I know I said it before many times, but no one seems to listen to me. I will try to write here everything I don't like about europe and most popular 3vs3 template.
This post contain a lot of garbage, as instructed by some wise man:

just frantically type all your garbage thoughts at us in no order and then let us pick through them for good bits

At least you will have a lot to pick from.

---

But I will start with something positive. I will start with listing what I believe is good in maps, for any kind of game.
I distinguish two parts that define whether a map is good or bad: a visual aspects, and strategic value.

The first one is obvious, map have to be pretty. Should have nice clean territories borders, easy to tell connections and bonuses, territories of the similar size preferably small enough to play without the need to zoom in and out. I want to know how the map works at first sight, not having to remember which territory is not connected to the other despite looking like it is etc.
Connections across the maps are nice addition, but should be well visible and low in numbers. Some additional elements are good, but not so much, as this is a strategic game above all. Territories shape is not important, triangles are just as nice as any random shape, unless it looks ugly.

---

The strategic value of the map may differ, may mean something else depending on what is the game format; it is closely connected to the template used.

In general, I believe map should have bonuses of the similar size, not big discrepancy. If map have bonus of size 1, it shouldn't have one which have 10 territories. I prefer when no bonus is smaller than 3 territories, and if the size of the biggest bonus is max twice the size of the smallest one. Maps with bonuses of size 10+ are also possible, but then the initial income have to be set higher than default 5 per turn.

Bonus values depend on the size of the map, and should have similar territories - income relation. Otherwise it is difficult to make a templat that guarantee somewhat fair game.

Total number of territories / bonuses is already kind of limited by visual aspects. It is not so important, and this numbers are just imaginary, but maps smaller than 30 territories make game too easy, maps bigger than 1000 are usually decided by expansion. Those numbers are different for the given amount of starters, but you get the idea.

Bonus shapes can be anything really, but should differ along the map, some easier to defend and /or capture than the other.

“Shape of the map”, aka connections grid, is by far the most important thing about the map, and it should always vary a lot, no matter the template. Definitely not uniform, the more chokepoints the better, "ocean" / "sea" areas (blank spaces between the territories) are good, "clusters" (areas with no "water") are bad.

---

Now, everything that's wrong with Europe, and the glorified 3vs3 4x4 NC template:

Let's start with the visual aspects. Compared to todays maps standard, it is really ugly.
So many overlapping borders, so many gaps between them, so many unclear connections, brr. The borders are complicated, which could be fine, but the way they are, they make it even more difficult to grasp the connections. On top of that, territories size varies way too much, some territories barely fit 2 digit numbers, while others are bigger than medium-size bonus.
All of that make figuring out quickest / best paths not an easy task, which have nothing to do with the strategy and only cause frustration. Map colours are lame, there is absolutely nothing beyond territories, and connections, no nice visual additions. Seriously, why would you look at that map if you can look the other way?

---

Now, as for the strategic value: there is absolutely nothing special about the map. There are some things that make this map poorly balanced in my eyes.

First of all, bonuses differ in size so much, that some are plain unplayable. Just look in the recent thread-guide committed to 3vs3 Europe (https://www.warlight.net/Forum/100499-3v3-europe-nc), and you will see how many bonuses are said to be inferior right away. More than half a map? I strongly disagree that having bonuses with similar income-territory ratio and similar bonus size is bad. It is the only way the map make sense, to have all areas somewhat comparable, otherwise the game depend heavily on the picks. Especially when there are more picks than good bonuses, which is somehow a very popular for europe games.

Look at ME map, few bonuses have territory ratio just slightly worse, +5/7 instead of +5/6, and they are never played. Why you expect a +6/10 to be captured when there are several +3/4 ??? Beats me. Map have good amount of territories for 3vs3, but it’s playable part is definitely too small for 3vs3. Bonuses shapes are ok-ish, but the map shape is definitely bad. Aside from the islands in the north, there are no choke points, no really safe bonuses or easy to defend bonuses. Some connections in the south part of the map don’t save the map shape from being dull and add little strategic value.

