5v5 could also be on Issander's Big World.

Noooo! The 5v5 settings were amazing! Keep it in!

Israel's lineup:

[WG] Ineffable http://warlight.net/Profile?p=735146651
Avram http://warlight.net/Profile?p=293219155
brisk • apex http://warlight.net/Profile?p=597786678
dreuj http://warlight.net/Profile?p=735888782
Maze http://warlight.net/Profile?p=4913495722

In my opinion the 5v5 settings were good except for the fact that every neutral territory started with 3 armies. Could we please change it?

I personally think that the 3 neutral armies on every territory was part of the fun though, since that forced you to really work as a team to take bonusses. Quite often, you'd have to plan your takeovers with your teammates where you could get a territory by having someone else pick off a single army first and vice versa. The way a team handled the expansion phase was what often set apart the good teams from the bad. In my opinion, the 3 neutral armies is an essential part of the template and should be used more often in 0% luck, straight round team games.

NO... Not the 5v5 template. That was the most enjoyable template of all. Like Kingu said, it really forces you to work as a team.

I agree with brisk, the 5v5 template was good except for the 3 neutral armies.

i dont know the exact template, but usually: big teams(5 is that more or less) means a bigger map and thus a lot of expansion after the first run on bonuses, i m currently experimenting with higher army-values for neutrals while players starting out with more armies on starting spots.

Count me with Kingu (sorry JSA, Brisk): what's the point of having team games if you don't promote teamwork? Sure, you can be a team when the fighting starts (and there it will also make a big difference), but the three-armies-per-neutral gives a small edge to a group of players working as a team even when it doesn't seem immediately necessary yet.
When fighting an actual enemy, you never know exactly how many armies a territory is going to have, so 0%-luck-straight-round doesn't make as big a difference as you'd expect. It's precisely against neutrals where you can juggle (the timing of) your attacks in such a way as to take more territories and bonuses quicker. (Yes, it is a form of micro-management and some people hate that. Then again, doesn't the same apply to strategic templates, where getting your first bonus one turn too late pretty much means you've lost the game...?)

European Borders, Eastern Asia, Europe AD 1600, Rise of Rome (No superbonuses on any) seem to be the best options for 5v5 to me. Please no straight round 0%, that makes it too easy for someone to puppet the rest of the team if they have the time.

clifford and rayguns cant play, so team will be the 5 members already posted

Lithuania:
aurix http://warlight.net/Profile?p=2716918429
BraaK http://warlight.net/Profile?p=605422456
Grizzlis http://warlight.net/Profile?p=26607390
Mr. X ♦ ɌeLite ♦ http://warlight.net/Profile?p=3215110410
aurimo (LT) http://warlight.net/Profile?p=986049047
Heyheuhei (captain)

k, west usa will be five players posted plus rayguns http://warlight.net/Profile?p=571011592

I think we can declare registration over with this 32 teams, during this week we can move on with the seeds and later on the brackets.

How are you going to determine seeds? Are you going to do it by yourself or ask a group to do it? The latter seems more fair obviously.

When do we need team lists in?

i wouldnt choose by myself no.

Before we reach the even 32 number, i was thinking about giving seed to norway and brazil because they will play the final at the same time, but that is not necessary if it is not fair.

If I were to vote:
brazil 1
norway 1
poland 1
france 1
germany 1
israel 1
italy 1
east us

8 teams

we will have only 1 seed group or 2 seed groups?
(8 teams, or 2 groups of 8 teams?)

I personally think you, brisk, Timinator, Gnuffone, Widzisz and you 5 can vote on 2 groups of 8 teams. I feel like US Central 1 could be a title contender but of course I'm biased to a degree. I don't think it would be fair if we got Brazil first round though so I think the 2 groups are needed to prevent that.

Netherlands & Flanders 1 got to the semi-finals in the first Nation's cup and got beaten by Brazil by only 1 point, seems a little strange to me that you don't consider them in the first group.
Lesser known names doesn't mean bad players, it may be useful to take the past results into account.

Either way I would go for 4 groups with group 1 vs. group 4 matches and group 2 vs. group 3 matches and then the winners of the former against the winners of the latter.

Wait....I agree with Israel, Norway, Brazil and Poland 1 being in the top seed.

But I've not yet seen the line-up for East us 1,France 1,Germany 1 and Italy 1.
How are these selections actually made ??

I'm not saying Netherlands 1 and 2 should both be in the top tier but certainly Netherlands 1 should be considered for the top 8.
It includes 3 former top 1 ladder leaders and decent other players....