A good help to decide your strategy when playing a scenario is to look closely at where the money is.

What I mean is:

- What's the point of attacking a country without or with few resources?
- The same applies for defense: What's the point of defending a country that doesn't allow my army to grow? It's not my country, is it? I don't need to defend any holy ground for the sake of my ancestors.

What I want is to win the game!

So, my recomendation when you plan your strategy for the scenario is:

- Attack the enemy where it hurts more: expensive countries. Be ready to strategicaly redraw when you are outnumbered or in a place where you get no profit. Concentrate your forces to attack where really matters.

This replay is a good example of what I said.

Any comments would be appreciated.

nothing much to comment there - if you mean ONLY playing scenarios versus AI then yes probably you are right.But then playing worldwars against human opponent such a "strategies" derived from singleplayer may hurt you alot.In scenarios you dont have to care about percentage of balance.In worldwar those useless little countries may help you to make your balance 300% and win.
And btw...i would not recommend to speak so easily about attack rich countries....
in mutliplayer sudden strike from 8$ worth of guerillas may inflict huge casualties....
invading rich country is a very serious undertaking which you should go on only if you are completely sure that enemy will not kick you out from it next turn.
in MA currently AI kinda lacks the abilities to defend - sometimes i see it HAS possibilities to destroy all invaders and regain control but it does NOT preferring to attack some other targets somewhy....

Of course I was talking about scenarios, I said it in the first paragraph. A lot of other considerations have to be made when playing World Map or against humans.

And of course you have to worry about guerrillas, the possibility of counter attacks, etc, etc. I never said one should attack blindly. I did mention concentration of forces.

Also, in defense I never said abandon, I said redraw (or retreat if you prefer), there is a diference: you can be retreating and make the enemy pay costly for the ground they gain. Also you can make your best to completely abandon the country as late as possible. A slow retreat could completely paralize all enemy's plans. In the replay I posted you can see that enemy lost a lot more units than I did in the country I was retreating (but that is the AI).

Even against humans or in a World Map, money is a very important consideration when you plan your strategy. Other factors should be taken into account, being balance the most important, but this principle stands as one of the most importants. For the simple reason that you have more to gain and you hurt the enemy more.

Please tell me what they are. Only had a couple of demo games, but I never used towers. A mobile defence seems preferable to me every time... still thinking on situations where I'd use a tower.

Theres lots of situations I'll use towers! I admit, mostly as guerrillas, but they are highly effective in other situations as well. Some of them are listed on the NWO's strategy page: http://www.freewebs.com/massiveassault- ... dunits.htm

It also links to a forum topic.

Speed is a lot of times very decisive. I just love to have a Land Transport and a Bot inside a Sea Transport. It's 5(ST)+4(LT)+2(bot)=11 hexagonon Speed .

Anyway I think it's not decisive. Could be good strategy though. In this example you could see a long attriction war with some ocasional very fast moves.

The Bot wouldn't get to move twice though would he? I mean you spend one point to load him on the LT when it unloads don't you? Still 10 hexes is pretty nice

folks aren't you experts?
naval transport has 6 speed and land 5...so it is 12 hexagons of movement and robot fire range 2 hex = total 13 range.

Well, I'm no expert and you are right, Mrakobes: 6 and 5 hexagons. Although you also make mistakes cause 12+2 is not 13, let me concentrate this time.

licker, I was talking about a bot (and a LT) loaded the previous turn. So the 2 hex movement for him stands.

If you count that 2 bots and 1 LT can be loaded in a ST, and the 2 Bots on the LT, and the 2 Bots have 2 range and move 2, than the all set can give 6 points damage at a distance of 6+5+1(lost 1 mov in the transfer)+2=14! (not 13). The best in terms of damage in a distance I think.

But I think the best in terms of speed is 1 LT loaded in the previous turn in a ST. He could transfer to other ST's 4 times and still be able to unload. In this case he could move (can't damage anyone though) 6+6+6+6+6+1=31!!!!!!!!

Did I got it right this time, Mrakobes?

Are you sure? I thought you couldn't put loaded transports in other transports.

Must test...

No, you can't put loaded land transports into sea transports, but you can unload each unit from the land transport onto the sea tranport, then load the land tranport on board.

And my favorite that surprised someone I played.

I had a long haul on the water to move 3 tanks and a transport, and for the final leg I had an empty water transport waiting 6 spot from the final destination.

A little water to water transfer from the edge of where the 1st transport could go, and then a skimming across the edge of the enemy to land troups 1 turn earlier than they expected.

Of course this only worked because the first transport had to take 2 turns to get to his destination (ie: the tanks were fully loaded for 2 move spots).

That's what I meant: Richard's 31-moving LT would have to be empty. That's probably what he was talking about too, I apparently wasn't reading carefully enough.