Higher fog levels add value to templates. You can find out how many armies someone attacked with by comparing history and the amount of armies killed. Definitely need recon, surveillance or spy cards though for better quality.

No luck cyclic is bad. I feel like it removes the amount of skill needed because it lists the move order.

Random move order is similar to the risk management of WR or 16% luck. Random still follows the ABBAABBA pattern but who A or B is randomised every turn.

Warzone automatically makes sure each player receives the same amount of picks in manual dist games.

Should probably mention that income or armies controlled shouldn’t be so high that anything could happen. Like how 10k armies per turn surely isn’t good for strategic value.

@DanWL
> Random still follows the ABBAABBA pattern but who A or B is randomised every turn.

What differentiates Cyclic from No-luck Cyclic in that case? As far as I was aware all that Random assures is that each persons' orders are executed in the order given

With no-luck cyclic, it lists the move order under Game > Move order. For cyclic, you have to go through history to find out whos turn it is.

There’s more information on https://www.warzone.com/wiki/Move_Order

LD Siege

Disagree re: move orde/strategy

I think no-luck just removes a tedious, somewhat mindless process of who goes first. And because there isn’t a note page for each game, YouTube wind up doing the process over and over again

I want to agree, but no luck cyclic unfortunately causes issues on some templates in multi-day games. In a multi-day game, both players have an equal opportunity to choose *faster* than their opponent but they have unequal opportunities to choose *slower* than their opponent.

If you load into a map and recognize that you can guarantee an advantage with 2 of your first 3 picks or by having move priority on T1, you may want to choose *second*. This means you’ll want run out the full clock to make your picks. Whoever opened the game first will “win” this race, ironically making the no-luck version of a template more luck-based than the normal cyclic version of the template.

tactics, that’s what makes a template “strategic”.

I should like to come back to Dunning Kruger.

The first rule of the Dunning Kruger Club is.....

'You do not know that you are in the Dunning Kruger Club'

no-luck cyclic with the quicker player being able to chose between moving 1st or 2nd would be nice.
and avoid days and days of delays in some tourney settings.

no luck cycle on MD is tragic
but it is strategic in RT, the whole secB has proved that.

Wether you have to look at the first deploy or the last move is as much effort as reading from the move menu. It can reward fast picks or move order T1.

Strategic is the better player beats the weaker
Items/settings/cards that add randomness to a game decrease the strategic value, but can make it more fun, the game would become tedious without some changes or differences between templates.

Yes, even good old S1 isn't pure strategic. The OD, blockade, OP add the randomness, but with generally only having 1 of each is the correct level of fun, variety vs pure strategic. I adore games where both players play their OP/OD cards at the same time, i see ultimate skill in that!

Cards/settings that can't be countered massively reduce a template's strategic value. Air lifts, emergency blocks, MA without LD, large empty maps, large incomes. Generally, as soon as you start throwing men around it's not strategic

that' s a personal interpretation.

A template is strategic when the outcome is decided by the player choices and not by luck. Luck is always present in some quantity but it's sometimes a deciding factor (when you get horrible random spawns or you lose 1st picks in some maps or random cards are received only by the oppo...) too many times in some templates. SE autodistribution is a non strategic template for me. Sure you can win thanks to your strategy or experience but there is a good % of games you will lose even vs weak opponents.

Dead piggy was a great strategist BECAUSE he could maximize di effect of a blockade card.

All maps are strategic at least in some way and usually alot of ways.


Regards,

Kitler



P.S. Cats!

Some maps are strategic not to play

8)

My thoughts on the matter:
1) Bigger maps usually suing more torwards strategy and less tactics,
2) Strategy is defined by how many options players have to turn luck in their favour, as well as how much chance they have to predict what the opponent is thinking.
3) For there to be strategy every option should have a counter that isn't itself.
By that i mean if there is only 1 correct option, then the player isn't forced to make decisions with drawbacks and it becomes more a game of quick ordering
4) I think the biggest complaint with multiattack commes from the unpredictability of where the first attack will come from.
By that i mean, that if a players first turn of contact with another player is getting 30% of his bonuses brocken by a lucky snake that will shurely put him off.

Gotta say, I love how this thread just keeps reviving shortly before it would timeout (and by "reviving" I mean someone posts)

In Warzone, you are given options (= what to do in your turn). Some options are reasonable, some are bad and lead to losing. Strategic template means, that you are given only a couple of reasonable options every turn, and your task is to find the best option of them.
Because you are given only a couple of options every turn, it is possible to go through all possibilities how the game may look one or two turns ahead to help you analyse which option this turn is the best.
Multi-attack's problem is, that it gives you too many reasonable choices every turn. Also note, that fun strategic templates should be quick, usually lasting only 5-10 turns.

Edited 4/14/2024 17:20:08

I thought thats a new thread. What makes a template 'tragic'