Eklipse, many people hold merit in any even game.. *1v1 2v2 3v3 4v4 5v5 etc.* the games that are non-merit held, tend to be the ones that are not even. *1v1v1, 2v2v2 ffa/diplo* simply because you can talk your way into victory, rather than your side being of greater ability.

M. Poireau.
I agree completely...
the idea of PM enabled games, is that there are loose alliances, and with that, everything that is involved in politics.. backstabbing when they are powerful/vulnerable, being included..

2v2,3v3,etc. all have just as much merit as 1v1.

2v2, 3v3 etc =/= diplomacy.

2v2, 3v3 etc =/= ffa.

FFA's [sic] are good classic strategic games.

That's grade-A nonsense. Here, I'll help explain:


Turn 0, picking stage, you have 3 options: auto dist, manual dist or custom scenario. Auto-dist is by default, not strategic. Custom scenarios are, by default, rigged. An equal start for all players does not exist in free-for-alls with custom scenario turned on.


That leaves manual distribution. That might actually make things strategic but even here there are problems:

The number of picks one must make is equal to the number of players multiplied by the number of picks given per player. Example, four picks per player * 20 player FFA = 80 picks you must make. Given that even in 3v3 Europe with only 24 picks needed it is difficult to calculate the best set of picks to ensure a good position, 80 picks is insanity. So, either you make 80 picks and most are sub-par quality because no one ever bothers to think through every single pick in a free-for-all with a 1/20 chance of winning with best play, or, you make less than 80 picks and accept that you're a lazy noob.

That isn't strategic.

Edited 7/25/2015 19:01:16

This also brings me to the next point: A strategic fight should give a 50% chance of winning with equal skill, with a higher likelihood of winning given to the player with more skill. 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 all give equal chances to both sides. Free-for-alls do not. 'Diplomacy' games do not. Assuming equal, a 4-person free-for-all has a 25% chance of winning. A 6-player free-for-all has a 16% of winning. etc.

This is not strategic.

In ffa best strategy is just to turtle up.

In ffa best strategy is just to turtle up.

Actually, the best strategies for free-for-alls, as proven by me:

1) be the host.

1a) Use unorthodox settings. ex. 0 army income with reinforcement cards every 3 turns, encouraging newcomers to not pay attention and lose on turn 1.

1b) Use extremely unreasonable boot times. 100 day autoboot or 1 minute manual boot. Most people can't keep up.

1c) Use open seat prereqs to filter out anyone who might know what they are doing. Only play noobs!

1d) Never join a free-for-all that you are not hosting.

I have tested the above settings before, and can prove their validity as the strongest free-for-all strategies. At least one of my alts has a 100% score in every single FFA % up to 11-player FFAs.

Edited 7/25/2015 19:13:49

Whatever happened to just having fun with it anyways? Not everything has to be uber-strategic by the numbers in order for people to enjoy it. The very purpose of a game should be for everyone to have fun, it's not all about winning. Fun is the whole point of gaming.

So if everyone involved in something is having fun, then it has just as much merit as any other type of game. It seems to me like some people just like to diss on those who aren't good at the things they are specifically good at. While at the same time denounce the things they themselves aren't as skilled with.

Every type of game on Warlight sans lottries and blatantly rigged custom scenarios involves some level of strategy. It doesn't matter if it doesn't meet your own rigid requirements of the word strategic.

Edited 7/25/2015 19:30:40

There's nothing wrong with having fun. And if having fun means, to you, playing a bunch of role-playing games with rigged custom scenarios, so be it... but I won't ever take you seriously if you insist that's strategic when compared to 1v1. :)

Eklipse, I agree.. I personally love auto-dist, and ffa's *non diplo* but it's a poor standard to grade skill on.

But I'm also the kind of person that will impose handicaps on myself in games I am better at than my opponent *any game, not saying warlight* to make the game more interesting/fun for myself.. *like playing jugglypuff with 100% handicap on ssb, or always using random*

Wzu, those unorthodox settings just prove that your experience on those settings are better than someone who hasn't played it..

and there can be custom scenarios that are fair fights, just need a map that is symetrical in all directions from each start location..
there are several maps on here that would do for it.. it just takes a different kind of strategy than manual picks, simply because starting locations are known by everyone for everyone.

"I agree completely...
the idea of PM enabled games, is that there are loose alliances, and with that, everything that is involved in politics.. backstabbing when they are powerful/vulnerable, being included.."

Well, that's exactly it, isn't it?

Make alliances into an unbreakable rule, and all the strategy is sucked out of the situation. You declare war on someone weaker than you when you think you can afford it politically, and then you just play it out to a natural conclusion. (You can pretty much always deploy your full income to crush your enemy. And when someone is being "removed" from play, everyone else has no disincentive to participate: might as well jump in, the water's nice!)

The strategy in a Diplomacy game should, rather, be all about balancing your need for defense with your need for cooperation. Just how many armies will you need along your border with your ally? Deploy too many and you risk angering her/him (plus, they will likely try to match the escalating arms race). Deploy too few and you leave yourself exposed, or, worse, actually *entice* them into attacking you.

You must judge the board and try to guess the moment where it becomes advantageous enough for your "ally" to attack you, and play accordingly. That's the real game.

Making alliances a cut-and-dry deal, or building it into the system, is what makes these game stale and boring and essentially un-strategic.