---

The reason why Europe map and 3vs3 template is popular is very simple. It is popular because it is being used for so long. Go back in your games list, and check first few games on Europe that you played (recommend using favourite games tab for that). Are there any big changes in the template that is used on Europe nowadays?

That’s the point in here imo. People like playing games / settings / maps they are familiar with. Each time you play same settings, you know better what is good and what is bad idea, you better understand “the flow” of the game, and you usually enjoy it more and more (since you get better). The amount of setting in WL is so enormous, yet people decided to stick to 2 armies in neutral territories, 5 initial income, 4/5 in starting territory, no MA or LD, very often no cards. In my eyes, that is definitely wrong, and may be a reason why people get bored of this game.

---

Various settings result in various ways one can win the game. In some, players can win mainly by expanding better than enemy before the contact is made, in some they win mostly by picking better starters, in some they counter enemy or outplay him… pretty sure there are more ways to get an advantage. Depending on the settings, a mixture of these things usually determine the winner, but with different ratios. I believe, that people tend to like the games in which this mixture "flavour" is similar and somewhat reminds them of what they were playing / liking so far.

It is possible to like several different formats, but each time you met a new one it have a hard time competing with the ones you already like, unless it is totally different. The old formats you know how to play actually determine your view on the new ones, you want to add something you know well from the template you like to the new template.

People underestimate this influence, but to me it is really transparent, seeing how many flaws of Europe map / games are now treated as a pros, and suggested for in new maps / templates. Just look at what people say they like about Europe map, or what is needed in map to be good for 3vs3. If you read between the lines you will see that what they mainly mean is “make some bonuses unplayable, very few choke points, generally just copy the format of 3vs3 Europe, and make it better”.

For someone who played a lot of 3vs3 Europe games it is obvious that 3vs3 on Europe Big map is not the way to play WL. Capturing bonuses and then fighting with enemy is bad, you should fight your enemy right away, and fiercely hold to one or two bonuses until game is decided, cause it make game comlicated and not so long. At the same time, guys playing on Europe Big will claim that the Troll's Europe's template have little to do with strategy, is decided on picks, can easily be lost by luck, etc.

---

What is the “flavour” of 3vs3 Europe then? Game begin with 4 starters per player, this usually mean that game start is complicated, picks are very important, and the core of the game are micro-managements with 5 up to ~15 income, and game lasts around 8 turns.

No cards, because that mean you can lose if you don’t capture a territory.

No wastelands, cause half the map is already not worth capturing.

Little to no complex game-play, cause you can't try to trap your enemy, when you have to defend two other fronts.

You can’t capture a bonus somewhere else while defending, cause there is nothing you can capture, and what’s the point of losing your only bonus just to capture another.

Sometimes you can’t capture any bonus at all, cause picks.

Sometimes best strategy for you is just deploy all to one territory and do nothing, cause picks.

Sometimes even with good picks you are lost on turn 1, cause picks again.

And usually you can’t really tell if or why are you winning or losing until the very end of the game, cause this template is a mess.

As I'm the guy who enjoy the taste of 1vs1 Strategic games, so naturally you can say I tend to like the games that remind me of it, and neglect the parts that differ, and I don't see them as strategic, and that's the reason behind this thread. While that might be true, I really can't see where I can be wrong to think so low about Europe 3vs3. So, shortly about the differences between the two.

---

• I see nothing strategic about making picks and having no idea how they will work. I don't think that you should have that little control over what are you going to end up with. You may say there is skill in picking, but apart from "islands, center, russia and later the rest" and occasional clustering for bigger bonuses, there is nothing I heard works. Even when I asked some of the best players, if there is the way to counter "islands, center, russia and later the rest" strategy, they said they have no idea, no, probably not, just pick islands, center, russia and later the rest better.
  
