kind figured it was tongue in cheek, but you never really know. I do support the early suicide strategy against any quality player though (as long as it's not me!) :)

if you only have one guy on your border it is often best to break him before he breaks you

In situation 1, I generally PM that player and work out a temporary peace treaty so we can focus on getting some bonuses before shit gets too real.

Yeah, Number 1 is what new players often do. I was doing the same when I was newb.