I am going to make a new strat 1v1 template, and I would like to know what you like about the old one and what you DONT want to see in the new one.

At the moment the spec. I am working with is:
1.I want the map to be immediately recognisable
2.I want it to be fast
3.I want it to be strategic rather than tactical
4.I want less focus on picking
5.I want to make luck less important to winning, but still present.
6.I want it to be fun and appealing to new players.

In the old one it kind of gets boring afterawhile for me, so i think it's a great idea to have a new one. There was quite a lot of luck involved in my case.

4:How about auto-dis
5: 0% luck

6. NO AUTO DIS.

Medium earth has already been modified, you had gui's modified med. earth or my medium szearth (both slow and standard).

Weaknesses in strat 1vs1:
- 16% luck weighted round instead of 0% luck weighted round
- OP and OD cards
- only 3 starts/big wastelands (those are both similar weaknesses)
- bonuses are NOT normalised, so half of the bonuses have only circumstantial use
- it is a 1vs1 game

At least 4/5 are changeable, already done by gui on modified medium earth or my szearth templates. Btw. your point 2 more-less contradicts points 3,4 and 5 (see turkey 1vs1).

It's too hard :(.

0% luck straight rounds would be a + in my book.
Furthermore some areas are way under/overpowered with regards to territories/income ratio.
Would be oke if the position was easier to defend but this hardly seems to be the case since for instance brazil has 3 entries and is worth 4 armies for 5. While the yellow african country has 5-6 entries (not sure right now) and is only worth 3 armies for 5 territories. So that's sort of messed up.
Finally I would like to state that the 4 armies for a non chosen area is sort of odd. It sort of overpowers the importance of the larger bonuses (Greenland/Kazachstan/Australia).

disagree aranka, i think it should if anything be made harder, the game is already too easy to get good at, if there were more variables it would allow for better distinction between skill levels, for example a noob who makes no big mistakes can hold out for quite a while against someone who is close to mastering the template like szew, tbh i don't think that's normal
not sure if this is clear, im exhausted because i studied all night last night, i'll say again if its not (;

Well yes and no Warlightvet; Straight 0% luck rounds would not make it much easier for noobs.
First off, the concept of 3 takes 2 is hardly understood by noobs nor even by most average players.
Secondly a large variety of options (which normalizing the bonuses would lead to) does nothing to shift the advantage to less experienced players. The only thing it does is shift the game from a more tactical approach to a more strategic approach.
Thirdly, why would it be annoying if people would grasp the game quicker? Would you really want to win a game just because a bad opponent doesn't know placing in a country with wastelands is bad and/or doesn't get the limited "top picks" a map gives as available options ??

The problem with this template now which makes it "too hard" is that the whole game against good players is decided in turn 1 to 2. If I don't get my desired picks right away and/or bad luck in fighting neutrals I already sort of know I can better give up already. That's the grating thing about the current settings IMO.

Warlightvet, it is the curse of any 1vs1 game.

Aranka, if most of your games in strat 1vs1 are decided on luck on neutrals, that means you do sth wrong.

Aranka, if most of your games in strat 1vs1 are decided on luck on neutrals, that means you do sth wrong.

While you're clearly sort of an expert on this particular mode of play I still think my results in 1vs1 medium earth sort of still garner some merit to my own observations.
Although in aspect part of the claim might be the externalizing of my loss to another cause I do really have the feeling that luck in the initial start does determine the course of the game more then in various other maps
While this is an aspect at least of almost every non normalised, non 0% straight round maps I still think this aspect could be reduced.

Strat 1v1 needs to be balanced and fun for people of every level just as much as for people like Sze. Whether he is "doing something wrong" or not I want to know what Aranka thinks.

What's the difference between strategical and tactical ,ain't they the same thing.

In general tactics are used for immediate gain, it's a responce that'll generate some immediate response, for example in chess forks, pins and skewers are tactics. Strategy is using all those short-run tools to generate a long-run advantage, for example in chess strategy would be playing differently knowing if the position is open or closed, or playing with bishops of opposite color. Speaking in warlight turns, tactics are specific moves in one turn, for example retracting troops from front to defend a vital point can be a tactic. Strategy would be picking according to different boards with respect to the shape of the map (wastelands, warlords distribution etc.).

