Conquer Club

I've not played enough World 2.0 to know the answer for sure.

I ask the question because my suspicions clash with someone elses. They think one mega-continent is best, I think another.

Want to know what you all think!

it doesn't really matter - dice, positioning and skill tend to decide who wins.

asia would be to hard to hold though

the big three in the south tend to be the favorites, but ive seen some do some damage from europe, ironically more than from n america for some reason

ill go for e.u, because it is the smallest and more points

trevor33 wrote:it doesn't really matter - dice, positioning and skill tend to decide who wins.

asia would be to hard to hold though

trevor define what you mean by "positioning and skill" - how exactly does that differ from choice of territory to attack?

I agree there is more to winning than first choice of continents though!

in almost all the games i have played. the person getting all of south america wins or comes very close. this is because it is easy to take and defend (well not easy, but easier) and from there you can quickly take NA and expand from there

for dummies wrote:in almost all the games i have played. the person getting all of south america wins or comes very close. this is because it is easy to take and defend (well not easy, but easier) and from there you can quickly take NA and expand from there

But on the flip side it's hard to expand into Africa from South America because there are so many territories in Maghreb. Your best option for expansion is north, through Central America and become a Western Hemisphere power ... only to get punctured in two from Oceania's forces on Hawaii.

That's why I'm erring towards Oceania. You can expand into China and India and then Russia often without much opposition because only rarely someone tries to make Asia their first base. And when they do they generally get China to storm Oceania.

Also from Oceania you can hit Central America and instantly put in jeapardy both North and South America. From Australia you can hop on Antartica and go to Africa. A Strong Oceanianic power is really weak only in Europe and I do not particularly rate Europe as a starting position (Too many fronts).

im all for africa, but it all depends on the positioning of your armies and your opponents armies.

it doesn't matter where u start...its all skill and luck...

DeCaptain wrote:im all for africa, but it all depends on the positioning of your armies and your opponents armies.

That's the question to answer.

Which continent puts you in a better position vis-a-vis your fo?

I'd particularly like to know the very highly ranked vets view on this subject, if any happen to honor this thread with a passing glance!

South America is nice because you can expand into Mexico without gaining borders (or in many cases take SAmerica from Mexico).

However the Oceania-India-China expansion is relatively easy and gives as much bonus as any other place that can be relatively easily held.

I've never really done Europe but I've seen it work....not my cup of tea.

As for Africa I've never held the whole thing. I've done the South/East Africa sub holding and it worked well but I wasn't brave enough to take mahgreb and put a target on my back.

Overall- SAmerica gives you the better quick expansion. Oceania gives you the better long term expansion. Most other places are not worth holding the whole continent in my opinion.

Bavarian Raven wrote:it doesn't matter where u start...its all skill and luck...

Specify what you mean by "skill" - choosing where to attack is skill, is it not?

Contrickster wrote:

DeCaptain wrote:im all for africa, but it all depends on the positioning of your armies and your opponents armies.

That's the question to answer.

Which continent puts you in a better position vis-a-vis your fo?

I'd particularly like to know the very highly ranked vets view on this subject, if any happen to honor this thread with a passing glance!

Well postioning depends a lot more upon where you are in relation to your enemy than which continent you hold. Overall I agree with decaptain more than anything. It's the positioning that matters most and that is something not easily taught.

sully800 wrote:South America is nice because you can expand into Mexico without gaining borders (or in many cases take SAmerica from Mexico).

However the Oceania-India-China expansion is relatively easy and gives as much bonus as any other place that can be relatively easily held.

I've never really done Europe but I've seen it work....not my cup of tea.

As for Africa I've never held the whole thing. I've done the South/East Africa sub holding and it worked well but I wasn't brave enough to take mahgreb and put a target on my back.

Overall- SAmerica gives you the better quick expansion. Oceania gives you the better long term expansion. Most other places are not worth holding the whole continent in my opinion.

Interesting read, thanks. I wonder if any Colonels/Generals disagree with you.

It's the positioning that matters most and that is something not easily taught.

Interesting.

