I think this is the best possible 1v1 Europe template: http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?TemplateID=147935

And its 3v3 twin: http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?TemplateID=149378

I think either of these would be a good addition to the ladders:

• bonuses are balanced: no higher than a 2:1 territory-bonus ratio
• map is opened up: picks aren't limited
• bonus values are reduced: ability/skill --> more important than chance/luck
• no cards: luck is decreased
• 5 starting spots: more strategic options, increased recoverability

Also, an improved medium earth ladder template (in my opinion): http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?TemplateID=148188

Any thoughts on whether these templates would be good for a ladder or two?

How does no cards decrease the luck?
In my opinion cards add an extra skill on how and when to use them.

Besides that, you earn cards by playing (a little) offensively (instead of just defending), so it makes people at least attack 1 terr a turn. And on the ladder cards are not earned with luck as you know which cards you'll get every turn.

I joined the 2 tournaments with your improved medium earth, so I'll have a look how it goes regarding adjusted bonus values & 4 starting spots.

Just wanted to let you know I'm not a big fan of no card games and it almost made me not join the tournaments.

I agree on the cards. There's no denying that Order Delay and Order Priority cards take a lot of skill to use correctly. So long as luck doesn't decide when each player gets cards, which is easy to ensure, then cards add to the skill of the game, rather than remove it.

Not that I would only play a game with cards, but more that it allows a variety of skills to be shown in a game, and allows players to meaningfully affect the game.

Have any of you guys played a 3vs3 game on Europe? Those games are essentially that good and complicated on high level, because of no cards setting which gives no luck involvement and promotes accurate play. If you are referring to 1vs1 games only I'd agree with you.

Also I think we'd all love a comment from Fizzer about 3vs3 ladder. We are kinda going forward with setting the templates without the ladder up and running.

On a separate note, I think the 3vs3 ladder should be made with standard 3vs3 NC random warlords with 4 territories. I don't really want to go into much detail, but (that may seem not intuitive at first) smaller bonuses also promote inaccurate play. It greatly enhances chances of breaking opponent with more income while you have still 5 (preventing your opponents from getting bonuses is not that big of a deal here).

@V, just defending for a turn can be a tactical decision.

@Szeweningen, I totally agree with the 4 picks instead of 5 if we are talking full distribution, but otherwise does it matter?

Not talking about full distribution, but random warlords (full distribution is far worse than random cities imho). And I believe it matters. What i'd expect of a good ladder candidate is a template that enables good players to control what happens. Of course not in absolute sense, but in a direction sense. They can give up sth in return for something else if they decide it's a good strategic decision. With too many pick and/or gift/airlift/reinforcement cards it's also a matter of luck.

i'd say the more open (more contested areas/regions/continents), balanced (bonuses), and fluid (back and forth attacks/counter-attacks) a game is, the less useful cards are as a means to maintain the game's progress: the best games/maps/settings don't need cards to stimulate warfare.

szewn: too many picks might not be good, but too few limits strategic options.

well, practice on europe proved many times that 4 picks in both random cities and random warlords are perfect in terms of balance

szeweningon, the threads posting making fun of people that choose portugal-spain in europe proves that the balances are unbalanced.. the majority of 3v3 europe matches are played in the islands and in central europe, with a sparing presence in east europe..

I really don't understand what you meant in your last post especially in that unbalanced-balance part...

In short, what Perrin is saying is that not all areas of the map are even (Spain sucks), which pushes games to the middle of the board or the islands. If the map were more balanced, then there would be more variety in starting positions.

Whether that is useful or required is a matter of opinion, but it was generally considered a very positive change when the "Earth" map was replaced by the "Medium Earth" map for 1v1 ladder/auto games.

medium earth ladder/auto game (MEA) vs europe no cards (ENC)

balance:

• MEA: 4 areas (latin america, africa, northcentral/NW europe, east asia/aust/ant)
• ENC: 3 areas (islands/scandinavia, russia, middle)
• MEA has more areas by number, but what about bonuses within those areas?

bonuses most good players want to pick (determined by lowest territory:bonus ratio):

