Multi-Attack combined with Local Deployment. Lots of players on WarLight can't stand the MA because of the variability and in-defensibility involved (myself included). But I think the local deployment really reigns in these characteristics, while allowing for more realistic attack strategies, i.e, Panzer style thrusts. I enjoy this setting at least.

Edited 3/17/2015 22:09:33

Warlight is aimed at being a simulation of the tactics and strategies in war, not boxing. In the real world, people (neutrals) live almost everywhere. Though their technology and ability to fight is vastly inferior than that of conquering nations (we are organized into armies with guns and they are just people living there) they still take a little effort and a few troops to conquer and pacify. Those places that do not have a lot of people living there have a reason for it. Siberia is cold, the Sahara is hot, tropical jungles have diseases and hostile wildlife. All of these things would kill a few of your soldiers. Plus there are rivers and forests and a lack of transportation infrastructure* that would slow advancing armies.

Wastelands come from firmer resistance. Some of the people who live in the neutrals would have explosives that they would use to destroy key bridges, oil fields, or dams rendering that area unprofitable and sometimes impassible. It is your decision if you want to spend your wealth repairing those things to make them produce income for you.

Tying that into the general point Chris was making, the best general isn't necessarily the one who can outsmart his opponent on a level playing field. It is often the one who best plays the field that is uneven, difficult to traverse and filled with random obstacles.

*Side Note on transportation infrastructure: This concept is why I like local deployments. Resources like soldiers, food and money are gathered from individual areas, then collected and dispersed where they are needed. In the real world, does it really make sense to reap income from Australia and immediately be able to use it in Norway? No, you have to move it there. And once your territory gets big enough in a local deployment game, you end up with roads that move your troops to the front line.

cards...I hate all cards all the time

Below are all the topics raised in this thread. I will give some comment on all of them. Here goes:

1. Having neutrals start with at least 1 army.
I like having territories starting with at least some neutrals, as it forces you to think about your priorities. Do you want to attack the enemy? Do you want to expand? Maybe a mixture? When neutrals start with 0, it is as if you have been given free land. Why not start with full deployment? Also, it forces you to think of your priorities. Do you want to use units to expand into a 4 point bonus in two turns, or would you rather get the 7 point bonus in 4 turns?
Summing up, I believe that having neutral territories starting with nothing is a good way to have a fast-paced, easy game. However, if you want a game of strategy, with thinking required, you would do good to start with neutral armies on the board.

2. Having wastelands at the start of the game.
This is similar to above, but is slightly different. Having wastelands on the board also requires you to think of strategy more thoroughly, but it also puts a buffer between you and the opponent. I like wastelands in 1v1s, but I think they have no place in games with more people (except in 2v2s). With wastelands, you can ask yourself whether you would rather expand or attack. You have to work out whether it is worth going through a bonus to attack the other player, even though it has a wasteland and cannot give you any immediate bonus.
Summing up, I believe that wastelands add a strategic value for 1v1s and 2v2s, but are useless and do not belong with any more players than that.

3. 3 Foot concrete wall between Mayweather and Pacquiao.
I do not believe this is an accurate analogy. An analogy that I think would be more accurate would be putting a 3 foot wide hollow cardboard wall that is 30 foot long, and tell Mayweather and Pacquiao that they may choose to do whatever they want; they may break down the wall, they may go around it, or they may run away or expand. The only limit is that the winner is the last man standing.
Summing up, I believe that the analogy should read as this: 3 foot wide, 30 foot long, hollow cardboard wall between Mayweather and Pacquiao.

4. Diplomacy cards in normal games.
I completely agree. However, I think they are fine in large maps with many players (at least 15). With more players, it is fine to have diplomacy cards, as they give you relief from one player, while you are fighting 3 or 4 other players. But still, I think that they do not belong in a game with a small number of players.
Summing up, I believe that diplomacy cards do not belong in a normal game with less than 15 players, but should be in games with more than 15 players.

5. Multi-attack and local deployments.
I’ll have to try this. I never liked multi-attack, but I haven’t experienced this way before. Is this better on large maps with many bonuses, large maps with a little number of bonuses, or smaller maps?

