In 99% of the time you will pick Harbin 1, Chengdu 2, and Lhasa 3, plus usually Urumqi 4. You might not pick Urumqi, especially if there is a +3 single pick ftb. If there's an ftb that is the next pick, and if there are more, you pick at least 2 (if they aren't counterable). Then pick Beijing and maybe Shanxi. Basically the first 5 or 6 picks are set in stone and the last 2 or 3 are for some coverage. This means that picking is boring and stagnant.

Then you add to that the fact that half the time you play 5 turns without meeting your opponent and each of you has 25+ income when you do, and you have the makings of a bad template.

Edited 12/22/2018 02:11:47

Amen to the Beren Bible.

Basically the first 5 or 6 picks are set in stone and the last 2 or 3 are for some coverage. This means that picking is boring and stagnant.

https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=13538461
--> Islands > Center > Russia

https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=13557451
--> Islands > Center > Russia

https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=13336609
--> Islands > Ceenter > Russia
......................

What varied in your Europe games are the orders of picks but the general pattern is clear. Also even if you see the +1s as strong, the order in which to pick them isn't that clear at all. And then again this discussion started with AI calling the +1 in the north basically broken OP what is imo quite some nonsense. Also AI said that he liked playing this map as a 2v2 so even if you found out that the order in which to pick the +1s is almost always the same I see no reason why this wouldn't apply to 2v2 where AI apparently sees no problem with this.

You might not pick Urumqi, especially if there is a +3 single pick ftb
I see no way of Urumqi ever being a reasonable pick if the though process isn't a counter for which you should have more than 4 picks however.

Then you add to that the fact that half the time you play 5 turns without meeting your opponent and each of you has 25+ income when you do, and you have the makings of a bad template.

I see no possible way of both players having picked the board even remotely decent and then meeting on turn 6.

Basically you guys don't like the template which is fine however your arguments why the template is bad make a bit of sense however when looking at the details then not really. I have to admit that in hindsight I should have increased the amount of picks to maybe 6 to add more variation options and the armies in distribution to 4 to nerf the +1s. However then there are different kinds of players out there who enjoy the game to get played out in a different way.

Edited 12/22/2018 11:53:55

There are 3 reasons to pick Urumqi.

Starting the game up in income 8-6 is a big deal. Warlight is a game where incomes snowball, so absent a very compelling positional advantage, the player with an early income lead always be at an advantage. The only reason not to take it from an income perspective is if there is a safe +3 ftb (even then, arguably starting the game up 8-6 is still better, as even without an ftb your first two turns are 8 & 8, while your opponent's are 6 & 9 - and that's without considering that your 8 income both turns can be working on a big bonus, while your opponent's 6 income first turn is spent taking the ftb). But even if you decide you prefer an ftb to Urumqi, then assuming your opponent picks the other 3 +1s (and they must have picked at least 2 of them in order for it to be a guaranteed ftb in any case), you will either miss the ftb due to the pick lottery or you will get it regardless of taking Urumqi (since picks 4 and 5 become functionally equivalent). If they only pick 2 of the +1s, you start the game up 9-6 in income, so not having the ftb is irrelevant. If there are multiple ftbs, you can get one of them anyway, regardless of the pick lottery or picking Urumqi.

Secondly, it is a valuable positional pick of your opponent has Lhasa (which they probably do).

Thirdly, it's worth completing if you can clear Tibet (or your opponent didn't pick it).

Positionally, most of the bonuses in southern China aren't efficient enough that you absolutely must have coverage there. Receiving one pick in the islands or center is sufficient given your starting income advantage.

The difference between this and Europe, where as you say, your first picks are necessarily in the islands, is that in Europe you make 24 picks, whereas in China you make 8, so having 5 or 6 predetermined picks is a much bigger deal.

Admittedly, it doesn't usually take 5 turns to meet your opponent, especially if Lhasa and Urumqi are split, but it happens much more often than in any other widely played template. My comment there was hyperbolic.

China 2v2 has the number of picks and the income/position team split that just plays better with the size of the map and lends itself better to effective countering strategies. Hence you'll find both the greater importance and variance in later picks than in 1v1.

Basically the same reason why Europe is played as 2v2 or 3v3 and not 1v1. More picks, more options, more nuance in strategy needed.

Lucien Müller wins against georgie on China (https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=17321503)

- Regarding what happened in the north of the map, I honestly have no clue what was going on there, so let me put it in georgies own words "I am going to pretend this never happened".

- What I find more interesting is georgies blind counter to the +3 first turn bonus in the center. Here this was quite obviously a pretty crazy strategy however especially on the old 1v1 ladder template I have seen picking strategies aiming to immediately intercept a first turn bonus quite frequently. The problem with this is that I have failed countless times in doing so and as I looked over games of the then best ladder players, they similarly frequently failed with their cheesy 3+4+5 counter. So my advice when you come up with some picks centered around a cheesy interception of your opponent completing one of his bonuses is to search for an alternative strategy and only come back to your first plan if you truly see no way of otherwise gaining the advantage against your opponents quick income.

If only i could join the fun too :(

I guess MH training camp will take a while?

georgie wins against Lucien Müller on the old 1v1 ladder template (https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=17321512)

- Despite the chat about both players not caring about the weighted random thing, georgie asked in our clan forums about it, so he had the advantage here while Lucien Müller paid in the beginning for his ignorance.

