What they actually mean is a piece of the +5 reinforcement card because that is the only card that matters. It dominates games with early contact and squishes a lot of subtlety out of those games. Make it +3 and let people win by sitting on a higher income in the first 4 turns.

I'm missing the coherence of that message.

+5 Reinforcement card is over powered in the first 5 to 9 turns of the game. This is so widely accepted among WL players that we have started to refer to the reinforcement card piece as "the card piece".

I only kinda sorta agree with you Piggy, "card pieces" can be important later in the game for reasons other than reinforcements. How many times have we all gone "Man, it'd be really nice to have an order delay card right now." (Or priority, or blockade) As far as reinforcements being a big deal early in the game, yeah I agree. But is this necessarily a bad thing?

Will you be creating a tourney with modified settings? Can I be invited? :3

you mean the master race settings aren't perfect after all? *world crumbles*

create a tournament with your improved settings you zombie swine excuse for a tiger.

But don't both teams get cards at the same rate?

Its part of the calculated risk (I feel) on whether or not you are taking a territory that turn to get the "Card Piece"

Do you 100% stack against the guy and not get a card... or do you stack all but for a 3v2 to risk it... or stack all but 4v2 to guarantee it...

In the early game, there is a decision to be made, and yes, it is important because the wrong decision (even if based on luck) can determine the outcome.

You don't even need to use the reinforcement card on the turn you get it for a decisive advantage. Sometimes the decisive advantage comes when your opponent doesn't expect you to use it. (1-2 turns after you got it) I like to mix my reinforcement cards with OP or OD cards to maximize my advantage if I don't need to use it the turn I get it.

Edited 10/17/2013 17:23:20

No, both sides do not get cards at the same rate. You get cards when you take territories.

Any advantage, besides clearing from an area, you build up in the first 5 turns is worth nothing if youre behind in cards.

Edited 10/18/2013 00:09:32

I think I see a hole in your logic, Piggy. If the player in question is too incompetent to take territories, then do they really deserve a card? NEIN.

No, you dont see a hole in a fucking thing you porpoise. If someone chooses not to take a territory then they definitely dont deserve a card piece.

I am saying let it be a valid strategy to opt NOT to go for card(s).

Edited 10/18/2013 04:36:10

This is just Sad

I know right? I make a constructive criticism of the game and propose a solution and everyone just wants to fight me.

Edited 10/18/2013 05:59:09

(slaps piggy with a white glove) Prepare yourself for a duel of fisticuffs.

i do want to fight you. in the tournament you'll create.

Sigh...Piggy, are you actually saying you want to make it a valid strategy not to go for cards, and, by extent, never take territories? Why would you do that, even if cards didn't exist? Because...you want to stack up armies and wait for your opponent to find you? Your foe will surpass you on income if you do that...

He was talking about early on in the game.

Yes, on the occasional turn.

Piggy, lets say standard rules.. so 60-70 attack-defend with R card for 4 pieces and 16% luck..

If you attack with 4 to ensure absolute victory every turn to get the 4 card pieces, you will lose 2*0.7 *4 armies on average... which adds up to 5.6 armies. thus the R card is worth 5 armies.. really, it's not advantageous to gather the R card just for R cardiness, save for making a big push in one turn.

the fail in your logic.. is that in the first 5-9 turns, you should be using your forces to gain bonuses.. and while you're at it, you gain card pieces.

furthermore.. if you want to create a game without card pieces.. use the template for the strategic 1v1 remove 1 from the card pieces per turn, and remove the R card.. problem solved.



Personally, I find that the OD and OP cards can be way more useful than the R card.. while the R card is just an incentive for the natural expansion you should already be doing.

Yeah, I also agree that piggy has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. If the ability to exploit the settings and win games is any indication of understanding how every minute detail in settings influence a game, his understanding of how the cards influence the game is not at all comparable to his esteemed critics', especially given they might have gained the highly coveted "Played wl in beta" gold trophy, which makes them like a fine wine in comparison to this pig's swill.

Edited 10/19/2013 16:48:59

Perrin, dont you know who I am? How dare you list strat 1v1 settings to me?

I dont like you but I am compelled to respond to your drivel because you dumped it in my thread.

Warlight would be more strategically varied and challenging if players were penalised a little less in the opening 5-10 turns for choosing not to make an attack. It would allow someone to deploy and simply make no moves, in an attempt to win by holding onto their positional advantage.

A card is not a reward, paying you back the armies that you lost in killing neutrals. That role is filled by bonuses. A card rewards a player for playing aggressively (which makes for a fun game usually). The idea of cards for sucessful attacks dates back to "risk" which was a FFA and it was necessary to encourage people to be aggressive. In a 1v1 you dont need such a strong incentive to aggression, it has reached the point where people are more limited in their choices because of cards.

Edited 10/21/2013 13:11:00