...if 0% SR and cycling orders must be used.

+ Base income of 4 and standardized bonuses: 0% SR leads to income/army inflation (ie, doing more -- expansion, countering, advancing -- with less income or fewer deployments). I've messed around with attack/defense kill ratios and couldn't find a ratio that works. So the only solution to income/army inflation in 0% SR games is to decrease base income and bonus incomes. Now if you want to do more with less, the costs are higher.

+ Attack-only and attack by percentage: We aren't newbies.

+ Booted players become AIs and surrenders are instantaneous: Why aren't these standard settings in team games?

+ Initial banked boot time of 1 day: Some people live in different time zones, have busy lives, or simply forget about WL games.

Want to play? https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10729777

Edited 3/13/2016 06:05:12

4 base income is interesting, it has been tested a long while ago, initially I got negative feedback about it, because people liked to have some additional options for expansion (like eastern balkans or southwestern russia bonus taken in 2 turns). Maybe now people would come around. I'm not that convinced about standardised bonuses, what is the reasoning for that? As far as booted players become AI it's not a standard setting I think just because 1 turn when you're booted and AI takes over is enough to kill a game so the take back control from AI feature is not utilised that often.

Yeah, I never did like your templates like this. First, 0% WR was still more popular (and more fun). Second, I believe that being forced to play with base income only is sometimes necessary: if someone with base income fights someone with a bonus (income of 5vs8), the guy with base income should have a chance to outplay the guy with a bonus in such a way as to break him and bring the game back to equilibirum. If it is income of 4vs7, the guy with base income is at more of a disadvantage and the game is less likely to return to equilibirum.

0% SR itself has this built into it: once a game loses equilibirum, it is harder to regain equilibirum with 0% SR than it is with 0% WR. Games with strategic ebbs and flows are more interesting and more fun than games that can go on autopiltot once the balance is broken.

But if forced to play 0% SR, I would prefer more friction and a more open board.

Standardized bonuses makes picking more creative (based on warlord locations) and opens up more options while also changing the centers of gravity of the board.

Denmark and Switzerland = 1: No stand-alone FTBs that people would want to fight over as a first pick.

4 territories = 2 armies: The bonuses with 5 and 6 territories (worth 3 and 4) become more valuable. This deprioritizes the top 10 bonuses everyone currently fights over and prioritizes not only the bonuses with 5 and 6 territories (8 total) but also the bigger bonuses worth 5 and 6 (6 total). In this way, there are possibly 22 bonuses truly worth picking (not counting counters or auxiliaries to combos such as Denmark/Switzerland), depending on warlord locations.

Encouraging the use of the whole board might be enough friction in itself. If we are encouraged to pick bigger, games will be more drawn out and counters should be slightly less emphasized. In this way, reducing base income might be a step too far. Nonetheless, I want to test it out.

Once I know which base income seems most suitable, I'd like to organize games or a RR with the settings. Playing one 3v3 Europe game at a time with better boot settings is better for me than playing two at a time on the current ladder.

Edited 3/13/2016 14:45:37

Can I please have an invite to your EU game?

why does gui only return to suggest ho this would be uch better if fizer just did whatever he wants?

Bump. Can't believe this didn't get more attention.

I'd still prefer 5 base, the rest I agree with.

standardized bonuses.. hell no, i don't want pick lottery

How does standardized bonuses equal a pick lottery?