para wrote:attack red
No don't, this is still anyone's game and nothing drastic is required at the moment.
Be patient.para wrote:1. first the o0ubvious point, that he is the current leadr in gaining armies and thus will eventually be able to overpower both of you.
Red may be the current leader having 13 more armies in reserve than Aqua, occupying 15 territories (equal to yellow) and getting an extra 2 to deploy each round... but that isn't much of a lead. As
MeDeFe pointed there will be no quick overpowering anywhere since the Aqua/Yellow +15 balances out nicely against Red's +10 and the bulk on A1, F2 & E7 pretty much negate any drastic action at that intersection.
para wrote:2. if you go through NA, this does not affect your borders with yellow so you wont have to worry about him.
N2 & N3 are pretty much out there on an island if hostilities occur, with adjacent forts there is no quick support coming... IF you had lucky dice maybe you could instigate an insurgency, but there are not numbers there to expect success without great dice... do you feel lucky? Also... IF you were successful against Red on the Canadian frontier, there is no guarantee that retaliation wouldn't come from Africa softening up Europe to the point that yellow might become a threat there.
para wrote:3. you can easily fortify those non-border armies to your other borders to ensure that no attacks of any kind come your way from there.
With
adjacent forts all reinforcements are slow coming. I like the counter attack threat that
E4 represents... and might consider trying to fort little by little on E1 as well.
para wrote:4. from what i saw of the game log (i didnt load the whole thing but looked as far as i could otherwise) you and red have been only been deploying in south europe/africa for awhile, so i doubt he would see it coming.
Red and Aqua are the closest in "feet on the ground" with Yellow trailing by around 100... so you both have a few expendible armies against each other... but that doesn't mean drastic action should be taken. If I was antsy to do something, I might nibble on N2 from N3 and see how it goes, but a successful insurgency there is doubtful with the current numbers and I would attempt to fort E1 some before considering it.
para wrote:basically, although this may appear to be a standoff, you have the benefit of having a specific 1vs1 border that you can take advantage of. also his armies are a bit split up so that helps too.
It's a standoff at the moment, but that will change... eventually. That 1v1 border is so isolated that neither of you can get reinforcements there quickly... but your bulk is closer... and that could eventually pay off for you as the game develops. The other two guys have 15 territories padding their bonuses and it will be awhile before you can add to the 9 territories you occupy, but keep it in mind that more territories is probably the only way you will increase your bonus over the next twenty or so rounds.
para wrote:just curious, what problem do you have with an alliance?
I have no problem with alliances, detente or no fly zones if a player needs reassurance when there is a dominant force taking over, but this game is still close and no aggreements are necessary. As
FabledIntegral already pointed out no alliances are needed here, it's still anyone's game... unless someone tires of the match and becomes suicidal.
MeDeFe wrote:[...] to solve the basic problem of the three-man standoff, the only reliable way to solve it is in fact an agreement between all players to attack each other.
I disagree... and think no agreements are required. This standoff is not ready to be resolved and everyone still has to
wait and see how it develops... eventually choices will be made that break this log jam
and effect the final outcome.