I disagree with the idea that there are a limited number of good moves and that they are obvious to the more experienced players. I guess it comes down to the definition of what classifies a good move but I'm fairly confident in saying that everyone makes at least one mistake (and probably a lot more) on almost every single turn in a game of Warlight. I also would guess on average there are probably 4-5 turns per game where I don't think it's obvious at all how the turn should be played and top players would likely disagree on what the 'right' moves are.

The mistakes may be something as small as reversing the 6th and 7th order, or attacking with 18 instead of 19 attackers, or any number of small things, but over the course of a game or many games, those little mistakes add up. Most of the time, they don't matter. Occasionally they do. Minimizing those tiny mistakes is often what separates the "good" from the "great" and is the difference between winning 70% of your games and 80% of your games.

The point I'm making is that when you are given more time to make a move, you have more time to make an optimal move. What constitutes an "optimal" move increases significantly in complexity in team games, because not only do you have to account for your own play, but the play of your teammates and other factors like airlift or reinforcement cards.

I'm not arguing for or against real-time or multi-day games, I'm just saying I think the idea that a team can play as well in a 5 minute game as a multiday game is pretty ridiculous, assuming they actually care about making the right moves. Most people don't care. For those who do, multiday games are going to be far less sloppy than their 5 minute counterparts.

Personally, I like real-time games for 1v1's, and prefer multiday games for team games, because discussion makes a huge difference in those games. It may surprise some people that I prefer real-time 1v1 games, because I take my time playing ladder games, but that's mostly because if I'm given 3 days to make a move, I might as well take my time on tense moves and avoid as many mistakes as I can find.

I'm sure teams of good players who know each other well can play solid games without the need for communication and will beat the vast majority of their opponents who are probably worse players individually and also have no teamwork. However, pair them up against opponents of equal skill who communicate better and I think you'll see a noticeable difference.

i opened a game to see whether telepathy or optimality win, starring:

The Impaller
Blue Precision
Perrin3088

vs

Myhandisonfire
Heyheuhei
Choose a Finger

europe map, multiday.

Doesn't seem to be fair enough. Compare total 3v3 game record of your teams and you will see what I mean.

but that's the point. myhand claims that when you play with same team mates, it is easier to win; the impaller claims that when you have a long time to discuss strategies and moves you win, as long as you have players who play as a team. i thought the teams represented well those two philosophies. i might be wrong, though...

and the first team has players who play multiday games, whereas the second team has players who play mostly real-time games... the two different schools of thinking of warlight clash, i guess...

In that case you must set-up at least 10 games to see who's right. And instead of Perrin (who dislikes such format) put Ruthless or Duke.
Then you'll probably see "who is the bitch".

yes, you're right. not sure we can handle 10 games, though...
if perrin rejects the game, i will invite another player. i won't take him out of the game without his permission, that would be extremely rude on my part.

We will accept the challenge.

The players on the multi-day side should not much matter. It helps if they have skill and experience because they can think for themselves and contribute to the discussion of what the best course of action is. This is entirely the point, you see. I could take someone whose played the game for only a week and still have a good shot so long as they are able to communicate and are willing to listen to advice from their teammates (the less experienced, or course, it is implicit that they need to basically submit full control if your going to beat a team as skilled as what this trial is set up to be). More to the point is your team can be as strong as your strongest player should he want to take full control in multi-day, yet in real-time it is normally a medium: a strong player holds his own but a weak player drags the team down.

This discussion has turned its side on what players are better real-time or multi-day. I agree with Impaller that there is only a slight difference. In multi-day, especially 1 v 1s one can suffer from over thinking or there read that they had one a particular player is lost. Like Imp, I'm usually game to play real-time even in ladder games with anybody. I'm confident that I'll make less real-time mistakes then my opponent. In team games, however, its tough to get a read on the flow and I think it helps to view each turn as a snapshot. You ask questions to yourself and your teammates, such as: "what cards do they have?" "what where each of their deployments?" "Who tends to play aggressively vs defensively?".... the questions become more and more as the players increase and settings become more robust.

The point where I will fully agree, and back to the original post, is that in a game with no cards there is obvious moves, but only in so much that there are obvious moves NOT to make. From Impaller vs the world no vote has been a consensus. Sure there are cards but even if there weren't I'd imagine that the duplications of exact orders would be few, even among the players with the best records. Tossing my ego aside I love the chatter in team games and will normally tweak things and change them completely after a discussion with a teammate. This can be a small as Imp's example of slotting a move in a different order or adding an extra delay, or as fundamental as trying to capture a set rather then breaking one of an opponents.

@Anthebes: I cannot remember how to spell his name but using the filter is a great tool. I create quite a few games and sometimes want an infusion of new blood or good players that I have never played against. I achieve this by inviting a few players from my list and then add open seats with strict prerequisites.

