Conquer Club

I have had varying success in 1vs1 games. After WW2 Eastern Front was quenced i started to play loads of 1vs1 games on it and after about 50 games i was a sergeant, I then stopped playing eastern front and begin to try my hand at other maps (Africa, Europe, South america and Canada) i have since dropped down the a private.

What are you 1vs1 tactics/stratergies?
I will update the list in this post.

1. Find a map your good at and stick with it.
2. Go for number of territories rather than continents.
3.

i think some of the simpler things to do at least early on, is to attack areas where they can move alot of troops around, especially in unlimited forts.

Also it helps to force them to defend you rather than move toward their own development.

Here's a specific question:

World 2.1, Flat, Chained. 1 vs. 1 (obviously)

A gets 12 armies, enough to secure a continent SOMEWHERE.
B gets 11 armies probably, if he lost 2 to A's continent-grab. And gets his own continent, but is weakened compared to A, since he started weaker, and luck was the same. Now A can ream [or at least break] B's continent with his 15-20 armies, leaving himself still stronger than B.

B now gets maybe 9 armies, since he's lost some more territories. Barely enough to regain the continent, not enough to fortify against the 15-20 onlaught. And so it goes. If luck is the same, B is screwed.

Is this scenario truly a coin flip?

I think the most important thing is to play as aggressively as possible. Attackers have the statistical advantage in all games and defensive strategies truly do suck in 1vs1.

Mensathis wrote:Here's a specific question:

World 2.1, Flat, Chained. 1 vs. 1 (obviously)

A gets 12 armies, enough to secure a continent SOMEWHERE.
B gets 11 armies probably, if he lost 2 to A's continent-grab. And gets his own continent, but is weakened compared to A, since he started weaker, and luck was the same. Now A can ream [or at least break] B's continent with his 15-20 armies, leaving himself still stronger than B.

B now gets maybe 9 armies, since he's lost some more territories. Barely enough to regain the continent, not enough to fortify against the 15-20 onlaught. And so it goes. If luck is the same, B is screwed.

Is this scenario truly a coin flip?

B shouldn't have tried to take his own continent, he should have gone after A.

BaldAdonis wrote:

Mensathis wrote:Here's a specific question:

World 2.1, Flat, Chained. 1 vs. 1 (obviously)

A gets 12 armies, enough to secure a continent SOMEWHERE.
B gets 11 armies probably, if he lost 2 to A's continent-grab. And gets his own continent, but is weakened compared to A, since he started weaker, and luck was the same. Now A can ream [or at least break] B's continent with his 15-20 armies, leaving himself still stronger than B.

B now gets maybe 9 armies, since he's lost some more territories. Barely enough to regain the continent, not enough to fortify against the 15-20 onlaught. And so it goes. If luck is the same, B is screwed.

Is this scenario truly a coin flip?

B shouldn't have tried to take his own continent, he should have gone after A.

C shouldnt play 1 v1 on 2.1

i play most of my singles on classic, if i get a deal close to aus i go for it, trying not to waste troops and leaving 1's all over the place....

next turns i try and get my opponents down to 3 a turn deploy and break any large number of troops..

this is general strat for 1 v 1.
my advice, play maps with 1 or 2 small bonuss and only go for them if u are dealt there

Mensathis wrote:Here's a specific question:

World 2.1, Flat, Chained. 1 vs. 1 (obviously)

A gets 12 armies, enough to secure a continent SOMEWHERE.
B gets 11 armies probably, if he lost 2 to A's continent-grab. And gets his own continent, but is weakened compared to A, since he started weaker, and luck was the same. Now A can ream [or at least break] B's continent with his 15-20 armies, leaving himself still stronger than B.

B now gets maybe 9 armies, since he's lost some more territories. Barely enough to regain the continent, not enough to fortify against the 15-20 onlaught. And so it goes. If luck is the same, B is screwed.

Is this scenario truly a coin flip?

It's worse than a coin flip. A has a clear advantage that can only be overcome by some seriously good lucj