Anyone else?

Yeah, me.

I do not view Warlight as a risk-game, rather a risk-management game. I haven't encountered many more players that view it via game-theory perspective (Huruey might be the only one so far), but all the good players I've encountered instinctively understand principles behind effective risk-management. It can be applied both to picking order and mid-game tactics. Since there is distribution involved, auto-distribution might be fun, but to me it is really frustrating when after 2-3 turns I figure out that I was lost from the start. I am almost never lost from the start in my games, but when I am I can see where I made a mistake, and not in an *ex post* way knowing my opponents' picks. That is one more argument behind team games, it lets teams distribute the risk more efficiently in the picking phase than in 1vs1 games.

i agree with szewewnenwen, though from a different perspective. i've always been gambling: sports, cards and board games, investments, career plans, etc., so the risk-management aspect of the game was internalized long ago for me.

i couple that with how i approach the game: a blend of (1a) daoism and (1b) chinese art of war and (2a) european military tactics based on (2b) my readings of history. the chinese part provides strategy, balance/flow, and risk-management. the european part provides historically proven tactics and strategies (the risk has been managed in history by others, so it should work in similar strategic situations on warlight for me).

personally, i think anything you need to know about warfare is in the classical chinese version of sunzi's art of war (the english isn't as good, for ideas having been lost in translation and due to the force of the chinese characters' images providing a deeper meaning than english letters/words). the details can be flushed out with other theories (game theory perhaps) or explanations, but the core ideas were written by sunzi long ago.

Ace Windu wrote:
|> Well, as people have said, 1v1 strategic games are often decided on turn 1 even if the players don't know it and I really don't think that's a good thing. The situation was even worse when the seasonal ladder had light fog. Any good 1v1 player would know who was going to win a lot of the games just by looking at the picks.
|> There is definitely far too much significance put on picks which are also decided by chance to some degree. Remember it's not just who gets the first pick that's decided but all your other picks can be decided on that basis.

This whole discussion about 1v1 ladder distribution came up a few times already over the past months, and it is good to see that players still care about it.
Like I said before, I think the main problem with the 1v1 ladder and it's predictability is not the picking itself, it is the fact that picking of territories and initial distribution of armies are not separated. (Eventually) knowing that my opponent started in South Pole, Mexico and Sweden is not what makes the game predictable. Knowing that he started there with 4 armies each is what really takes a lot of strategy and variation away.
If instead the initial distribution of armies were completely separated from the picking of territories and would happen as an additional step between picking and turn 1, then the game would be MUCH more interesting.
If you like the idea let me point you to the UserVoice entry I made for this: http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features/suggestions/2286567-free-deployment-of-initial-armies

Here is how things COULD be:
a) both players place their picks
b) game advances, players see which (three) picks they actually got and which ones they didn't get, players can also see if their starting spots are adjacent to the opponent's spots.
c) players distribute their initial armies (12 armies for example) freely among their starting positions.
d) in case a player decides to leave a territory completely empty, i.e. he places no armies there, that particular territory reverts back to a neutral with 4 armies in it.
(or VARIANT: d) a territory left empty by a player turns into another 10er wasteland)
e) game advances, proceed with turn 1.

This is a great idea Diabolicus!
I just gave the UV my 3 votes. This could make the strat1v1 template much more interesting (and I wouldn't have to kick myself so much for yet another shitty picking lol)!

You really think anyone is checking the votes? Your votes will change nothing Gnulberg.

well if a UV has more votes, then Fizzer is more likely to check it out.
If he likes it, he may implement it.
It can make a difference to vote for good UVs
such as, ban Gaddafi and all his accounts

Just because You got the Golden Troll Award and the title "The Golden Troll', doesnt mean You have to troll every single topic and every single post! CALM THE TROLL DOWN!!!

From now on, Im not feeding You anymore. You will beg me for any food, I promise You.

ok, from now on i ignore rubbish posts ^^^^^^.


Starting............

**Now**