I also believe that all connections should be obvious. I should not have to click on territories to see what they connect to, or VERY rarely. Sometimes in real world ones it is harder because you'd have to exaggerate some borders.

^ I think that's a requirement for all maps now.

I agree with Latnox, I actually don't like the map at all. What Europe does correctly is this:

1. There are big bonuses that encourage more of a brawl in the smaller bonuses. If there are a lot of small bonuses that have nice ratios, then there is too many picks to adequately cover an area. Also elimination from a certain area assuming no large bonuses are around it means that you can capture more income while moving into the next hotspot area. In Europe if you want to threaten Central from Russia, then it is very difficult to make the move economically viable. There are large bonuses that you have to ignore taking in order to move to the Central area faster. This is good strategically speaking as we have clear separation from where we fight. Medium Earth is much like this in a 1v1 setting.

2. The positioning of the hot spots makes sense. Top left corner, Central, Top right corner are the main hot spots. Corners by shape alone encourage safer bonuses. If big bonuses are in the corners then we have to focus more on the center. The center of the map should house the best bonuses because each area of the map can affect it. That's what makes this map so prominent in its strategic value, however it could be better if the southeastern corner was also sort of a hotspot, less so than Russia. Same goes for Portugal.

3. The size. The amount of bonuses and territories make for a good 3v3 map. It could use 2-3 more bonuses, but I think that's about it. There are very, very few maps that have the bonus:territory ratio that Europe has. When I was trying to create a new 3v3 template with Szew and others, I actually was unable to find a map. There are few that are the right size, and the few that are lack what I talked about in points 1 and 2.

What Europe does wrong:

1. It looks horrible. Really, it does. Zoom in on the borders they're awful. I don't know how Troll did the map. I'll try not to rip into him since this was one of the first maps on this game, but the borders are really, really strange.

2. Denmark. Why is there a 2-bonus on this map? Ugh. Please. Make it more territories or something.

3. Some of the large bonuses just don't have viable picks in them. This is mainly in reference to Italy, Ukraine, and Romania. There's only 1-2 territories I'd ever pick in those bonuses. It's unlike France that has 3-4, Germany has 3-4, and so on. Most of the large bonuses do have 3-4 pickable territories, except for those 3.

4. Southeastern area needs a little buff. Turkey is another almost never picked bonus, it could become viable by getting rid of a territory or something.

I also just generally dislike the shape of the map and flow. Europe is a brawl 3v3. It's Turkey 1v1 turned into a 3v3 with more separation. I'd like to see a more strategic 3v3, but I don't think people are interested in making a map that would do it.

I agree fully with Latnox and Lolowut (Don't forget that Greece is a useless bonus also). I recently tested an East Asia 3v3 with my clan, and I would rate gameplay 8.5/10. I've said before EU is a 9.9/10. I would try to make a 3v3 map, but can't think of any balanced countries/regions that aren't already taken with decent maps. Another option would be a remake of Europe with it looking a lot better, but we already have too many of those.

Edited 7/22/2015 23:39:45

@Benjamin
It is not just about looking good. Europe has quite a lot of countries. There are Euroregions, Historical countris-borders, economic zones, neighbouring options etc. Its more of endless list of variations.

I encourage you and everyone else to re-draw, make Europe maps. The problem is that everyone tries to make them same: divide countries into same amount if territories or bonuses like previous maps (or make capitals worth one or high-income which creates real imbalance in the big Europe map). Russia to create big and strong and middle-europe full of tiny scrabble. Thats why they are so unbalanced + the border problems. Historically-geographically accurate maps are not exactly best for good gameplay always. Or if you take one country-region do not stick onyl with real administrative division.

I would suggest to pick some nice looking border-terrain part to make the outline and to draw the inside for your favoured preferences to make it unique, interesting, playable. I doubt much people really care what the territory is called or how accurate it is.

This would play exactly the same as Europe. And honestly I liked it a lot to have to analyze the map closely the first time I approached it, to understand which parts of it were viable and which weren't (same thing I had to do for China, which I think is as valuable for 2v2s as Europe is for 3v3s).

@lolowut: what are your suggestions to make a more strategic 3v3 map?

Edited 7/23/2015 13:11:32

A strategic 3v3 map would have these characteristics:

1. Each corner has at least 1 good bonus, but usually 2-3.

2. Middle has at least 4 good bonuses.

3. Each corner cannot progress towards the center without hitting bonuses that may not be viable to take.

4. Each corner can progress towards each other and take inefficient, but viable bonuses. (Think Russia taking Finland/Baltic states on the way to Norway --> Islands)

5. Sprinkle some good bonuses wrapped around huge bonuses. (Think Netherlands, Bulgaria, Portugal despite it technically being a corner)

There's probably a couple more, but those are important ones.

Europe is a bad map.

Primarily because it isn't Medium Earth.

Would anyone like to collaborate and make a new 3v3 map? If so, send me a mail.

If you don't want to collaborate or don't have the time, give me some regions that would make good 3v3 maps, I have a few already:

- Latin America (If done right)
- USA (River crossings can be choke points, like Mississippi River and stuff)
- Mediterannean World

Edited 7/23/2015 20:11:15

There has been countless threads and posts about either the Europe map or in form of what makes a good map, a strategic map. I advise to read. Just to keep it short and leave the forum search function for you to discover as well the Warlight map creating Wiki page! So you settled from 3v3

Now think about particual map features:
- Balanced/unbalanced
- How many territories?
- Bonus size/territory ration
- Cluster bonuses
- Shape of map
- Bottlenecks, strangle-points, ships?
- How territories are connected. Distances from one point to other!

Illustrative: What period of map? Country-region-administration or what? If you are artful then add rivers-mountains or other distinquisable features.

Think what type of game-play you want to produce with your map and partiucal settings it could suit with. Like distribution (any particual distribution mode), base army and inital income, cards etc.

You can make anything good in 3v3, just need to think it over before. Like take for example of Rome map the most popular 3v3. So many people play it with Random distribution with 1-2 territories? There is nothing wrong playing it like that, but generally too much luck is put of where one lands rather how he plays his outcome. So try to think and create map in accord with what game-play you have in mind and test it. I also encourage you to post in description settings you recommend for particual map, especially if you add unique manual distribution team modes!