I've been following this thread for the last few days and have quite enjoyed the banter back and forth and altho it was my original intention to stay out of the fray, I thought I'd post a quick blurb on my overall thoughts on the topic.

I am one of the players who started playing multi-day games when I first joined WL and have never really looked back since. Sure, the odd time (if I find myself with an at keys opponent and I have nothing better to do) I may actually sit down and play a real-time game out in one session but like Imp, I've found time and time again how many more mistakes I seem to mount up in these games versus the games where I sit back, analyze each situation independently and have the time to really make my moves count. I know BishesUpInErr mentioned that *"it's quite rare to see someone go change their orders an hour later because they caught a mistake. Most people just commit quickly and don't come back until it's time to make another move"* but I disagree with that statement (at least based on my own gameplay) as there have been a multitude of times where I've gone back an hour or even a day or two later and changed orders that I had already locked in, sometimes drastically. Coincidentally, the times I've found this to be the most beneficial are during team games where a teammate has pointed something out that I didn't see or I've adjusted my orders slightly to compensate for what orders my teammates have locked in. On the flip side of this (as BP alluded to a little bit), I've also found that *over-analyzing* my moves can sometimes cause me to botch a turn that I would have succeeded in had I just gone with my original gut instincts but for the most part, I'm pretty confident in my ability to play this game when given enough time to analyze the situations presented and make the most informed decision.

I will agree with the fact that verbal communication is not always necessary every single turn and often enough checking a teammate's orders or assuming the "logical choice" will do just fine for everyone involved but to claim that you can collect, absorb, discuss, and execute successfully on all of the available information going on during a team game every turn with consistency in a 5 min window is absolutely ludicrous. Now that's not saying that there's less skill involved in real-time games, I just believe from my experience and from what I've seen that the more time you have to analyze a situation, familiarize yourself with what's going on with the other team(s) and what they could potentially be doing, discuss tactics with teammates, the better/more informed decisions you'll be able to make on a regular basis.

In keeping with the specifics of this post, in a 3v3 game with no cards involved, I would definitely agree that the time needed to make a move should be significantly reduced based on the fewer intangibles found in that format versus a more standard *Strategic* setting. Even with that being the case (and especially when the team consists of more than 2 players), there are still moments in these types of games where I think it's absolutely necessary to take more than 5 mins to plan out a turn collectively.

Good players will play well whether it's a multi day game or real time. Bad players will screw their team unless they're paying attention and willing to listen.

Real time and multi day both have their pros and cons but overall those differences are minor and will rarely make the difference between a win and a loss.

|>but that's the point. myhand claims that when you play with same team mates, it is easier to win; the impaller claims that when you have a long time to discuss strategies and moves you win, as long as you have players who play as a team. i thought the teams represented well those two philosophies. i might be wrong, though...

That's actually not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying if you take your team of 3 and play 10 games without communication where you make all your moves in 5 minutes, and then play 10 games where you communicate with each other and work as a team and spend more time figuring out what the optimal move is, chances are you will play better in the 10 games where you communicate and play as a team.

I'm not saying people who play fast are worse than people who think. I could play a 1v1 where I make all my moves in 2 minutes or less and play against some guy who just started playing the game who has a full 3 days to make his moves and I would beat him every single time. I'm just saying I'd probably make less mistakes playing a game where I spend more time thinking. Against this hypothetical opponent who just started, it doesn't matter because he is going to obviously make a lot more mistakes than I will. In most games, it won't matter, because your team of 3 is better than almost everyone, so you're going to win on skill alone most of the time, even if you aren't making "optimal" plays.

The idea is that the two teams have to be of equal skill, and in those situations, teamwork and coordination will shine through. It's impossible to get two teams of equal skill to play against each other unless it's the same players on both teams (which obviously doesn't work).

I'll play the game you set up anyway, but I'm pretty sure that game is going to be decided by the skill of the players involved and nothing more. One team is going to be better than the other team and that team is probably going to win. That team is probably yours, for multiple reasons. I don't think it's going to prove anything I said one way or another.

well, there is no debate between you and myhandisonfire, then. i thought your position was more like the one BP just had: if you play a multiplayer team game, the player that you play with does not matter that much, as long as he is willing to communicate, whereas myhandisonfire's position was: to have a team that is used to play together makes a difference.
in any case, i'm glad you joined the game. let's have fun.

haha my bet is on real-time team

join 2v2v2 real shit cuh

I'm almost certain the rt team will win.. most of the MD team don't play this style of game.. and personally, I always get owned on europe, rt or md, so don't expect that to change drastically, presuming I haven't been removed yet ofc'