When I was fooling around with different options which would make multi-attack games more interesting and balanced, I thought about having a territory limit.

Unfortunately, that doesn't work with the way deployments work, and would create weird stalemate situations. I find a deployment limit much more interesting, and allows for a variety of strategy.

For example, there is now an advantage to surrounding your enemy (whereas in regular Warlight, *being* surrounded is generally to your advantage, since your opponent now has to guess where you're going to attack). With a deployment limit, though, having more territories bordering your opponent is actually an advantage (like flanking your enemy in battle).

Dude, it's a good idea.

Thanks! Please vote for it if you can - it's one that could actually get implemented pretty quickly (as opposed to requests like "better AI!" or "Negotiable Peace Treaties!").

For whatever the newbie's opinion is worth, this is a really good idea, for these 2 reasons chiefly:

For example, there is now an advantage to surrounding your enemy (whereas in regular Warlight, *being* surrounded is generally to your advantage, since your opponent now has to guess where you're going to attack). With a deployment limit, though, having more territories bordering your opponent is actually an advantage (like flanking your enemy in battle).

it's one that could actually get implemented pretty quickly (as opposed to requests like "better AI!" or "Negotiable Peace Treaties!").

I always found Warlight to be too chaotic and unpredictable, and too... unadhering to the laws of warfare and logistics. This is a very simple addition that would go a long way towards alleviating those issues and therefore allowing conventional tactical maneuvres such as flanking, not only increasing realism and believability in the game, but also tactics and fun. +3 (+10 if I could)

P.S: Can I suggest linking the forum thread here on that uservoice page?

Edited 3/29/2015 05:41:12

Not a bad idea, thanks!

This rule has other interesting side-effects:

For example, it matters now what proportion of a bonus you control.

If your opponent has a 6-territory bonus, and you'd like to break it, in regular Warlight you'll want to make a big stack and just invade one of the territories. That's the most efficient way, and the hardest attack for the opponent to counter (or to recapture).

With a deployment limit, you'll need to capture more of the bonus (to be able to out-deploy your opponent), and ultimately capture more than half of it if you want to take it over on the following turn(s). If you take four out of six territories on an island, for example, you'll have a better shot at capturing the bonus on the next turn than if you just captured one or two.

Yeah, because as stated (or at least alluded to) earlier, logistics and surface area matter. Like in real life. Flanking = surface area.

A better implementation of Local Deployment.

Thanks, FoolOfATook!

You're quite right that this rule is a different implementation of local deployment.

As I see it, its main advantages over local deployment are:

* You're never forced to deploy armies on the other side of the map (which will most likely never see action); all your deployments can happen reasonably close to your borders (and, usually, along them). So the late game should be less tedious, or wrap up more quickly.

You don't get that local deployment effect where two players are fighting for turns and turns because they haven't realized that one of them produces three times as much as the other.

* Expanding into new territory is not quite as slow as with local deployments. You're still limited, particularly if you have few starting positions (i.e. you can expand into a new area faster if you already control several territories there), but you don't have to sit and wait for armies to arrive from a distant bonus.

* It's customizable, which is what I see as the main benefit:

Want a slower, more local-deployment-like game? Set a low limit, like 3-5 armies per territory.

This will give you the feeling of a slow local deployment game: you have to carefully gather armies and plan well ahead as they move around the map along "supply lines".

Want a faster, more dynamic game? Set a higher limit, like 10-50 armies per territory.

This will have some of the features of a local deployment game, but move much faster. You can't deploy all your armies in one stack (unless you're a small country), but you can still concentrate your armies very quickly and move fast.

That creates a setting somewhere in between regular Warlight and a Local Deployment game.

Edited 3/31/2015 15:39:59

Another potential advantage of this house rule is that, unlike local deployment, it can be used with maps that have overlapping bonuses. Most of my favourite maps have overlapping bonuses, and not being able to play on those maps is a severe restriction!

With this setting, any map will work, however. (And, as mentioned, it can be scaled to be appropriate to the map's size - something local deployments do not do well at all.)

You can play LD on any map, including those with overlapping bonuses. However all overlapping bonuses has to be set to 0. (for some map that is basically unplayable through.)

I really hope Deployment Limits comes to Warligth :)

Let us not forget who was playing thus game before the point system even cam out how can yall propose to know anything would be better for warlight?

Aggressive, I don't know who you're responding to. Almost everyone in this thread has played Warlight for a long time. I've been on here since April 2012 myself (yes, before points and all that), for example, which is two whole YEARS longer than you.

I've played very few ranked games (which is why I'm not "high level"), but I've used this setting "unofficially" in 50+ games, so this isn't idle speculation. I wouldn't be asking for this feature to be added if I didn't think it was a great way to play Warlight. Limited deployment + multi-attack is, hands down, my favourite way to play Warlight. (Another reason I've played very few ranked games over the years is that "regular" games are not as fun - they pale in comparison, being much less tactically interesting. Were this feature implemented, I'd play a lot more of them!)

As for local deployment and overlapping bonuses, yes, it's *possible* to modify the maps to work, but then the tactical features of the overlapping bonuses are lost - and they are often the reason to play those maps in the first place. Not to mention that it can be extremely time-consuming (there is no easy way to do that on a large map, and very easy to screw it up). Some of the most interesting maps feature interesting megabonuses, combination bonuses, negative bonuses, and so forth. You can't really play those; or, if you do, they won't be the maps you know and love, because you'll have to remove a whole lot of the features you like to make them work.

(The person who posted about this is aware of all these things, I'm pretty sure. I'm just pointing it out for other readers.)

Edited 4/1/2015 20:16:55

Just would like to add something here: Local Deployments should be able to work with overlapping bonuses. (I know they don't, just pointing out that's a coding deficit).

Agreed.

If anyone is curious about what a deployment limit game looks like, you can take a look here:

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=6673716

The combination of multi-attack, lots of cards, and limited deployment (we used a limit of 10) makes for a very dynamic and unpredictable game. You can't just pick a strategy and stick to it.

You can see how various players rose and fell.

One of the things I like about this playstyle is that production is not the only factor in play. The players with the biggest production (myself included!) were not necessarily the winners of military conflicts. On several occasions, the 'underdog' won the wars and came out ahead, and I ultimately was taken down by a player with less production and fewer armies.

Does anyone see a strong advantage of local deployment over deployment limits?

The major differences I see (other than those I've already discussed) are:

1. The size of bonuses makes a big difference. A larger bonus gives you a "bigger" punch, should you get into a fight. This is interesting!

2. You have to plan ahead more: when you enter hostile territory, you get only your basic income until you've completed some bonuses in the area. (This is also true to a small extent with deployment limits: the difference is that it's the number of territories you own, rather than complete bonuses, which make a difference.)

Edited 4/22/2015 23:23:51

After recently having played a few local deployment games on huge maps, I am more and more convinced that this game option would add a lot to the game. Re-posting here as a bump; please vote if you like this idea, or at least post in this thread so more people can take a look and decide whether they would like to vote themselves.

Of all the suggested Warlight settings changes, this, I think, is one of the most realistic.

I really hope this great addition will be used in the next seasonal ladder :-)
Great idea!

Thanks! It looks like you voted as well. I appreciate it!

Again, I've been playing with this setting for a LONG time now, and going back to regular Warlight is actually a bit of a disappointment. Unfortunately, I can only play with this "setting" with my friends, and we run it on the honour system. Would be more fun - and easier - if it was available as an official setting.

Just bumping this, for fresh eyes. Thanks!