In another thread (
https://www.warlight.net/Forum/136578-ladders-chutes?Offset=40) I propose two alternatives to SR: Fizzer Round (Fizzer manually adjusts a few outcomes) and Manual SR (we can adjust outcomes in settings when creating a game).
The settings for the ladder templates that used WR for years had been adjusted over time. The new ladders using SR simply adopted the WR settings (cards, starting armies, etc.) without second thought.
If we are going to use SR, let's use it on its own merits, and not as a derivative of WR settings.
If attack and kill ratios -- Fizzer spent hours before he set the current standard ratio settings -- remain constant, neither WR nor SR are ideal for certain maps/templates/settings.
---------------------
Thus, here I propose that a new method -- "Fizzer Round" (FR) -- be adopted.
To slightly increase "friction" (see
https://www.warlight.net/Forum/136578-ladders-chutes?Offset=40) while keeping the certainty of 0% SR, FR would be a great solution to make WL more strategic.
There are two alternatives for FR:
(1) 3v2s WORK
Leftovers
2v1: 1
3v2: 1
4v2: 2
5v3: 3
6v4: 3
(2) 3v2s DON'T WORK
Leftovers
2v1: 1
4v2: 2
5v3: 3
6v4: 3
Either option would be an improvement, for the same reasons that Fizzer changed the old 1v1 ladder from 3 starts of 5 armies to 3 starts of 4 armies: too little friction (or growth that is too fast) messes with the natural stages of strategic games.
Expansion shouldn't be too quick and using counters shouldn't be too easy. We should earn our strategic accomplishments by being forced to deploy a bit more.
Thus:
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO TAKE A TERRITORY
To kill 2 you need 3 or 4 (option A or B)
To kill 3 you need 5
To kill 4 you need 6
To kill 5 you need 8
To kill 6 you need 10
To kill 7 you need 11
To kill 8 you need 13
To kill 9 you need 15