  In 1vs1 strategic I know what can happen, what can't, what options work well against which, and make my decisions fully aware of what may happen next. I believe that it is possible to have the same for 3vs3, people somehow prefer to play on the settings which guarantee some random bs.
  
  
• In first turn on 1vs1 strategic I try to think what my opponent may have got, what he know about me, what I can do, I can actually plan few turns ahead and figure out what is my best bet as winning strategy.
  
  In 3vs3 Europe, all you do is look what you should prevent from being captured, what you can capture, you may tell who have an advantage, and that's it. No in depth analysis of the future, cause it will differ based on which enemy is in which place. Your options are so limited it is really tragic.
  
  
• Midgame in 1vs1 Strategic you already either know for sure what your enemy have, or can approximate it, again you can plan on how to get advantage, how your enemy will try to do that, how to outsmart him, etc.
  
  The same might be true for europe, but 1) your knowledge is drastically insufficient 2) you don't look that far 3) you don't travel that far and 4) your resources and options are again poorly limited. Not to mention your idea may collapse next turn simply cause one thing you did not expect happening, or happened differently than you expected, and you need to adapt to it.
  
  
• Cards in 1vs1 strategic are definitely an added strategic value. No cards in 3vs3 europe make it even more boring template. I see cards as yet another option in which you can gain advantage. The more options players have, the more likely it is the better player will prevail.
  
  
• Finally about the template repeatability. This is huge point, very important in the long term playing. Not only Europe 3vs3 template never changed, the game look each time the same. Only difference is starters positions in territories, but that hardly influence anything. You still pick "islands, center, russia and later the rest". You still play more or less the same.
  
  In 1vs1 Strategic wastelands make each game kind of unique, with different best starting positions, and different approach each time. Same goes for starters position, they really do matter, and not only in the beginning, but also later, 4 in in-distribution territories make expansion strategy much more complicated. It is true that some games may look similar, have similar elemnts, but compared to europe 3vs3 it have immensly more different scenarios you can come across.
  
  
• Europe games last around 8 turns on average, according to my experience and some people I asked. What was the average for 1vs1 strategic in the ladder again? 10? Longest Europe game I had lately was like 17 turns I think.
  
  Now why is that? The Europe map is bigger, teams start with more income, more territories, etc, it should be way harder and take longer to win the game (much like it would be in case of 1vs1 strategic with i.e. 15 income).
  
  The reason for that is imo the amount of starting territories, which is the ultimate difference between the two templates.
  
  In 1vs1 you start with 3 terriotires, to get the advantage / threatening position you either counter your enemy or have to get to ceratin choke points / weak spots.
  
  In Europe 3vs3 there are way more weak spots for most bonuses, and getting to the choke points is achieved faster, with picks. Actually this is a by-product of the amount of territories and lack of playable bonuses, rather than a strategy players use. Remember that counters are picked in the later order, meaning you can easily end up with counter to your teammate bonus, whereas your opponent got proper counters, and there is little you can do about it.
  
  One may think this mean that lower starting territories should fix Europe 3vs3 template. This is not true, because even with lower number of picks some areas are better than other, and therefore picks can always make either team get advantage, no matter the amount of territories.
  
• In 1vs1 Strategic you can do a lot. You have many good options throughout the game, you just need to figure which are the best in correlation to your enemy moves.
  In 3vs3 Europe you have to do a lot. You are forced to take care of many things, very often there is an ultimate move option you should do, with no better alternative.
  

---

The only logical conclusion I get from all that is that Europe map is not good for 3vs3, or any format at all.

I'm not 1vs1 player only. I played decent amount of team games. I have completed around 1000 team-games, with decent winrate. I played many times 3vs3 on Poland map, and I do believe it is more strategicly balanced for 3vs3 games than Europe.