Noone will miss 16% luck it seems. What about alterations to the map?

i like the strategic 1v1 template but maybe the only change that should be done is to change the luck to 0% so 5v3 and 7v4 will always work.

and don't remove the order delay and the order priority cards.

"the game is already too easy to get good at"-warflow

Changes to make a slightly more realistic map:

- Tennessee and Florida should be 1 territory (The South)
- add Canary Islands (to function like Hawaii) -> connect it to Cuba, Spain, and maybe Quebec
- if left unchanged, Mid East, Aust, Greenland, and Central Asia ("Caucasus") should all be worth either 4 or 5
- "Southeast Asia" includes Pakistan? why not just call this "South Asia"
- "Indonesia" includes Malaysia and the Philippines? This is the area of the world really known as Southeast Asia
- Antarctica worth 2? Scand (5), CA (6), India (7) connect to more adjacent foreign territories than Ant (4) and are actual countries with human populations, economies, and militaries...maybe the penguins are strong in Antarctica?
- divide India's territory into North India and South India
- add Sri Lanka, and connect it to South India, Malaysia, and EITHER Madagascar OR "Somalia" (to better reflect history -- the age of exploration -- as well as contemporary geopolitics and oil shipping lanes)
- make North India, South India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand a new bonus: South Asia, worth 3 or 4
- make "Iran" the (the real) Iran (which extends only to the midway point on Turkey's eastern border)
- use the leftover northern area of "Iran" and connect it Turkey to make a slightly enlarged "Turkey"
- use the leftover land from "Georgia" and use a little land from "Ufa" and "Moscow" to make Russian Caucasus (another real world area as opposed to randomly named areas)
- make Russian Caucasus part of West Russia's bonus (worth 4 or 5)
- make the new/real Iran part of a new bonus with Afghanistan and Pakistan, worth 1
- the old "Caucasus" bonus now has one less territory ("Georgia") and can be renamed Central Asia or Central Asian Republics (5 territories worth 3 or 4)
- add Yemen and Oman to make "Saudi Arabia" smaller
- combine the newly enlarged "Turkey," the smaller Saudi Arabia, Yemen-Oman, "Israel" (renamed as The Levant), and Iraq to form Middle East (5 territories worth 3 or 4)
- "Ukraine": divided to form Baltics and Ukraine
- "Italy": divided to form a smaller "Italy" and Balkans
- Poland, Balkans, Ukraine, Baltics: East Europe, worth 2
- UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain: West Europe, worth 4
- West China worth 5 (in the real world, eastern China is where the money, power, factories, officials, and the majority of the population are)
- divide "Argentina": make "Peru" and "Argentina"
- add Falkland Islands: connect to "Argentina" and Antarctica (and delete the connection between "Argentina" and Antarctica)
- divide Brazil: make Amazonian Brazil and East Brazil
- new bonus: Columbia, Venezuela, Amazonian Brazil, East Brazil (worth 3)
- new bonus "Peru", "Argentina," "Bolivia," and Falkland Islands (worth 3)

Name changes are pointless to debate IMO. It won't make the game any better. So I am ignoring those:

- add Canary Islands (to function like Hawaii) -> connect it to Cuba, Spain, and maybe Quebec
^Don't like this. it makes it too wide open IMO. You take areas that are already not very desirable (with the exception of Central America) and make them even harder to hold.

- if left unchanged, Mid East, Aust, Greenland, and Central Asia ("Caucasus") should all be worth either 4 or 5
^What does this mean? They are already all worth 4 or 5 now.

- Antarctica worth 2? Scand (5), CA (6), India (7) connect to more adjacent foreign territories than Ant (4) and are actual countries with human populations, economies, and militaries...maybe the penguins are strong in Antarctica?
^population should not enter the equation or balance will be destroyed. It would actually be worth zero if you go by that and the middle east would be worth a ton.

Not sure how I feel about your other ideas/new divisions. You really need to illustrate these graphically as it is getting hard to follow.

No, Gui, the penguins ARE strong. Fight for Mother Antarctica!