Both of us are very interesting with this assymetric CDGs. It departs from standard CDGs with its very different strategies and operations as Yihadist and American. However our two plays have been somewhat deceptive. In both cases, American was able to put a rolling machine of WoI that Yihadist could not stop.
In this last match, American was very lucky with his invasion at Afghanistan with a huge increase of prestige of +3. Yihadist tried to put world opinion against US by moving many countries to soft posture and get a drm from GWOT=-3. But this did not seemed enough to counter American strategy. Then, Yihadist attacked by plotting in countries with troops but failed all his attempts (bad rolls). He changed again his efforts and tried Minor Yihads to remove some countries from Good/Fair back to Fair/Poor. But again he failed. Finally, running out of active cells he concetrated into get an Islamist Rule Country at Morocco. But it was too late and when American shifted to Soft posture, annihilating the GWOT penalty, the play was already decided. It only took some Round waiting for WoI to get enough countries at Good.
In the view of th final result, Yihadist made some mistakes. For example, in Turn 3 his first move was to place two plots in USA to cut American hand. But it could be much better to wait and play the plots later in the turn. Under the menace, American should decide if keeping the 3-ops cards in hand (thus effectively reducing US maneouvres) or play them and risk for uncontested plots in US. For Yihadist menacing to plot in US is as efficient as playing the plots.
We need to rethink Ismalist strategy in the game. It seems that losing Afghanistan is critical, specially if American can shifted it to Good, removing troops. Probably Yihadist needs to make more efforts into Minor Yihads, letting plots only for situations where funding is dramatically decreasing. We will give the game another opportunity in a while, maybe a H2H match at our gaming club to discuss strategies.
No comments:
Post a Comment