Key holdings

by **Hologram** on Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:16 am

What do you think are the most strategic holdings?

I believe the most strategic on the standard map are

China, Brazil, Ontario, Northern Europe, and East Africa.

by **flashleg8** on Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:49 am

Hologram wrote:What do you think are the most strategic holdings?

I believe the most strategic on the standard map are

China, Brazil, Ontario, Northern Europe, and East Africa.

Siam & North Africa - no question.

Siam threatens or protects Oz while denying a possible game wining Asia bid from another player. Australia is a continent which you all know can give an easily lead to one player.

North Africa is a versatile territory which opens to door to a South America expansion, denies an African bonus and has two routes to attack Europe. Its also only two stops from US as well.

Edit: I should have stated I usually play no cards.

by **reverend_kyle** on Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:36 am

Ukraine and Middle east.

by **dcowboys055** on Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:43 am

reverend_kyle wrote:Ukraine and Middle east.

by **IronE.GLE** on Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:50 am

reverend_kyle wrote:Ukraine and Middle east.

+ Alaska = game over

by **boberz** on Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:38 am

greenland/iceland are useful if you miss out on a small continent

by **ZawBanjito** on Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:04 pm

We talking escalating games?

Southern Europe, Irkutsk, Alberta.

If you can't hold Southern Europe, then it's got to be East Africa. If someone holds both North Africa and Congo, then it HAS to be East Africa. If not Alberta, then Quebec. Ontario in a pinch. Irkutsk you can move around. Siberia and Ural are often more useful, same with Mongolia. Not Yakutsk though. Screw Yakutsk. I'm a firm believer that in escalating games you stay the HELL AWAY from Alaska/Kamchatka and North Africa (unless you hold S. America, but in that case make sure you don't take Congo, S. Europe, or E. Africa!) Greenland is a different story, but only if you're willing to commit to it and commit to it LARGE. Middle East... I'm very very leery of Middle East in an escalating game. It's almost always more disruptive than it's worth.

If it's flat rate, Middle East is death, unless you hold Africa, in which case it's essential. Otherwise, Ukraine. North Africa is a tricky proposition... it's not automatically useful unless the conditions are right. I personally don't take usually N. Africa if I hold S. America, because I think attacking Africa from that position is a sucker's bet. Greenland is good only IF you already hold a well-fortified continent. If not, get the f*ck away from it and head for Alaska.

by **sully800** on Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:28 pm

I'm with Zaw 100%. His escalating strategy is spot on for most games and thats what a lot of people don't understand about escalating.

by **tahitiwahini** on Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:53 pm

Very interesting post, ZawBanjito.

I only play standard, flat rate, so I'm mostly concerned with those comments.

Some of your comments seem counter-intuitive but I suspect you've arrived at those opinions empirically, so I'll see whether they ring true for me as well in my games. I'm especially surprised at your comments about holding North Africa with respect to South America.

Anyway, thanks for the thought-provoking post.