Well, we're about 2 weeks away from the end of this season.

Will we have a preview of next season soon?

There will be about a week between seasons for practice. I still haven't finalized on the IV settings yet - I'm playing around with a few options. If anyone has suggestions feel free to share them!

I would love if it was one of the Risk-Warlight hybrids on small earth

- throw in an airlift card and/or abandon card for more strategic options.
- vary initial_armies/territory, neutrals/wasteland, number of wastelands
- give additional armies for number of territories held
- allow full distribution instead of random warlords
- harder fog settings + add spy / recon / surveillance cards
- add an army cap?
- multi-attack?

Generally, I favour _anything_ that makes the new season fundamentally different from any previous seaons / ladder settings.
It is a game, so give us something that is fun to play :-)

Strategic europe 1 vs 1 must be funny

What about using Major Risk's South America map one of these days ? I played on it, it's well done.

duel map season ftw

I agree with HHH, Europe 1v1.

I agree with Perrin, go duel! Or why not truel or quadruel while you're on it?

An interesting setting is to throw out size 0 wastelands, and pick random cities distribution with non-distribution neutrals being inflated (~6-8 armies).

This in effect gives both wastelands and free territories.

I'm in favor of cards more than the typical ladder setting. Abandon would be a nice addition as well as maybe a recon right from the start.

Also, would like to highlight a new map, something other than Europe, which is kinda mechanical for some.

I'm okay with Duel only if it has a spy card, but definately not Truel under any circumstances.

europe is best for 3v3s or 4v4s. 1v1s are alright, but other maps offer better 1v1s. making a 3v3 ladder would be far better.

(though my lack of interest in europe 1v1 games might be biased: the europe's 1v1 game is a strategic dropoff from its 3v3 game, making it just another boring, disappointing 1v1 game in which intel, pick luck, lucky guesswork, and luck on the board determine the winner just as much as skill does...)

for mian's suggestion: http://WarLight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?TemplateID=190679

a popular map with playable settings (in which games are relatively quick to fit into the season's timeframe): http://WarLight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?TemplateID=167788

but if europe is what the people want: http://WarLight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?TemplateID=190645, http://WarLight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?TemplateID=190648, http://WarLight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?TemplateID=190656

New blog entry on Season IV is up: http://blog.warlight.net/index.php/2012/06/season-iv/

A few thoughts about fixed rounding I've posted on the forums somewhere before:

The best case scenario is pretty much a 1v2 attack, which would then guarantee 1 kill on either side. The 0.6 ratio of the attack rounds up while the 1.4 kills of the defence rounds down. That's the biggest abuseable I see here: keep throwing armies of 1 at a defending stack to whittle it down. Effectively, you'd "trick" the offensive ratio to be 1. Of course 1v1 becomes an impossibility, so in the end you'd still have to attack 2v1 in order to take a territory, but it would be an efficient way of weakening a defensive stack before throwing your main stack at it. You would need fewer armies to take a territory that way.

Example: A territory with a defensive stack of 11 would need at least a stack of 18 attackers to fall (10.8 kills). However, if you would attack with 1 beforehand from an adjacent territory, you would guarantee 1 enemy kill, turning it into a stack of 10. But this stack only needs 16 attackers to fall (9.6 kills). So effectively it takes one less army to take that territory than you'd expect. The losses are in both cases 7.7 armies (8 after rounding), so there is no downside for the attacker.

It will be very interesting to see how the 1v2 (or, more accurately, 1 v many, let's call it 1vM) strategy plays out with these settings.

Being able to sacrifice an army for killing one opponent army may certainly be very useful. However, I can also see times when it might not be the best course of action.

Also remember, all the defender has to do once they wise up to your 1vM attacks is to move their defenders out of the way first. Then your 1vM attack becomes a 1v1 attack, which kills the attacking army with no defending armies killed.

TBH, these settings for the new season are rather disappointing, Fizzer. Why did you even ask for suggestions at the beginning of this thread? You have like +400 different maps at your disposal, zillions of possible combinations for interesting settings, yet all you can come up with is a dumbed down 1v1 template?

I like the idea of getting rid of the chance. Looking foward to this next season. Love the rounding option addition.

I like these settings, and if it's popular maybe it could become the standard ladder settings.

Standard Ladder settings? I don't think so!

Ive played a few games and it is bound to be a fun seasonal ladder. Nice work!
Now lets see if I can get a better ranking this time around :)

It seems to be a better template than the normal 1v1 ladder. I probably wasn't going to play the seasonal ladder anyway (I dislike having too many multiday 1v1s going) , so I'm not disappointed in any way with it being on the same map.

However, maybe Warlight needs its own terminology, because the following sentence is untrue: "With these settings, there’s no luck involved in combat at all." If "luck"refers only to "attack/defense luck" or "order luck," it is partially true. But there are other factors related to luck:

- Priority Cards: Two players play the priority cards on the same turn at a key moment in the game, "luck" determines whose card gives priority. This type of situation has determined about 2-5% of my losses on the ladder template.
- Delay Cards: two players make the same amount of moves after playing a delay card, "luck" determines whose final move goes last. I can't recall this situation ever happening to me, but it is possible.
- Pick Order: Like what Sunzi said, planning predetermines the outcome of war. Since WL makes picks happen instantaneously, the "luck" of pick order (who gets what, based on the ordering of each player's picks AND based on who randomly gets first pick) determines the outcome of too many games. I'd guess about half of my 1v1 ladder losses and a good number of my wins were entirely due to this "luck of pick order" factor. And yet there are ways around this: (1) Make the picking stage turn based (Turn I: I make 1 pick. Turn II: you make 1 pick. Turn III: I make my second pick. Turn IV: you make your second pick. Etc.). (2) Allow players to make 7-8 picks. If a maximum of two picks was taken by the enemy, the player has the option of deciding which of the remaining 6 picks s/he wants. In this way, not getting an essential pick (due to "pick order luck") would still allow the player to make balanced picks, making games fairer at the start. (3) Give each player a spy card to start the game to give each player the same amount of information about enemy locations. Implementing both (2) and (3) would eliminate more "luck" from the template than the Season IV's new settings have: risk management is easier for the in-game attack luck than it is for the pre-game picking stage.

Looks nice but I won't join this one, I get enough Earth games as it is with the ladders not to mention 2 of the 3 previous seasons. Good luck to all who do play, hope you have fun.