There has been a discussion on the ladder forum over whether or not there should be a 3vs3 Europe NC ladder opened. I'd like to assign this thread solely to the discussion over the potential strategic settings for 3vs3 Auto-Game. I believe that in order to start up a ladder like that, we should before have a basic test of how it goes in real-time games, thus introducing a new auto-game would be in order.
First of all, though I kinda like auto-distribution (warlords or random warlords) it is objectively too much based on luck. auto distr. with 2-3 territories opens a possibility for one team to dominate the islands (which is in my opinion crucial to most wins on Euro map) and 4 territories gives a lot of variation in the spreadability department (too much chaos). Hence we should consider the settings among manual distribution, my personal choices are:
1. manual random warlords 2 territories per player
2. manual random warlords 3 territories p.p.
3. manual cities 3 territories p.p.
4. manual cities 4 territories p.p.
I have given it a lot of thought and I really believe that this settings are the most probable to produce a strategic game (many Euro games with more territories in-distribution (especially with cities) gives the edge to the tactics rather then the strategy). One more word, about the wastelands, they are redundant on Euro map for the same reasons blockade and abandon cards are ineffective, there are multiple ways to attack and most of the bonuses are left out (germany, france and ukraine are almost never taken). The strategic template in 1vs1 has one more tweak, 4 armies in neutral terr. in distr.. I personally wouldn't want that, because of the dynamics in euro map, but I'm open to discussion upon that topic. Also on strategic template reduced luck would be expected (0-16%).
If the topic becomes fruitful, I'll open a poll, after we can ask Fizzer to produce an open 3vs3 Euro NC Strategic template as an Auto-Game.
Yeah, I myself am actually torn between #1 and #3. With 5 spots in manual cities there are always incredibly many bordering enemies (the picks are very similar, standard center, wc russia, ireland, iceland, denmark, norway, portugal rarely anything else). I believe that for a game to be more strategic than tacical we should keep (especially in cities distribution) a low number of starters. Any thoughts on this?
However, I personally believe that 5 starter units makes the most sense (although with a very low luck factor, 4 starter units can be justified as more tactical).
That being said, my personal choice would be:
Full distribution of 4 starting spots
5 starter units per territory
This set up would be even more strategy, and to be honest, having 4 or 5 units for starters would be somewhat irrelevant because the entire map would be open to whatever strategy you fancy. I do believe, that people won't agree with this haha. As long as it isn't auto distribution I wont be upset :D
Why do you say that? Europe, for a map with so many borders and ways to attack, is incredibly balanced in my opinion (in 3vs3). Of course it's definitely not suited for 1vs1, but in general overall balance is sustained.
Posts 1 - 7 of 7
Post a reply to this thread
Before posting, please proofread to ensure your post uses proper grammar and is free of spelling mistakes or typos.