Forum

This strategy are a list of goals that need to be accomplished throughout the whole game

SETUP

Take Argentina

Take a half of Africa (preferably) south

Take Northern Asia

Reinforce Africa and make it seem like it is your main focus

Then with the last handful of troops put them on Argentina

Gameplay

Put reinforcements on Argentina if under 6 and put the rest in Africa

Use troops in Argentina to take South America quickly

Put reinforcements in Africa

Take Africa quickly

Defend both continents fiercely

Add reinforcements to North Asia

Once very strong in North Asia move through Asia gradually

Take Siam (probably defending Austrailia strongly)

If austrailia is strong organize peace deal If it is weak destroy it

Move into europe from Africa and Asia take Europe gradually

After Europe is taken move into America on three fronts

Win

Well i figured the worst possible scenario is to end up with just argentina and lose all of africa. Or to lose argentina and only have one or two african nations and both situations you should be able to build up and take at least one continent. And after that youll be able to take the other eventualy since they are adjacent. Northern Asia i would consider optional.

(the plan also banks on to people focusing on austrailia which usually happens with the people i play with)

     Well, I must say it is quite an interesting strategy. I pretty much agree with what everyone else is saying about this strategy. Too much could really go wrong with a "concrete formed" strategy like the one that you have proposed.
     The main flaw that I see though is the fact that you have successfully divided and conquered yourself. At the beginning of the game, you will not receive enough armies to "defend these continents fiercely" while still increasing your force in Asia. A strong force in North America knocking at your South American door is enough to occupy a large sum of your incoming troops.
     I do think that this could develop into a good strategy if you knew that you would be playing against very, very passive Australia-huggers and you didn't mind playing a long game (I think that this strategy is relying [maybe a little too much] on a mass of incoming troops to be able to advance). If even one person at the table was a fellow North America lover like myself, he/she could really cause some problems.
Overall, I think that this could be a solid strategy with the right diplomacy and a little luck from the dice. Good luck with it and I hope it serves you well.

~G.I. Joe~

     Well, I've been thinking about your strategy...

     I think that my newest concern is the fact that North America is to be attacked last. North America (late in the game) is a really big power continent. By that I mean someone has probably established it as their main base. From my experiences, a player fighting out of North America will take an aggressive stance early on and expand into North America's southern counterpart, thus leaving you with a constant demand for resources in South America. By not launching a preemptive strike, you could end up losing all of your Southwestern control.

     As for my ideas for improvement, I would hold a steady position in Asia, as it is most likely not heavily contested, and save this front for a future attack on the Eastern world. My first priority after securing Africa and South America would be to unite your two bases by a careful onslaught of attacks on North America. Once North America is yours, you will have effectively reduced your border territories from five to four. Next, I would target Europe or Africa followed by which ever one of those two was left. Finally, I would end by sweeping through any remaining Asian territories and finish off the player in Australia.

     I would like to note the fact that I may seem slightly hypocritical, as what I have said about waiting to attack North America can also be said for attacking Australia last.. My reasoning leads me to attack North America first because the player there can cause direct harm to your game from the very beginning. With this player's army minimized or completely destroyed, the rest of your campaign should go much smoother.

~G.I. Joe~

Sorry about the confusion. I was kind of thinking out loud and as you saw, I'm not always the clearest of thinkers. In regard to your 3 questions, my opinion is as follows.
1. Having a plan like the one stated above is much better than having no plan at all. Before the game, I always try to come up with my general starting location, my expansion strategy (continent or territory based), and the general order of continents to be attacked. Anything else is very suseptable to change. The problem with the suggested strategy is that it is already determining where your reinforcements will be placed. Other than that, the step-by-step plan isn't too bad.

2. This is where my main concern is. I feel that trying to have two different starting spots will lead you to trouble early on. Near the startup of the game, I don't think that you will have enough armies coming in to be able to use both fronts as attacking ground. I think that forgetting the base in Asia and fighting from just South America and Africa would be a good strategy.

3. I prefer starting out of North America in almost any game I play; I do almost everything I can to avoid fighting out of Australia. In regard to the strategy here, other than my aforementioned concern with Asia, I don't see any problem with the starting position of joeb1990.

I hope that clears up my opinion. Again, sorry about the confusion.

~G.I. Joe~