I've got a team template, but I think it might work 1v1 (Hard to say cos it's a large map!) if someone fancies testing it with me then PM me :)

It's based on the concept of negative bonuses reducing expansion, it works great in 5v5 :)

Maybe I could just give everyone 10 starts, then it would be like you're playing the whole team! ^_^

i would be happy to help test Fleece, but i might not be the best choice as i'm not that good overall

Your call

Edited 11/4/2015 04:03:50

I can't see how that would be a problem :P I'll tinker with the template and send you an invite :) If I forget to get around to it just shoot me a PM, I don't always remember to check the forums and my memory is terrible :P

Here's a template I made a few months ago. It's been tweaked slightly recently, since the map was updated to improve the strategic nature.

World of Earthsea:
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?TemplateID=690580

Games:
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9952180

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9894963

At it's heart it's a a limited full distribution template, but the distribution excludes the +1 and -1 territories. This exclusion means that there isn't a guarantee of how many territories will be in distribution. In practice this means that players may end up starting with 4, 5, or 6 territories (though of course both players will have the same number of starts). This creates additional variety in initial board position. It also allows us to utilize the +1 and -1 bonuses without them making starts too imbalanced.

Each start begins with only 3 armies, so that players have to make a commitment in order to expand somewhere, and slows expansion a little.

I've also decreased all of the bonuses by 1, so that they're each worth n-2, so that incomes don't rise too quickly. This is especially important since it's 0% SR and expansion comes more easily. It also makes good usage of the castles and pirate bays very important.

Edited 11/30/2015 00:02:19

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9565185

Is this the template, or did the map change in-between?

@Sephiroth: It's not the same template\map, read the post above: "It's been tweaked slightly recently, since the map was updated to improve the strategic nature."

Edited 11/4/2015 18:07:38

@RA: read the post above: Is this the template, or did the map change in-between?

Do you consider luck % as being necessarily a negative? If I made a template with 100% luck involved would it have a lower chance of winning?

You never wanna play with that much luck. 100% luck, I don't believe that can be considered in any bit strategic, I mean there is no risk management, since you really don't know what is going to happen after an attack.

Edit: sorry, I didn't mean you don't want to play with luck, just not with that much involved. Yes Sultan, you're right :(.

Edited 11/4/2015 19:17:10

WR or 16% of luck makes templates often more strategic imao

Actually, Nackickwind, in another sense of the word, it is the *most* about managing risk, since risk is inherently about probabilities/likelihoods, and it's more challenging to manage risk in a game with many likely outcomes than it is in a game with only relatively few.

In other words, if you already *know* the outcome of a move, then there is no risk involved in it.

I think you'd have a better case by focusing on the word 'strategy', which *can* mean 'reducing risk as much as possible', whereby the less luck the game has involved, the less risk by its very nature, and therefore such games are *automatically* less-risky and thus more-strategic, by that definition. But then words have different meanings, and 'strategy' can also mean something like 'managing risk as much as possible', in which case, more luck could be called more strategic. ;-)

I've seen this forum debate these def'ns in the past and I doubt it will be easily resolved. Hence my original question.

calculating risk to attack with 3 or 4 is risk calculation. With 100% luck it is possible to fail a 10vs1 attack. How is that strategic in any way? It would be easier to just make a game on the duel map cause both are lotteries but duel is way quicker

Well like Ollie said, 100% luck is kindof purely nonsense :P. Managing risk is possible with a little luck involved but when there is so much, management is simply impossible. 100% has probabilities yes, but failing a 10vs1 should not be considered normal by any means. So unless you are playing with persons who are used to playing with that much luck, and consider their attacks following it, then yes, 100% can be considered strategic :/.

But seeing that 90% of the players play with SR, I think 100% luck would just be horrible for about everyone. Well that's the thing, with 100% you can never really know the outcome of a move, unless you have about 10 times more income than your opponent ( might be an exaggeration).

@Sephiroth, the map has been changed since then. I'll post a game when I get home.

Edited 11/4/2015 19:52:16

nice idea, I wouldn't mind playing that

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?TemplateID=742380
Alright here's my first submission, first of many I hope.

Map: British Raj, Distribution: 3x6, Multi-Attack, Light fog Random Warlord Distribution, with two bonuses out of distrib, and every bonus except the 4 and 5 ones give one less income. Wastelands: 7x4, Cards: Abandon, starts with 7 pieces, and requires 7 pieces to be complete, coupled with Order Delay and Priority, both at 5 pieces.

This template isn't perfect so I appreciate any suggestions, it might need to be retweaked (originally the bonuses of 4 and 5 were upped to 5 and 6). In any case this template produces quick and vicious games, because to get decent income, you are obliged to combo a 4 or 5. And in that way, counters can be incredibly fast, since there is light fog.

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9781936
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9781830

In any case, here are two examples of my last games on it.

Edited 11/4/2015 20:35:48

calculating risk to attack with 3 or 4 is risk calculation. With 100% luck it is possible to fail a 10vs1 attack. How is that strategic in any way? It would be easier to just make a game on the duel map cause both are lotteries but duel is way quicker

Well like Ollie said, 100% luck is kindof purely nonsense :P. Managing risk is possible with a little luck involved but when there is so much, management is simply impossible. 100% has probabilities yes, but failing a 10vs1 should not be considered normal by any means. So unless you are playing with persons who are used to playing with that much luck, and consider their attacks following it, then yes, 100% can be considered strategic :/.

What's riskier? A stock (in the stock market) where there's zero chance you'll lose it all, and zero chance you'll have a big win? Or a stock where there's a small chance you lose it all and small chance of a big win? Clearly the latter.

You can easily argue about the word 'strategy', but not so easy to argue the word 'risk'. Just trying to hammer that point home. I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of what you said.

And, BTW, 100% luck doesn't mean uniform probability distribution, it simply means that it's an unmodified binomial distribution. You can still do all sorts of *strategic* reasoning about probabilities, means, and variances. :-)

P.S.: I think I've had my original question answered well already by szeweningen. High luck could be considered strategic. I guess it's up to the scenario maker to put forward a good case.

Edited 12/7/2015 09:14:46

It seems fair...

Kind of like this game:
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9783557

i think every luck ( WR or %16)are bad.i hate losing because of luck. and i hate winning because of luck too.

Ottoman saying luck in general is bad is blasphemy. I agree on everything higher than 16% luck. Bit below it just requires more skill to win despite of bad luck. Games are very rarely decided by luck. If you lose there was often just a better option on the board.

Edited 11/5/2015 12:05:12