Is playing from Asia ever a feasible option?

This is what happened when I played from Asia. --->  http://www.wargear.net/games/player/177988

I started with 6 territories in Asia.  Australia was out of the question.  I could of made an attempt for SA but i decided that I would most likely lose the battle to yellow (his 9 surrounding units vs my 3).  So I decided to set up shop in Asia then make a push for NA.  Well as you can see I got my ass wooped.  Any advice as to what I should have done?

3ET

I never play from asia except as end game.  In your case I probably would have either taken china, and then fortified everyone in asia down to get australia.  Or if that didn't seem to be working I would have slow played it and hoped that since I was in asia everyone would ignore me until cards could dominate.

Yeah I was in a pretty sticky situation.

Ozyman wrote:

I never play from asia except as end game.  In your case I probably would have either taken china, and then fortified everyone in asia down to get australia.  Or if that didn't seem to be working I would have slow played it and hoped that since I was in asia everyone would ignore me until cards could dominate.

yep!

Playing from Asia is very tough because 1) anybody who has Australia has nowhere to go but through you and 2) in non fog games everybody can see you and won't let you stand with that bonus.

What ozy said is best in that situation I think

Connected territories like that are a good opportunity to build a stack. If you build a large stack in Asia, you have the choice to invade Australia if the opportunity is there, or you can vacate if you see it's going to cost you too many armies. (If the Australia owner sees your big stack moving _away_ from the Australia action, they won't chase you down!)

For example, a reasonable first move would have been place 3 on Siberia, transfer from Yakutsk. Then there would be 8 in Siberia. Now, if you're bent on grabbing a card, you should still use a transfer to build a stack each turn. (You didn't do this.) I don't mind foregoing a card in the early going because they aren't as cheap as they are later, nor are they worth as much as they are later.

AttilaTheHun wrote: Playing from Asia is very tough because 1) anybody who has Australia has nowhere to go but through you and 2) in non fog games everybody can see you and won't let you stand with that bonus.

What ozy said is best in that situation I think

Yea I would definitely agree. I had no hopes of holding all of Asia.  I was only trying to use it as a starting position.

Hugh wrote:

Connected territories like that are a good opportunity to build a stack. If you build a large stack in Asia, you have the choice to invade Australia if the opportunity is there, or you can vacate if you see it's going to cost you too many armies. (If the Australia owner sees your big stack moving _away_ from the Australia action, they won't chase you down!)

For example, a reasonable first move would have been place 3 on Siberia, transfer from Yakutsk. Then there would be 8 in Siberia. Now, if you're bent on grabbing a card, you should still use a transfer to build a stack each turn. (You didn't do this.) I don't mind foregoing a card in the early going because they aren't as cheap as they are later, nor are they worth as much as they are later.

Hmm I have seen ppl use 1 or 2 huge stacks in previous games and only seen it work well for someone a handful of times.  It is not the strategy I use, but I see now that I should start incorporating it.  Although the stack might have gone either way.  My unit count would remain very low even if they were stacked, but it also might have helped take some attention away from me.

3EyedTitan wrote:

Hmm I have seen ppl use 1 or 2 huge stacks in previous games and only seen it work well for someone a handful of times.  It is not the strategy I use, but I see now that I should start incorporating it.  Although the stack might have gone either way.  My unit count would remain very low even if they were stacked, but it also might have helped take some attention away from me.

It certainly shouldn't be the _only_ strategy. The point of the stack is flexibility. You should think of a stack as pointing in multiple directions. If there comes a time when Australia is weak, your stack can go in and secure it. If a player becomes weak, your stack helps you grab their cards. Need to run to NA? Your stack can do that too.

The unit count dynamics of a stack are sometimes good and sometimes bad. I like that the tendency is to avoid attacking the stack and just take the 1's you've left behind. (It only costs you 1 unit instead of the usual 3.) But, sometimes it looks too threatening to someone who just secured a continent and they attack it.

If you can secure a good continent early, stack-building is too slow. But, many people use it (in combination with other ideas) with good effect.

That's a good point Hugh, well thanks for the advice everyone!

Asia is a safe haven; just don't try to conquer it. If you're strong, go ahead a grab a continent. If you're weak, Asia is fine.

Is playing from Asia ever a feasible option?

Asia is a safe haven; just don't try to conquer it. If you're strong, go ahead a grab a continent. If you're weak, Asia is fine.

+1

Yes, very feasible, if somewhat undesirable.  In a game with many players, building up in Asia and waiting for opportunity to come along can be a winning strategy.

That makes sense, thanks for your tips!