6. Plain local deployments.
I think that this does add an element of reality to WarLight. I haven’t played it on large maps, and I think it may become a night-mare if there are too many bonuses. I think that if there are airlift cards as well, it makes the game even better, as you can airlift the units to the front line.
Summing up, I like local deployments, but I think they are even better with airlift cards.

7. Plain cards.
All cards have their uses. Most of them are more effective on smaller maps than larger maps. Examples I can think of(but are not exclusive) are reinforcement cards, abandon cards, blockade cards, order priority cards and order delay cards. I also believe that some cards are more useful on large maps than on smaller maps. The only example I can think of right now is the airlift card, as it can quickly move units around the map. If there are any cards you can think of that I did not mention, tell me them and I can explain their benefits.
Summing up, I believe that each card has its own benefits and should be used in the proper game for that card.

You missed out gift and sanction cards. Though the benefits of both are fairly simple to understand.

I don't tend to play in larger FFA games, so usually end up seeing diplomacy cards on 3 v 3 or 4 player FFA's and other smaller games, which is when they annoy me. I understand what you are saying about the larger games though.

diplo cards are good as long as they are rare to get, otherwise you can be held off killing somebody for twenty turns, which is really annoying

How about army cap? Is double production too low? Is it better with something like ten times or twenty times?

@hankypanky i dont think you understand how boxing works lol. You cant expand

sumo wrestling?

I don't think it's fair to refer to 0 neutrals as "easy," it's just a different type of strategy. You know the enemy has nothing blocking his way to your area, so you have to account for that in your deployment and be ready for battle right off the bat. I do agree that it makes the game faster, though, and that's just the type of game I prefer.

On the topic of slow games, I also really don't see the appeal of diplo games. They take months to play and the idea that I need to warn someone before I attack in a game of Risk seems odd. Can anyone explain to me how it's more fun than a normal game?

Some good discussion here, though. It's really interesting to see why other people have their preferences that are different than mine. Truly thought provoking.

Diplomacy is something I doubt you will ever fully understand. Nearly every diplomacy game has a different combination of rules and it's all about using self-restraint to come out on top.

I love playing diplo games, because most of the hardcore diplo players suck at military tactics. :p They often think it's all about numbers and allies and once a battle begins, they quickly fall.

It's true many diplo players aren't the best at tactics. But really there's not too much tactics can do when their income is hundreds higher and they have thousands more in reserves.

The combination of 0 neutrals and automatic distribution really makes it almost a lottery game. With expansion being basically free and players anywhere close in skill it will come down to who can grab the most bonuses quickest, which is entirely dependent on your (randomly assigned) starting spots.

Combine that with no fog and you should be able to look at the board after distribution and know about 90% of the time who will win. That's kind of the opposite of strategy.

I respectfully disagree smiley. Even if you know everyone else's starting positions, it still matters how smart your moves are. You still have to know which attacks give you the best chance to break through, and which territories need to be strengthened to protect yourself.

I just think adding neutrals slows the game down unnecessarily, considering a lot of games take weeks to finish as it is

after you reach a point only luck matters in those games
you win cause the opponent is not good enough and not cause you're great at it
you can't even play in different styles and you dont have to think anything different from the last games in the same temaplate you've played before

i totally agree with smiley

Adding neutral armies doesn't "slow the game", it forces you to make choices; same thing for manual distribution, wastelands and cards. But i understand it may result very difficult to someone

Edited 3/18/2015 13:35:23

Queef, the fact that everyone else knows it has strategic value and you don't see it tells me you have a long way to go as a player if you want to be good. You are missing the value in having to make choices. Play whatever you want, just don't expect to get decent without understanding why those settings are in strategic templates.

Chris I'm sensing some hostility from you.

The whole point of this discussion was to get another person's point of view on why they prefer certain settings. And while I can see why you like having neutral armies, I don't think it's productive or necessary to tell another player that they'll never get good if they don't play with your settings. If you must know, I spent a long time playing with the default settings, and did well. but once I realized how much faster the game would move by taking away things like neutral armies, my enjoyment of the game increased significantly. Some of us prefer games that can end in a matter of days, not weeks

Basically, there's no need to belittle other people for having different preferences than you.

You can exchange land with other players, you can do all sorts of things. It's a lot more fluid than an average FFA.