I'm mostly with sully800 on this one. South America gives you the most bang for the fewest borders, but if you can take oceania and china and india, you have only four borders (pakistan, china, hawaii, and western australia, with a token force in mongolia) and you're getting in the neighborhood of 25 armies per turn. Of all the four-border options, oceania/china/india is probably the best if for no other reason than you have a lot more territories, thus more armies per turn.

Europe isn't a bad option, but there's something psychological about seeing a major power in the middle of the map (as opposed to the bottom/corner) that tends to make you a target.

Western Africa is where armies go to die, but holding the south and east of africa and getting those 7 armies per turn is a nice holding pattern while you gather strength to do something else (i.e. take south america).

From there, it's all up to the player.

Of course, diplomacy plays a major role in 2.0, probably more so than on any other map given the size and potential length of the game.

You guys think that SA and Oceanea are good places to start, I started taking both of them on round 4 on the first time I played. You can imagine what happened.

all the games i've one on 2.0 have been started with either europe or africa. i've gone for SA and Oceania, but i lost every time. i guess i'm the freak of the group.

Africa. Every game I've played the person who took Africa one. It's awesome and easy to defend, even in small parts.

I just finished a few games on the map. and i have won from North america, europe and im about to win another(doubles this time) starting in south america.

But i must say do like europe.

Once again, I will say no way to Africa. It has 5 borders, is central and is listed as having the highest bonus of the holdable continents.

Your best bonus scenario with Africa is to expand into the Middle East, Norwegian Claim, Fracne and North East Brazil. That leaves you with 35 countries, the 15 bonus for Africa and the 4 for the Middle East- That's 30 total. (Granted, you can take all of Europe and Africa and have 5 total borders but you are seen as an enormous threat if you do that.)

If you expand from Oceania though, you can get all of Asia except for the Middle East and keep only 5 borders. With men on Alaska, Australian Claim, Mexico, Moskva and Iran you'd have 36 countries, 9 for Oceania, 4 for China, 4 for Russia, and 3 for India for a total of 32. Slightly more than Africas biggest potential but I guarantee you will look less threatening to most people than the guy who owns the Africa situation I described.

Just some food for thought. I know Africa can work, I've seen it happen, but I just don't prefer it.

Contrickster wrote:I do not particularly rate Europe as a starting position (Too many fronts).

If you hold all of Europe then you only really have 4 borders - Iceland, Moskva, Iberia & Turkey...

The problem with Europe though is that you can't get to Antartica... which is a great transport around the globe.

C.

now i like world 2.0 and i have won from all over the board. oceania if you take you time building up,sa,na, africa and euro. with asia you tend to just have china and india then work your way south or east through hawaii.
maybe i have been lucky to win from most positions but i have lost from most positions as well.

Now that I see everyone thinks that taking Mahgreb isn't a good idea, I'm going to have to try it if I can get a good draw in that area. It's not easy to hold if you show aggression, but a less imposing approach may just work.

yeti_c wrote:

Contrickster wrote:I do not particularly rate Europe as a starting position (Too many fronts).

If you hold all of Europe then you only really have 4 borders - Iceland, Moskva, Iberia & Turkey...

The problem with Europe though is that you can't get to Antartica... which is a great transport around the globe.

C.

But what fronts! These are very active fronts.

NW - Greenland.
NE - Russia.
SE - Middle East.
S - Maghreb.

With exception of Greenland, which is usually forted by an American power, all fronts to bonus continents.

Africa, South America and Oceania have a front on Antartica which is less forted than other fronts because holding Antarctica does not give an army bonus - the opposing armies can usually be counted on one hand.

Even North America has one free front - on Russia - which, being in Asia, is rarely owned by a massive power until the end stages of the game.

Defenidng Europe totally sucks. More than that, it's difficult to know where to expand from Europe.

Get the middle east you have African and Oceanic powers either side. Maghreb you have South American and African powers. The options with less resistence are through Greenland and Russia(but face the Oceanic power on China) but by focussing armies on these places you risk someone else getting Africa and the Middle East. At the same time you have to stockpile forces for later battles. Agggh!

this really does rely on positioning but given perfect deployment i would love to have oceana merely because it seems to allow best expnsion (explained better by many others)