- Turn 3, georgie was woried about his opponent siting in South America, so he hit the bordering territories a bit harder and his 4v2 was his first order. With 0% straight round this would have made an opponent lader 4v2 attack fail. However with weighted random you have to pull out your calculator here. What I'm interested in are georgies chances of ending up with the territory if he hits first with his 4v2 attack while Lucien Müller hits second with a similar 4v2 attack. My math is a bit rusty, however for georgie to succeed he needs 2 conditions to fullfill, namely
a) His 4v2 attack leaving him with 3 leftovers and
b) Lucien Müllers later 4v3 attack failing.

The math here is:
- 2 * 0.7 = 1.4 --> 60% chance of georgie ending up with 3 leftovers
- 4 * 0.6 = 2.4 --> 60% chance of Lucien Müllers 4v3 attack later not succeeding

Since georgie needs both conditions to work, it's 0.6* 0.6 = 0.36 --> 36% chance of georgie ending up with the territory. So in other words, when it comes to straight round it can make sense to expand 4v2 with first order while when it comes to weighted random you don't want to do this.

- Similarly when it comes to attacking stacks of 3 or 4 armies with 1, this is something you didn't want to do back in the weighted random times.

Edited 12/24/2018 02:40:56

Emu Pub wins against Krzystof on the old 1v1 ladder template (https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=17321459)

- Krzystof continues his streak of having a moderate amount of bad luck and guessing his opponents moves in the worst way possible. However while in the Greece game it just looked like an unluck 50% guess, here turn 9 and 10 there was some strategy involved with Krzystof being worried about Emu Pubs big stack he last saw in Australia.

- Turn 8 we have Emu Pub again expand with a 4v2 quite early on which is a plain mistake. Even with Krzystof hiting the territory that hard, if Emu Pub had moved later than Krzystof, he would have at least gotten some better kills out of it.

- As I have said previously, I advice against going for a counterpick by default. Here Emu Pubs pick 4 wasn't strictly speaking a pure counter pick but for the sake of the argument let's call it one against the +5. Krzystofs and Emu Pubs picks 4 and 6 were pure counterpicks. As you see with Emu Pubs 4, such picks quite often tend to just don't work. Also with Emu Pubs pick number 6, the pressure was all on him to hit East Africa at exactly the right turn and after him sitting there he still would have the pressure of risking getting hammered there.

@ irise.....

So georgie winning against lucien.....

yeah it happened.

2-1 for our man georgie.

MH has 5 wins. Outlaws has 3 wins. Emu goes 2-0. Georgie goes 2-1. NoName goes 1-2

I won't be able to start my games due to real life until the new year but I will continue rooting for you guys.

Edited 12/24/2018 19:21:49

noname went 1-2 not 2-1.

The Lucien Muller vs Georgie has ended! It ended (1-2) in favour of Georgie , congratulations!

https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=17321503
https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=17321512
https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=17321515

M'Hunters 5
Outlaws A 3

AI will get auto booted if he doesn't take his turn, vacations don't work.

Hell no I didn’t want to play bonsai. Nigga always beats me. Meanwhile, my ownership of Lucien continues

looks like ai will lose 3-0 :p

Oh wow good i read this. Cent we recreate Or something? Games are still at Picking Stage.

Warzone is really broken there. If I take My turn in a Game that doesnt allow vacations then it breaks my vacation... ans Right Now i have way too Many Games To break it...like wtf

Why didn't you guys just allow vacations? (nice rigging plat)

Looks like a whoopsie doopsie from the worst organizer in the world. Okay, I should've had vacations enabled on the games (I intended on having vacations enabled), you can just get booted if you want and I'll re-create the games and update Odin on the situation. However as of this moment, I see you're committed in all 3 games, so I'm just going to guess you broke an extra vacation to retake your orders. If this is the case, I'm sorry for the inconvenience and I would've remade those games given the circumstances.

Luckily, you just need to wait 7 more days and than tadah! You get 7 vacations restored (because you are a member)

This goes for all the other games, however, if your in need of a vacation in the middle of a game that we're in a mess really. I'm going to count all games regardless if they advance after picks. I'll take the blame and fix it in the future clan battles, luckily this wasn't the case in the GG clan battle hopefully it isn't an influence on this one.

So essentially, To everyone if you join the game make sure you can play it for a long time without the need of a vacation if possible if you think you need vacations than surrender/boot if your games haven't advanced from picks and we'll recreate them with the vacations option enabled. Otherwise, the games count.

Sorry once again for the inconvenience.

Leopard wins against Njord on Strategic Greece (https://www.warzone.com/MultiPlayer?GameID=17321409)

Both players got their first 5 picks what is very wrong on this template, however I can't blame my clanmate for this. Looking at the past games I always had a feeling that Masters weren't particularly peeing their pants if they were watching my clan play. This was the first game from this clan battle where I can't see any nonsense on our part. Especially Leopards picks show a very sound thought process. My spontaneous thought would have been to rank Caria as high as number 5, however after thinking about Leopards picks, I can see why he is right and I am wrong.

I always had a feeling that M'Hunters couldn't really compensate for the loss of Aldehyde currently not playing the game any longer however now Aldehyde II has just emerged.