---

I tried. I really did. Even thou I did not like europe games in the past, I decided to give it a shot again. I followed the advice of some players, who said Europe 3vs3 is good and enjoyable once you actually learn how to play, I listened to what they say about how to do it, I read some guides I analyzed and played many games in last few weeks. I even tried few games where I operated all 3 accounts. I really wanted to learn how to play that template, cause people recommended it, and somehow it is the most popular out here nowadays.

I don't know, maybe they never wanted me to get better, and left most of the good tips / ideas only to themselves, sneaky bastards. Otherwise I am honestly either damn too stupid to learn how to play it properly, or there is nothing to learn about it except from the "flow" of the template which comes with practice. I asked questions, damn direct questions, about why this certain game was lost, or when we started to lose, what we should have done differently, etc. Most of the time the answer was tragicly enigmatic. Are we winning is another mystery question no one seem to know the answer too. What really makes me wonder is why, if they are so good at the template, most of the time they say nothing about what I should change in my orders when I’m on their team. Is 5 min really not enough to discuss what should I do and why?

---

I hate to break it to the guys I played with, but I honestly doubt I enjoyed any 3vs3 Europe game I played lately. Or even a single minute spend on it, aside from chatting. I played only for you guys, I wanted to give it a try, and maybe start enjoying something new. I'm really sad I did not. I think I’m done trying.

In conclusion: Europe map is ugly and unbalanced, it's 3vs3 4x4 template is a heavily pick based unpredictable monstrosity of a pick-semi-lottery game with the most amazing PR in whole WL.

tldr: Go away if you need tldr.

I was pushed to make this post, it is not my fault.

No More Mr. Nice Guy.

Widzisz out

damn i needed tldr

I don't like the Europe map as well, so I guess I agree.

The whole thing was a good read. +1

*ahem*

"having bonuses with similar income-territory ratio and similar bonus size is the only way the map make sense, otherwise the game depend heavily on the picks." 3v3EUNC depends heavily on picks, so does strat1v1, unfortnately it seems to be inevitable in a strategic template

"Why you expect a +6/10 to be captured" We dont, italy is a massive buffer between the bulgaria and spain/switzerland at the bottom, and at the top its a source of support picks and room for tactics between the left and right of the centre. It only exists as a bonus for aesthetic purposes.

"europes playable part is definitely too small for 3vs3" we disagree, it intentionally forces players to start close and fight from turn 1. that is fun.

"there are no choke points" lutsk, lenningrad, volgolda, eastern france, lower austria are all choke points. You might not have realised this yet because theyre surrounded by neutrals instead of ocean.

"no really safe bonuses or easy to defend bonuses" you have to work a litle bit to get safe bonuses by clearing enemies from an area, or put thought and effort into defending them. we consider that strategic.

"picks are very important, and the core of the game is micro-management with 5-15 income, and game lasts around 8 turns." well put, there is macro (team coordination and map balance) as well.

"Sometimes even with good picks you are lost on turn 1" "you can’t really tell if or why are you winning or losing" "I see nothing strategic about making picks and having no idea how they will work" "settings which guarantee some random bs" " your opponent got proper counters, and there is little you can do about it." you sound like you just dont play the template very well yet.

"is there a way to counter 'islands, center, russia and later the rest' strategy" no. You say this as if counterpicking is the height of strategy which it is not.

"they said they have no idea, just pick islands, center, russia and later the rest better." ugh dont be fascetious. the concept of picking bonuses that have the highest income to size ratio is fundamental to warlight, and those bonuses are located in islands, centre and russia. Within the constraints of 'pick I, C, R first' there is a huge amount of opportunity for you to 'just' pick better. Or in your case worse =P.


"I asked questions, damn direct questions, about why this certain game was lost, or when we started to lose, what we should have done differently, etc. Most of the time the answer was tragicly enigmatic." The fact that eunc is not fully understood yet makes it interesting an is testiment to its complexity and intruige.

