Let's use this one to help understand other people's playing preferences. Name a setting you don't like, don't understand, or find useless. Then let someone else who enjoys that setting explain why they like it.

I'll start: I hate having neutral territories start with anything other than 0. I just don't see the point in having to plow through neutral territories before you can fight opponents. That would be like putting a 3 foot thick concrete wall between Mayweather and Pacquiao and saying they can't fight each other until they break down the wall. All it does is slow the game down, and it doesn't really provide any sort of benefit

Cant see any argument against that, great analogy.

Really, no benefit? Why not just do full distribution then and have ALL territories taken? Neutral armies serve a very big purpose. They force a cost to expand, explore, etc. I gather you don't like wastelands either? It takes away all strategic value of a map. Just play dual style maps instead.

And that is a bad analogy. It would be more like saying why put gloves on the boxers hands? Just take them off and let them knock someone out in 10 seconds.

Edited 3/17/2015 20:10:28

I hate wastelands Cuz it blocks Nessacary bonuses .
true fact

Edited 3/17/2015 20:16:02

I don't see how adding a cost to expand makes the game more enjoyable. Again, to me it just slows the game down

PS my analogy is exactly as I meant it. The point of warlight is to defeat your enemies. Why put an arbitrary obstacle in the way?

Um, because it makes games vary. If you use random warlords and give them a different weight (4 armies and 2 armies on other neutrals, like 1v1 ladder does)...then it makes the games all different. I don't know the math on how many possible boards there are for 1v1 ladder (probably tens of thousands), but if you just made everything zero armies, did not put in wastelands and just used warlords (not random), you are only getting ONE possible board. Don't you like variation? There is not much strategy to beating someone when the board is always the same.

I hate Diplomacy cards in normal games, the things just irritate the hell out of me.

I hate Diplomacy cards in normal games

I can't see a way to argue against this.

@Chris I usually do random warlords and I always do automatic distribution. Plus I try to use different maps as often as possible. So no, my games are never the same. I just think having neutral armies to fight is a waste of time

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.