+1 disliking Europe 1600

here is the template i been testing for 4vs4 rise of rome
http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?TemplateID=240227

im not kidding at all. Europe 1600 is flawwed and not good.
Not saying that rise of rome is better but Europe 1600 isnt good

no 1600 ad please :(

Battle Island 4 is a great map for 4v4 and usually well appreciated.
http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?TemplateID=240599

I like having loads of small wastelands (20x5 in this case)

0% luck + straight rounding, don't let games be decided by who succeeds more 3 on 2s.

Thanks Chaos:

How's this for a Europe Option?
http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3394639

How about this template?
http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?TemplateID=240261
On Battle Islands II, and with Diplomacy instead of Surveilance cards.

Chaos, I think there should be SOME luck to make it interesting; games are almost never decided by who succeeds more on 3 v 2s, especially not on 4v4s.

Also, there's an error in the above post; it's on Battle Islands 4, not 2.

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3394820
^
Better link to my Europe 4v4, this time, 4v4, not FFA.

luck on 3vs2 can give huge advantages. Therefore i agree with chaos.

I third chaos's idea. very good map and idea, but maybe only 15 wastelands and of 4 armies

Timinator, luck on 3vs2 doesn't make a big difference in 4v4s. And 20x5 wastelands is just insane. Also, automatic distribution sucks. So does full distribution, rather than random warlords. Honestly, did you put ANY thought into this template?

autodistribution should not be a factor, aren't we trying to get the best player a membership? if it is auto distribution it is really giving it to the luckiest team

should not be auto-distribution, sorry about that.
but i stand by the 0%. 1v1 or 4v4 doesnt matter, failing some 3v2 changes a lot imho.

i like battle isles iv, but i find it abit too scattered, its easy for one of the players to fall off the radar and finish an important bonus in a remote area and easily win the game out of it. so there is a lot of win by lucky pickings related to it imho, either in auto or manual.

thats why i think rise of rome makes more sense. in rise of rome once you played the map a couple of times you notice you have some clear places where atleast one of you must deploy, usually its england and partha, and the other 2 have to manage the center and south to make sure no one finishes a big bonus. its very important to have high skills on 1vs1 battles of england and partha, and even more important to do team work to back each other up fast enough.

Ok. Maybe 0% luck is fine. Just change auto-distribution, please.

is double earth, quad earth or double medium earth good for 4v4?

double, quad will take to much time to finish

i like battle isles iv, but i find it abit too scattered, its easy for one of the players to fall off the radar and finish an important bonus in a remote area and easily win the game out of it. so there is a lot of win by lucky pickings related to it imho, either in auto or manual.

this is true in 2v2, maybe 3v3, but shouldn't be too common in a 4v4, especially with wastelands restricting the options

Lion laugh. 3v2 need 100%? 4v2 = 98% with 16% luck. 98% not enough? Luck of 75% you no know how to adjust essential attack to get nearer to 100% success rate? If you try do everything on cheap, you should miss sometimes.

Chaos: never played under your settings, you might be right.