"Not only Europe 3vs3 template never changed, the game look each time the same. Only difference is starters positions in territories, but that hardly influence anything." you cant see the nuances of a game because youre willfully ignorant, youve decided you dont like the template so you dont analyse it. show 2 games where the same 24 bonuses are picked in the same order and i will concede that 3v3eunc is a bad template. find 10 and i would be suprised. fuck it, its rare to even find 2 players with the same top 5 when theyre on the same team =/, players disagree because its hard to pick well.

"1) your knowledge is drastically insufficient 2) you don't look that far 3) you don't travel that far and 4) your resources and options are again poorly limited. Not to mention your idea may collapse next turn simply cause one thing you did not expect happening, or happened differently than you expected, and you need to adapt to it." This is getting ridiclous. let me clarify what i think youre saying "My (widzisz) knowlege is drastically insufficient. I dont look very far into the future. I am frustrated with the area of influence that my picks afford me. I dont have enough income to do all the things i want to do each turn, because i am overstretched. my ideas are frail and often predicated on incorrect information, I do not choose adaptable strategies"

TL;DR
"I am honestly either damn too stupid to learn how to play it properly, or there is nothing to learn about it except from the "flow" of the template which comes with practice."

Yes, it is definitely one of these 2 options.

Edited 7/25/2015 18:36:00

Well I'm no longer a part of active community, but I'd like to make a few relatively short comments on that topic.

First, I doubt you've had the opportunity to play some really good games on EU 3v3, mostly, because all the best players no longer play and there might be really not much strategic value when it comes to those games. I've played 2 games recently and they convinced me not to play with current 3v3 eu aficionados.
Second, you can always try to make a map/template work by tweaking it so it fits your criteria. The current most popular 3v3 eu template was created by me after a lot of thought and experience on the map, so I wouldn't discount it so easily. Now commenting on specifics:

Visual aspects: well, I'm not one to judge since I've played it so many times I know it almost by heart now. Considering it's one of the oldest maps, I'd say it's pretty neat, very few connections are unclear, but I'll leave that for others to judge.

bonuses differ in size so much, that some are plain unplayable

What that really means is that most of the "unplayable" bonuses are not prioratised early game and/or mid-game. With the exception of germany and italy, I've used literally every single other bonus in at least one game for a particular reason. That difference in income/territory ratio only means that early game revolves around certain bonuses and mid-late game revolves around map balance where lack of map presence in a certain part of the map might mean that those "unplayable" bonuses become huge threats. Imagine for example a typical scenario, one player gets very poweful in russia and rushes towards the center and it's not that easy to contest his income. At that point for that player it's not income/territory ratio that is most important, but rather income/turns in which I can take the bonus ratio. That's how northwestern russia/ukraine are sometimes played. You might use that argument to say that the picking stage is a bit to dull, which I agree with.

The reason why Europe map and 3vs3 template is popular is very simple. It is popular because it is being used for so long.

Yes, however it's not an argument against a template. I'd like to add that before my template there were many different settings we've tried, but those are the only ones that stuck for so long. If you're getting tired of "standard" settings, please make some original templates that are also balanced (I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm quite serious, I've tried that numerous times giving multiple templates to the community).

Just look at what people say they like about Europe map, or what is needed in map to be good for 3vs3.

Just a reminder, dead piggy is not all people :)

Game begin with 4 starters per player, this usually mean that game start is complicated, picks are very important, and the core of the game are micro-managements with 5 up to ~15 income, and game lasts around 8 turns.

That is almost accurate, I'd add the most important thing which are strategic decision when/where to put your income into use.

No cards, because that mean you can lose if you don’t capture a territory.

That one I just don't understand. It's not wr.

No wastelands, cause half the map is already not worth capturing.

I already explained how that is not true. Althought I must say, if there were more wasteland options (like setting a limit on wastelands per bonus etc.) I'd definitely experiment with a lot of wastelands of 3.

