Moderator: Community Team


well for this example, I am talking about escalating, unlimited, 3-5 players, sunny.barterer2002 wrote:Its going to depend on your settings. escalating is different than flat rate. 3 player different from 8 player. Fog different than sun. Change the parameters and you'll change the results.
lol Ausy is very easy to win from and I think every classic game I won (besides a few) was from me starting in Ausysvoli wrote:I agree with your comparison of SA vs Aus. I find it hard to believe that Aus gives you a 90% victory rate, however. There should be a difference in amount of armies awarded for SA vs Aus. It doesn't seem fair for SA to increase to 3 and be equal to Africa. So, the only solution would be to decrease Aus to 1. Or, open up another route into Aus.
guys, these values for Aussie and SA as well as the rest of the continents and all of the borders came from the board game that is not supposed to be mentioned on this site. Aussie will always be a better continent to have than SA, they won't change the value, and they shouldn't. If you don't like it, play 8 Thoughts or Feudal Epic, both basically symmetrical (8 thoughts is perfectly symmetrical). Even epic has good and bad starting spots thoughDonald Fung wrote:well for this example, I am talking about escalating, unlimited, 3-5 players, sunny.barterer2002 wrote:Its going to depend on your settings. escalating is different than flat rate. 3 player different from 8 player. Fog different than sun. Change the parameters and you'll change the results.
lol Ausy is very easy to win from and I think every classic game I won (besides a few) was from me starting in Ausysvoli wrote:I agree with your comparison of SA vs Aus. I find it hard to believe that Aus gives you a 90% victory rate, however. There should be a difference in amount of armies awarded for SA vs Aus. It doesn't seem fair for SA to increase to 3 and be equal to Africa. So, the only solution would be to decrease Aus to 1. Or, open up another route into Aus.![]()
Ausy shouldn't decrease to 1, just a waste of territory then. They should decrease Africa to 2 borders and have it be equal to SA at 3 troops.
TOO MUCH 'Quotes'jrh_cardinal wrote:guys, these values for Aussie and SA as well as the rest of the continents and all of the borders came from the board game that is not supposed to be mentioned on this site. Aussie will always be a better continent to have than SA, they won't change the value, and they shouldn't. If you don't like it, play 8 Thoughts or Feudal Epic, both basically symmetrical (8 thoughts is perfectly symmetrical). Even epic has good and bad starting spots thoughDonald Fung wrote:well for this example, I am talking about escalating, unlimited, 3-5 players, sunny.barterer2002 wrote:Its going to depend on your settings. escalating is different than flat rate. 3 player different from 8 player. Fog different than sun. Change the parameters and you'll change the results.
lol Ausy is very easy to win from and I think every classic game I won (besides a few) was from me starting in Ausysvoli wrote:I agree with your comparison of SA vs Aus. I find it hard to believe that Aus gives you a 90% victory rate, however. There should be a difference in amount of armies awarded for SA vs Aus. It doesn't seem fair for SA to increase to 3 and be equal to Africa. So, the only solution would be to decrease Aus to 1. Or, open up another route into Aus.![]()
Ausy shouldn't decrease to 1, just a waste of territory then. They should decrease Africa to 2 borders and have it be equal to SA at 3 troops.

no I think starting continent is very important in esclating since the first few trades sucks and you need a good territory to get ahead of everyone. Playing 3 player Classic in Ausy, I usually have twice the troops of the second place player by round 3 or 4 and win by round 6 to 8. It's so FUN!Iron Butterfly wrote:In escalating the bonus wont make a difference at all.
No Spoils it makes a big difference. Having to defend one border is priceless vs other continents. The problem arise where everyone makes a bum rush for it and then waste their troops trying to take it only to be to weak to hold it.
ok yea I guess my title sucked loldarth emperor wrote:That Aussie is better than SA....doesn't make SA the WORST territory to go for....
It doesn't change anything at all lol. That Aussie is better than SA...doesn't make SA a bad territory to go for...Donald Fung wrote:ok yea I guess my title sucked loldarth emperor wrote:That Aussie is better than SA....doesn't make SA the WORST territory to go for....

rockfist wrote:In doubles I prefer SA to Aus.
In singles starting in NA is surprisingly not bad.
trueFalkomagno wrote:rockfist wrote:In doubles I prefer SA to Aus.
In singles starting in NA is surprisingly not bad.
Yes, I was thinking in this too. NA is a good option, facing a long term battle.

I like to take M - U - L - T - I and the win.TheSaxlad wrote:see I disagree, sometimes especially in 1v1 a big fight is the best way ive found to win especially on manual. and sa is worse than aus but not if you take africa first!
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
that's what I do to try and make the Ausy player losenatty_dread wrote:I've always liked south am better than aus. Sure you have to defend two borders but at least you can extend to two directions... in aussie, if someone puts a big stack in bangkok, well, you stay in aussie...
Then again I mostly play escalating so what do I know about bonuses.