In a classic, standard, sequential, flat rate, unlimited fort game is it better as the first player to spread the initial deployment and not attack, or deploy to one territory and try to attack 6 on 3?
I've often lost all of the initial deployment trying to make the attack and end up still not getting a card.
lets say u have venuezala and argentina for example and u have north africa and a chain of terrs after that as well, the most strategical choice would be to attack brazil and link up ur troops so u can fort them to SA and take it next turn.
but if ur spread out all over, ur better off deploying and not attacking until u can get a clearer picture of where evryone is heading.
Time to retire this much loved sig of mine with a new clan.
I agree with Jako. If you're spread out throughout the map, then it's probly best that you pick where you wanna play it out and deploy there, but don't attack. However, if you find yourself very strong in a certain area (3 in Australia or SA, etc.), go for the initial attack, but don't wear yourself down.
I've noticed people that group all their guys together into one territory tend to lose. Their bonus army rate per round tends to suffer quite a bit as everyone eats their 1 army spots, and it takes a while to get back to 12+ territories from 3 or 4. It's usually better to maintain your 3s or your initial 6 deployment. People may move away from you and you can be the person eating the ones, not the person getting torn up.
Also, never underestimate the power of 2. If you leave 2s instead of ones people trying to take your spots are forced to have at least one 3vs2 or worse roll. Which is significantly harder for them then a 3v1.
I would always recommend attacking 6v3, as the card can be crucial. (As I mentioned elsewhere recently, in flat rate a card is worth an average of a little under 3 armies, which is more than you expect to lose against a 3.) However if you lose a couple of times it is good to stop.
I am not conviced about the traditional forting manoeuvre to turn 3-3 into 5-1; it's inviting someone to take the 1 whereas both 3s would be strong enough to dissuade an attack.
There are lots of other variable involved that determine whether you attack or not. I usually attack and since I hack the dice I don't worry about losing armies. I only worry about getting a card.
i find it is best to start your go, wait til someone has made an attack leaving a territory with just one army, attack that territory, spread armies to 3 and 3, or 3 and 2, or if you are unlucky 2 and 2, and then end you go. This way you will lose minimal armies and gain a territory.
Another tactic i like is to spread your armies, say you have 4 to deploy, deploy them to different territorries, even if the territories are spread out. Early on when people are loking to take a territory just for a card, they will ignore your 4 armies and take on one with 3 armies, this way everyone else busts them selves up and you stay happy. The only disadvantage to this is that you miss out on one card.
If its flat rate I would generally attack 6-3 but call a halt if I lost 2 straight away, escalating 99% of the time I simply deploy as being a card behind and cashing last is not a disadvantage.
I will put in my 2 cents. Often it is best to attack 4v3 then 5v3 from a second country if you desperately need to take the place (ie. if it is protected by your other two countries, eg. you have new guinea and western australia, and want to take east australia).
This means that you have more chance of taking it as if you attack with the 4v3 and lose two, you can attack again from the other place and if that is a draw you can still attack again 4v2. Admittedly you run the risk of losing even more troops.
Whereas if you got the same results 6v3 it would go to 4v3 then 3v2 and you couldn't attack again.