Little to no complex game-play, cause you can't try to trap your enemy, when you have to defend two other fronts.

Playing thousands of competetive games only on warlight, I must say it is a gross misunderstanding of strategy. Most of my favourite games and complex decisions were on 3v3 europe. If the strategy is so simple, why are basically all players making multiple mistakes during even 1 game? In my view the strategy is a little bit more subtle than in 1v1, however more complex.

Sometimes you can’t capture any bonus at all, cause picks.

That is imo the position I see many players fail in most, when they have to extract maximum value out of their base income. And believe me it is sometimes not that obvious. Literally THE most common mistake I see on eu or in any team game at all, are players overextending while they have only base income, making it easier to clear them out. That might not seem ilke much, but every little biit counts in high-level team game.

Sometimes best strategy for you is just deploy all to one territory and do nothing, cause picks.

Yes, exactly my point! That might be a bit boring for that player, but still, finding the best moves is always the point of competetive templates.

Sometimes even with good picks you are lost on turn 1, cause picks again.

Never happened to me. Unless of course my teammates pick randomly. In every loss I had I always was able to find bigger or smaller mistakes.

And usually you can’t really tell if or why are you winning or losing until the very end of the game, cause this template is a mess.

Well, I think I can tell most of the time if my team is ahead or behind, but I'm biased, because of the experience. Still, I don't get that argument, sometimes you can't tell, because the game is just balanced and will be decided later on small details.

I see cards as yet another option in which you can gain advantage. The more options players have, the more likely it is the better player will prevail.

That is just ridiculously inaccurate. An argument ad absurdum is make multiattack template with cards +1000. I've already spoken at length multiple times why I hate most cards on both 1v1 and especially team games, so again I'll ask, if you can, make a balanced template with settings you like.

You still play more or less the same.

That is accurate to a point. Still, at least I find quite a lot of joy, because that more/less is actually very subtle in terms of strategy and gameplay. I'd say the better you get, the more diverse previously similar games will seem.

In 3vs3 Europe you have to do a lot. You are forced to take care of many things, very often there is an ultimate move option you should do, with no better alternative.

I couldn't have put it better! Not sure if you realise it or not, but there is no better recommendation you can make when it comes to a balanced template. The fact that in most positions there exists a unique best solution based on a plethora of factors kinda shows that it is balanced. Same way in chess, in most positions out of the opening there are objectively best moves, similar with 3v3 europe.

I played many times 3vs3 on Poland map, and I do believe it is more strategicly balanced for 3vs3 games than Europe.

I've tried to push Poland 2v2 or 3v3 templates multiple times, however I've failed every time. To put it mildly, there wasn't enough demand to find anyone to really test templates and/or play casual games. On that I agree, I think Poland has a great potential to generate some very high-level competetive templates. However I'm surprised you are the one who says it, because in a similar way to Europe, it plays in a very "straightforward" fashion where you have to calculate very carefully and you HAVE to expand in a certain way to maximise your income. Funny how you said that that factor was bad for eu.

it's 3vs3 4x4 template is a heavily pick based unpredictable monstrosity of a pick-semi-lottery game with the most amazing PR in whole WL

Hmm, if it is semi-lottery, does it mean you'd win 4-6 times out of 10 vs me on it?

Overall I get the impression that you don't like team games at all, becasue you dislike being in a "defensive" or "passive" position. If you really think about it, template balance will always have to limit your options, because the more optins you have, the more options your opponent has and to a lesser extent you can manage your opponents moves. In any case I don't mind if people dislike my template, I recommend it to everyone, because it has been a product of a lot of thought and experience and it's the closest I got to a balanced template. If you have problems with a template/map really please, please try to make your own templates. It's not only an enriching experience for the player, it can produce some fun in the process. All in all I think if you really try hard to make a balanced template with settings you yourself like for a personal reason, you will run into problems sooner or later. I dare you to try reinforcement cards in eu 3v3, I expect rage before turn 5.


