Qi there is no such thing as "team coordination". I think you put 'team' in apostrophes because even you dont believe it. A 3 person team is one person with one plan directing 2 other peoples armies. It is no less about oneself than a 1v1. Sze demonstrates that every single game. =P

sze does enjoy being a puppet master.

Gnuffone does so more then swe though. Swe usually can't be bothered while Gnu will describe every singular move order in detail

just wanted to add 2 cents: the 5v5, 6vs6 and 7v7 have some interest because it grows further out of the one leader controlling everything and more down to folks helping each other out, covering the map well, supporting each other, knowing when they are more useful sacrificing themselfs. so i can't really agree with that chart, even if it does look like a boob as Gui pointed out. But yeah, i agree most of those games are won more pickings lottery then actual skill, but i still woulnd't paint such a dark scenario as some of you do.

On a 7v7 is required less skill.
picking lotery often decide match.

Gnuffone: If 7v7 requires less skill than a 3v3, why doesn't a 3v3 require less skill than a 1v1. The picks you get are a lottery in 3v3 europe.

LOL
i take your post as a joke...

---

in 7v7 there are less spot for eash player
and the best place are < number of player
so if there are for example 3 best bonus and 14 player, who take 2 of it might have a greeat ahead.
in 3v3 eu ISN'T a lottery.

I think it is more the total number of picks that is the problem. On the 3v3 Euro template that is in vogue, there are 24 total picks. Maybe with the first picks there can be some skill, but there is absolutely no science to deciding which pick should be your 20th and which your 21st. Sometimes you end up with a combination of 4 that work terribly together.

So, a 7v7 with one pick each should be less of a "lottery" than Gnuff's 3v3 Euro games.

more armies (income) pumped into a map = less subtlety needed to play efficiently/smoothly and with good tactics and strategies

this is why I prefer no reinforcement cards and bonus ratios closer to .6 than to 1.0

give an idiot a big income and he'll do some things right. give an idiot a low income and he'll make more mistakes because every army lost or gained matters. this is why idiots love big maps so much and better players play more games on maps of 100 to 300 territories. only eastern asia provides something both general types of players like.

6v6 or 7v7: mismatches/tagteaming/gangbanging are too common. how can you make long-term strategic plans if a second third or fourth enemy pops out of nowhere? with 3v3s this element is limited and is a stabler variable in long-term planning. this added stability makes abbig difference.

X, i don't agree. rarely i get a pick over 18
also i agree with what gui say.

I'm not joking.

I'm assuming you wouldnt play a 7v7 on the same size map as a 3v3. So no, there wouldnt be less spots for each player.

3v3 euro is a lottery. In a 1v1 you can plan a strategy for each combination of your picks. In 3v3 euro you cannot, because the number of combinations is too high. With 9or12 picks per team across the same 24 territories, you can ensure that your team gets a few combos/key territories, but the majority of the picks will be totally unpredictably allocated.

3v3 games lack the subtlety of needing a picking strategy (beyond contesting easy to complete bonuses) and it doesnt require attention to detail in make a plan from turn 0 that you spend the next 20 turns playing out.

I would like to see a game that proves me wrong.

i agree with x . that is why 3v3 europe cities is a more reliable game. the picking options aren't so limited and it is easier to ensure you get something you actually want. too bad there isn't an option that has 2 warlords for every bonus instead of 1 to get the best attributes of both warlords and cities.

Oh, there were 4 replies while I was typing, and x said it better than me anyway. My last post was for gnuffone.

"how can you make long-term strategic plans if a second third or fourth enemy pops out of nowhere?" Your plan is try to stall and harass them for as long as possible, and if the bonus values are small your base income is important to the team, so stay alive.

"rarely I get a pick over 18" anyone on your team getting a pick above 10 makes planning quite irrelevant.

dead, euro 3v3 cities enables more picking strategies than warlords. warlords is a crap shoot. why should i be satisfied with regularly getting my 12th to 20th pick? this is the same problem the 2v2 ladder has. too many games are decided by superior positioning determined by pick lottery and the lack of options (more picks, more warlords to pick from) to counterbalance this.

Some people do play warlight for fun guys not just to find their skill that's why i feel so offended when GUI says people who play on large maps are fools since i play on them for fun.(I can play on anymap however large maps need less skill but bigger teams don't necessarily mean less skill).

Gui said idiots not fools.

"euro 3v3 cities enables more picking strategies than warlords." Yeah, my favourite is a first turn poland. I dont think it is sophisticated, and is based on guessing and countering your opponent/picking something cheesy.

I dont see players getting good from all the team games they play, I certainly didnt. Its not coincidence that the best 3v3 players all played 1v1 me at a high level first. 1v1 pushes and teaches better than anything else because it requires more from a player than anything else.

myhand and I played over 1000 team games before we tried learning 1v1 me. sze mastered team games before 1v1 me.

i become good before on teamgames and after on 1v1 ME