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.

Instead of the manny/pacquio analogy, since I dont think the majority of warlighters like boxing, ill try a different analogy.

I would equate having neutral territories with anything but 0 to having sex with a condom. It just gets in the way, makes the plowing take longer, and makes for a lot less enjoyable experience for both parties.

I would also say that having anything thicker than light fog is like having sex with the lights off. Why would I want to hide something that I want to see?

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.

"my settings"? Those are on all but 1 ladder template.

Not hostile, blunt. Perhaps I went too far (your clan drama makes me more apt to get touchy with you). But, here is my problem. You did not accept the fact that neutral armies adds strategic value and simply say "well, I prefer not to have that added decision making". If you did, we could move on and just accept that we prefer different formats. Instead, you argued that it does nothing but slow games down, which is not true. That is why I said your ability to get good (whether you care about that or not) will be stunted. Because you don't seem to understand why those neutral armies are there at all...not whether you want them or not.

For example, I prefer straight round. But I do understand why some like weighted random because it allows 3v2 attacks to fail %20 of the time. Just because I prefer another setting doesn't mean I ignore the reason why it is used commonly.

@chris i just want to make clear that we dont start any of this drama, it follows us around like that demon from paranormal activity.

FUCKING KEK

>we don't start drama
>hurr durr my profile pic is safe from getting me banned

^
Case and point

You create your own drama, don't put the blame on others

The only setting I really just don't like at all is "no split". Does anyone like it?

I also don't like to play on huge maps. To me it doesn't seem like there is more strategy to those games, just more clicking.

Agree 100% with blortis. 0% with lawlz

Edited 3/18/2015 20:17:31

Pooncrew.... your profile picture...

KEK

Completely agree with Lawlz this time.

You guys are offended by sandwiches now?