Giving up on Cairo...

[True Blue]

Its not uncommon for each terrtiory (save maybe Europe) to have a city or cities containing a sizable amount of population seperated from the main group of cities.

North America has San Fransisco and Los Angeles. (It might not seem that far away, but it does make a difference)

South America has Mexico City.

Africa has Cairo.

Russia has all those small towns in central eastern Siberia. (Yeah they're small, but theres a lot of em and they add up)

China has err... Terehan? I think is the city's name, plus the cities in India are slightly isolated from the others too.

[Useful Dave]

But Europe can't launch without taking away defence from a Majorly Targeted (All of it) Area

[Daxx]

Two silos really isn't sufficient to defend anything.

Maybe I've been playing against less experienced players or something, but both of my recent wins with Africa have used this technique. I find two silos, properly positioned, will be fine for defending against incoming nukes. Couple that with an airbase to take out bombers, and you're fine.

On top of that, those two silos also tend to take out a fair few of the nukes aimed at the rest of my territory before they even reach the lower cities.

Your only real worry is a player who is determined enough to make sure he takes Cairo out. But, having said that, if player wants to pour all of his resources into destroying one city, then a) you're not going to stop him and b) he's not attacking anything else.
Highlighting Cairo's apparent vulnerability by supposing overwhelming strikes from your opponents could be applied to any city. You need to think realistically - not all attacks will reach a critical mass, and you can't expect to defend against a big enough strike no matter how well you defend.

And here's the thing: in a game with a survivor scoring mode (my personal favourite), Cairo's a lot of points. You need to learn to protect it whether you think it's possible or not.

[Corbeau]

Ever thought of leaving Cairo undefended??

Rest will gain better coverage, and seriously - Cairo is a gonner anyways...

I leave it helpless, and i still win as Africa (go to thread of victory shots - got some of mine there...)

I tried that in a 1v1 game against North America. I was leading until his last-ditch silo launches dropped, and Cairo didn't have the token air defense it needed to shoot 'em down. Oops.

[MattD]

Oh well.

And what do you want them to do, move it? lol

[Hegemon Hog]

I don't think this is unfair for Africa. If anything, it's a balancing factor. Africa has the rest of her population stashed away and divided among many smaller cities (much like Asia). Nuke attacks will often have to travel over Africa's northern territory giving you more warning and time to shoot them down. This makes Africa and Asia more difficult to attack.

The reason Africa gets "screwed" with Cairo (compared to Asia) is that it also has easier attack access than Asia to the other superpowers. Remember, in default scoring mode a 1 megadeath kill is twice as good as protection against losing 1 mil population.

As for protecting Cairo, if you put up additional northerly defenses (aggressive style) it can be worth it, but otherwise I wouldn't put too much into defending it.

[Bamelin]

I always leave Cairo to burn.

I've tried the "two silo's @ Cairo" defence before. In general these 2 silo's are scouted out easily, and nuked cleanly. Cairo is then obliterated.

Personally I prefer to hide Africa's Silo's within the continent so they have a better chance at actually getting a chance to fire off their payloads.

In the end you get more points for killing people than you do for saving ... The sacrifice of the loyal citizens of Cairo will not be forgotten!

[Corbeau]

I think that it depends on the type of game you are playing. If it's a 1v1 game, defend Cairo. Yeah, you'll probably lose it and the silos anyway, but it makes your opponent seriously commit to the attack. In a big game, it might not be worth it. After all, your defense only removes 1/5th of the total enemy firepower compared to the effect in a 1v1 game.

[pirate0r]

After playing a couple dozen games iv noticed that africa is a lame duck when it comes to a 6 player game; its in the center of the map and is difficult to defend. From the start of most matches iv found that SA, EU, Russia and China all go for africa (cairo being the first target) because radar can be used to scout out the silos near cairo and bombers will easily get one or two nukes through. Two silos is nowhere near enough to defend against the likes or europe, russia and asia who will all be gunning for an easy 30 million kills at the start of defcon 1.

[Hegemon Hog]

Ah you mean CAIRO is a lame duck. The rest of Africa is as easy to defend as most other territories. I think of it as a necessary sacrifice (as Bamelin said, which will not be forgotten!) if that's the way it's gotta be.

It's true, assuming no alliances, SA and Asia often go straight for Africa. Other than Cairo, EU and Russia usually aren't the primary aggressors. They usually have to worry about each other, unless they're allied in which case you should be soliciting SA or Asia for the same thing.