"I'd be fine with a map where starting spots are fixed and you win or lose based on gameplay"

But then you are limiting the term gameplay. I think gameplay should include your ability to pick starting postions and your ability to use your limited knowledge to gain an advantage.

oops i kinda repeated bostons post a bit :P

If I may chime in with some scattered thoughts:

first of all Guy I feel your pain. Medium earth takes me completely out of my comfort zone. Even with low luck percentages, the real luck comes with trying to "guess" where you opponent is. Having only 3 picks and 11ish viable options leaves both players in the same predicament. My problem is this: rarely in a war are the opponents completely blind about one another.

I agree with Fizzer on the point that experienced players playing each other got rather predictable. I was good at it but mainly because I was able to device a sure-fire strategy straight away on whether it was more prudent to expand or rush in the crucial opening turns, based on my picks and knowing there 3 picks.

If I had to choose I would choose to leave it the way it is. Although frustrating because I too feel as though I am re-learning the optimal way to play, this has also saved 1 vs 1 from getting stale, and an exciting challenge since Impaller and others who seem to have grasped the map better than I have proven sufficiently to me that it is still more about strategy then it being a coin flip.

Lastly, a suggestion since I think a balance between complete guess-work and predictability may be a nice compromise. I think something easily implemented was if say 3 or 4 countries (randomly) were barred from starting in. This could either mean that it 3 of the Wastelands could automatically be the warlord. Then perhaps an additional wasteland could be added.

I think this would make devising a strategy prior to distribution more important while there would still be enough probable selections that you shouldn't know exactly where your opponent is.

Medium Earth seems to be working well for a balanced game. I was winning a game against Impaller at one point on Medium Earth, so it must give some benefit to the people who don't play as much.

Note: Impaller impaled me and I lost that game.

I like the ladder. I like WL. I like Fizz. I even like 1x1 on medium earth. I just like other 1x1 variations more. I liked large earth, 4 start spots, zero luck, manual picks and +5 cards best for a long time too. Then I got to like strategic 1x1 large earth as well (although with less than 18% luck). I'm sure I'll get to like medium earth more too. It just doesn't lend itself to my style of play as much as other settings.

I think the change to 16% default luck should be made everywhere though. 18% yields apx. 4% odds of a 4x2 or 2x1 failing, which is pivital at the start of a 1x1 game. 16% luck fixes that problem.

> I think the change to 16% default luck should be made everywhere though. 18% yields apx. 4% odds of a 4x2 or 2x1 failing, which is pivital at the start of a 1x1 game. 16% luck fixes that problem.

Funny you mention that - I just realized that myself and changed it to 16% about an hour ago. For some reason I was under the impression that 18% made it guaranteed, but that was incorrect.

Although it's not 4% odds of failing, it's more like 0.09% of failing a 4v2. The change to 16% luck will make it 0%. This will go live in the next release, 1.00.3.

Agreed. Failing a 2 vs 1 is harsh, especially in the opening 3 turns. Thanks for budging the 2% Fizzer.

I saw the change as was noting my heartfelt approval. Imp and I have been privately complaining about 18% luck forever.

2.4*.18 = .432, yielding a range of results from 1.968 to 2.832. The range is .864 and the portion of the range that could result in a 1 is .032. That's 3.7%. BUT, that's only the odds of there being a chance at a 1 result because you would then multiply the 3.7% by the odds of the remainder calculation or 3.2% -- for a cumulative odds result of .1184%. I obviously stopped at the odds of there being a remainder roll at all.

Considering those odds are just a bit better than 1 in a 1000, I'm surprised at how many times I've seen the result -- it happenned to me once today.

I agree with Boston and Ace about pick selection being a huge and important part of game play. As that one small earth tournament that some of us played in taught us...sometimes games with limited options can become basically "solved" and come down to random dice rolls to determine the outcome.

And thank you so much for making the change to 16% luck. Every time a 4x2 or 2x1 attack fails, a kitten dies/angel falls out of heaven/small child gets his Ice Cream Cone stolen/etc.

@Elucidar. Yes, that was a frustrating game for me. Basically was purely a battle of who could expand better and you had the advantage in income by the time we met. If it wasn't for my last ditch effort to punch into India succeeding I believe you would have steamrolled me. Was a close one for sure.

I don't think i have seen a 4v2 fail in the ladder yet.. and not often out of it.. it may have, but i generally account it to that being a high luck game *which sometimes it is*

With 18% luck and its predecessor 20% luck it happened often enough to be annoying. I had it happen twice in the same game once. It was something that would happen like once in 50 games, but when it did you felt robbed, especially because the analyze tool told you there was a 100% chance of success.

Impaller, i feel robbed when i fail a 3v2 on strategic settings, lmao