• MEA's best (14): 4 3-bonuses (ant, scan, ca, ind), 7 4-bonuses (indo, e china, 2 russias, sa, e/w africa), 3 5-bonuses (green, cauc, aust)
• MEA's decent bonuses (3): 2 3-bonuses (in africa), 1 6-bonus (w. china)
  -ENC's best (14): 2 2-bonuses (swit, den), 6 excellent 3-bonuses (ice, ire, wc rus, slov, aust, benelux), 2 excellent 4-bonuses (nor, hung), 4 good 4-bonuses (czech, belarus, bulg, w russia)
• ENC's decent bonuses (8): 4 3-bonuses (port, balt, fin, w balk), 3 5-bonuses (eng, russia, e -balk), 1 6-bonus (pol)
• based on which has better bonuses to pick, ENC (14/8) has morethan MEA (14/3)

settings differences:

• ENC: the above factors are true in all games
• MEA: wastelands can limit picking options a bit or considerably (balance can go from 4 to 3 areas, bonuses worth picking can go from 14/3 to 8/0 or even worse!)
• ENC: best for 3v3s (though i have found good ways to make 1v1s on it)
• MEA: best for 1v1s (2v2s rarely have good games, 3v3s would be even worse)

my templates (above)

• the qualitative difference between the best and the decent bonuses has been reduced for both MEA and ENC
• the number of decent bonuses has been substantially increased
• MEA: north america, mid east, europe: add to map balance
• ENC: 4-bonuses/3-bonuses in russia/scandinavia become more important, port gains in relative importance: greater overall balance

there is also this possibility for the ENC settings:

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=2028337

i standardized the bonuses of 4, 5, 6 and 7 based on the original values for hungary/norway, england/se russia/e balkans, poland, and ukraine, respectively.

Gui, in relation to there being more better quality bonuses in the Europe map, that's ridiculous.

There are 131 territories and 23 bonuses on MEA but there are 206 territories and 32 bonuses on ENC.

You named all but 4 of MEA's bonuses as the best or decent, however, you left out 10 ENC bonuses.

if MEA has no wastelands, you are absolutely right. add 7 wastelands and it can easily become:

• ENC: 206 territories, 22 pick-worthy bonuses, 10 non-pick-worthy bonuses
• MEA: 131 territories: 19 pick-worthy bonuses, 4 non-pick-worthy bonuses, 7 good/decent bonuses nullified bc a wasteland is present (19 is in fact 12-16, not 19)

also:

• ENC: we tend to make this game with 4 starting spots
• MEA: 1v1 = 3; 2v2 = 4/team

2v2 on MEA: these games are often crowded and not very interesting in my opinion. i've played about 100 such games, and only a dozen have been interesting (ie, determined by play and not fully decided by picks/positioning/chance/luck the first 0-4 turns). thus, an average player can learn to pick like a pro and then win with great picks and average play (largely bc MEA settings limit recoverability).

3v3 on ENC: these games are crowded when the best players play. in contrast to MEA 2v2, however, even when the best players play, there is a hierarchy of skill: when the best 5-10 3v3 ENC players are a team, they can only lose to another team of the best 5-10 players. with 2v2 MEA the best 5-10 can lose to less skilled players bc it takes longer for skill (of tactics and strategy) to develop on the MEA map (i'm not sure why this is the case, perhaps spacing in ENC makes this happen). thus, an average player who picks like a pro still loses to the pro.

though, 1v1 MEA is superior to most 1v1 ENC templates (though the above ENC templates i made might change this).

thus: MEA is a 1v1 map only (or a small team game with very few team starts). 2v2s on MEA are, to me, merely a hybrid of 1v1s and true team games (picks/positioning from picks/fast starts from picks trump team play to a large extent). put a 1v1 specialist on 2v2 MEA and he'll do well. put him on 3v3 ENC and he will be lost: maybe top 10 on the 1v1 ladder, but only top 300 ENC. 2v2 MEA is like real team play with training wheels for the 1v1 specialist.

my intent: open up both maps to make both better by adjusting the bonus values.

if you want to have an experiment, let's. find 2 random rookies. have a MEA pro tell them when to pick and how they ought to expand in the first 3-4 turns. then have the rookies play a good 2v2 ladder team (rated 1600-1700). i bet they give the ladder team a challenging game. do the same with 3 random rookies on ENC and have them play a good team (i could easily find a team with an approximate rating of 1600-1700, using the 2v2 ladder ratings and teams as a base). the good team will win easily (fast starts matter less).