Gl hf in future games :)

it's 3vs3 4x4 template is a heavily pick based unpredictable monstrosity of a pick-semi-lottery game with the most amazing PR in whole WL


Hmm, if it is semi-lottery, does it mean you'd win 4-6 times out of 10 vs me on it?


I was gonna say the same xD :DDD

My biggest criticism of 3v3 EU: I want a second 3v3 map in clan league damnit

Edited 7/25/2015 19:40:57

"I'd like to make a few relatively short comments" haha

^

he was comparing his posts in relation to RvW's average comments

I truly do agree that there could be a better 3v3 template, that there could be a better 3v3 map, that EUNC is not the best 3v3 template possible, that it's overrated, and that it's about time that we get a new map/template worked out. This was something I tried to do when I first joined 20, I think Szew will remember, but we tried making some 3v3 templates. I think that the good points outweigh the bad points in regards to 3v3 europe. It is overrated, people have played it a lot and it has a general good PR. Your list is thought out, but like I said in Apex chat some of these points you have are prevalent within almost every strategic template out there.

It also isn't a pick lottery. Think about 1v1 how you make 6 picks and how those mechanics work. Now just take 4 groups of 6 and think about how those would interact. Timinator could explain it better and in more detail, but that's the gist of it.

I get just as bored of strat ME as I do of Europe 3v3 though. That's why I don't really play it RT anymore and just do it in Clan League because otherwise I'd hate it more.

I'm confused, so.. Widzisz is chinese?

Look at the big brain on piggy.

I've read your topic and I beg to differ on a few points:

In general, I believe map should have bonuses of the similar size, not big discrepancy. If map have bonus of size 1, it shouldn't have one which have 10 territories.

I actually think this is an addition to strategy, and mostly the reason why Europe is the most played map for strategic 3v3 games.

Pros:
- only a limited part of the map has viable bonuses: this limits the possibilities of rock-paper-scissors during the picking stage. On a map in which all bonuses have around the same size and ratio, it will easily and usually happen a situation in which A>B>C>A and you have to rely on rock paper scissors during the picking stage.
- the picks in the "bad" bonuses aren't insignificant: since you are going to get some of them, you have to understand which of them will be more useful. With certain warlords dispositions, some might even be a better pick than many of the "good" bonuses (i.e. Eastern France)
- the fight begins from the very first turns

Cons:
- there are some bonuses that won't ever be worth conquering

It is popular because it is being used for so long

I think you got it backwards, i think that it is being used for so long BECAUSE people could never find anything with significantly more strategic value than this. But probably among all the existing maps out there, there are some that make a better strategic template than Europe 3v3 4x4; that template just isn't so obvious to make.

Sometimes you can’t capture any bonus at all, cause picks.

dead piggy proved more than once in the games I've played with and against him that you don't necessarily need more than 5 income to have a huge impact on the game and help your team win

In 3vs3 Europe you have to do a lot. You are forced to take care of many things, very often there is an ultimate move option you should do, with no better alternative.

I totally agree with this, but shouldn't this be a definition of strategic game?



Widzisz, how do you suggest a balanced strategic 3v3 template should be? What kind of map would fit better for that? (if you can, make an example of an existing map that you think would)

Edited 7/26/2015 10:55:10

Good discussion, but if it is such a pick lottery how come the better erurope players usually win?

I would have to check, but I don't think WG has lost more than a game each season in clan league (that might have changed if WM and 20 were going strong still). Better players win almost all the time because they understand the nuances.

Edited 7/27/2015 16:11:35

I think Widzisz is a bit harsh on the template, but I have no doubt that a large part of the love for the template (or for RoR full distribution) is due to the familiarity of the template and the map. It's just a fact that RT games are hard to fill if you use an uncommon template or map, and this applies even more so for team games.