3v3 low luck manual placement strategy explanation.

If all you want is a list of why it's better to cover the map than to cluster pick in one location, skip to the numbered list. These paragraphs explain the problem.

All warlight veterans have seen it before. Their kindly noob teammate picks all of their territories in one corner of the map and cannot be talked into changing their orders. The kindly noob is no idiot. He knows that history is strewn with examples of armies that have split their troops and been decimated by divide-and-conquer strategies. What's more, thinks the kindly noob, there is proof that these real life lessons can be transferred to warlight. He TRIED a game where he placed in both macedonia and partha, and he was crushed by two enemies at once!

And so the noob places in only one place. The veteran spreads out. Maybe the veteran fights multiple enemies while the kindly noob grows, but noob's growth is too slow, the veteran is eliminated, and the noob cannot stand alone. The game is lost. The noob thinks it's because the veteran spread out too much. Exposed himself. Weakened himself. The veteran thinks it is at least partly, if not entirely, the fault of the kindly noob, but there is convincing the noob. The noob has seen further proof that his way is the correct way.


I'm writing this to convince everybody that the veteran is correct. Here is why spreading is better.


0. Compare win percentages and play styles. People who spread out win more. But why?

1. Access to open spaces
Some places on the map will probably have room to expand. If your team spread out more, your team has a better idea of where these places are and are better positioned to take advantage of them. Uncontested land = no large army at border = more army to fight with

2. Denying access to open spaces
The flip-side of #1. A team that spreads out prevents the other team from having large patches of uncontested land. NO, we will not give you illyricum for free.

3. Access to enemy bonuses
This goes hand in hand with #2. If you aren't giving the enemy free room to expand, you ARE all up in their business, threatening to wreck their bonuses. The player who is only in Great Britain will lose to the player who is in Britain+Germany because the Britain+Germany player can mess up Britain bonuses, but the Britain player cannot mess up Germany bonuses.

4. Access to multiple enemies (if you're fighting vs 2, be thankful that you spread out)
This is probably the most important one yet. Kindly noobs think that being near multiple enemies is a terrible thing. If you're near two enemies, how can you hope to do well? But here's the thing. If you're near two enemies and your team spread out, then somebody on your team will be able to attack the people who are attacking you. Meanwhile, you get to slow down TWO enemies while one of your teammates grows like crazy.

5. Access to multiple enemies (if you're not fighting ANYONE, be thankful that you spread out)
Suppose your ally is fighting 2 enemies and you aren't fighting anybody. Well hopefully you're not ONLY in one corner of the map, because by the time you get middle-map, you might be the only person left on your team. Put simply, you never know who will be the powerful player on your team. But if your team spreads out, then you KNOW that your powerful player will be in position to pulverize the enemy... rather than arriving 4 turns too late.

6. Choosing your battles
A team that spreads out more will have a good idea of where each player is on the map, and they will be able to decide who should fight whom. Maybe if players 1&2 gang up on player B, you get a huge portion of the map, and then player C will be no match for 1&2 combined. A thinking team may let one enemy grow (especially if they're only in a corner and aren't an immediate threat) to beat down one enemy and clear out a part of the map. Yes, partha is important. Yet I've won at least a dozen games by giving up partha to help my team win the rest of the map. Spoiler alert: the rest of the map beats partha. Too bad the enemy noob in partha didn't spread out and give himself access to my friend's bonuses.



Those are some of the general reasons for spreading out rather than clusterpicking. So what about the kindly noob from the beginning of this post, the player that thinks his team lost BECAUSE the veteran spread out? It's probably more likely that the reason their team lost is because the noob didn't spread out. So the noob left the enemy large amounts of open land (#1). (this is probably why the vet was taken out so easily, his enemies had uncontested bonuses). The other team got to choose who fought against who (#6) because the noob COULDNT join the fight. Because the noob had no access to enemy bonuses (#3), he was unable to come to help soon enough. (#5).

So seriously, folks. This is a major playstyle difference separating noobs from vets.
Increase your options. Decrease your enemy's options. Spread out.

Great post! I learned those lessons the hard way. It's good that other people will be able to read this and skip a lot of trial and error.

You can apply this to most templates, it doesn't apply in instances where the total number of picks, or territories will lead to a "fruit salad" effect with you and your team mates unable to expand sufficiently because you are blocking each other. In that case you do all need to pick one area each, but make sure that you communicate so that between you, you cover the whole map.

[Edit] Also: I don't think it's only the WarLight Masters who do this... I've observed many clans, and unaffiliated people do the same! [/Edit]

Edited 12/27/2014 06:28:04

I spread out, and I openly aknlolege that I am crap at warlight (and spelling). But you are right, although the individual map and number of players also need to be taken into account.

nice lesson Bottleneck.. Funny though, you have blacklisted me for resigning from a very such game where the kindly noob planted 5 picks in Africa and another kinder noob did the same in Partha, leaving the whole wide map for me to cover.

So I call bollocks on your sermon. You love having kindly noobs on your team.

I though for games with 2 teams on maps that don't loop back around, it's best to either spread out around the edge or all of the team start close in the middle.

all thats needed for a newby to learn in Rise of Rome map is here.

that's true and depending what games you are playing like in 2vs2, i personally would spread out and i would try get my team mate to spread aswell, but in 3vs3 or 4vs4 i would sometimes go in just one bonus, like Germania i have chosen to go all in there to try get the first turn mega bonus, and i sometimes put my 5 picks in Africa, As it is long and takes ages to take.


I agree with you in some points, but there is not always anything wrong going in all 1 bonus.
The bonuses i would choose not to go all in is Macedonia, UK and Illyricium.

99% of time cover map > cluster one areas.
The easiest reason to say, is that if someone coutner your areas, you will not be able to make a bonus for the entire game.

Pfft... many questionable statements in this thread:

The kindly noob is no idiot.
Well 'idiot' is an insult but let's put it this way: The Rise of Rome map is a very open map so having an opponent in your 'income area' has a devastating effect. If you put all picks in this map into one place you obviously lack most basic game understanding. And yes, there are some players keep repeating their stuff even after getting crushed multiple times...

i would sometimes go in just one bonus, like Germania i have chosen to go all in there to try get the first turn mega bonus
OK, so I guess that meanst that you play with non standard settings (less neutrals or more armies) that let you take Germania with 5 picks first turn and you play against opponents that let you take a first turn megabonus.

Edited 12/28/2014 12:43:20

map coverage and positioning is everything.

This does not only apply to rome, but Europe, and practically every single more or less balanced map in teamgames. there are exceptions (similar to how triple pick, very rarely but can be a dominant strategy in 1v1 strat) but generally the original post is correct.

This does not only apply to rome

Why exactly? One would think it's even more important when there are superbonuses on the map.

I imagine spreading out wouldn't work out as well in cramped spaces, where there aren't as many neutral territories (or a lack thereof).

But then again, I win around a fifth of my games. :(

This does not only apply to rome

Why exactly? One would think it's even more important when there are superbonuses on the map.

Please read what I wrote once again but with understanding.

In other words - This does apply to more than just rome. This applies to Rome and to vast majority, if not all other strategic templates.

and by the way - of course superbonusses make map coverage even more important.

Kacyk? :)

Może trochę, jakoś nie zauważyłem słowa "only" :)

AWOL, a strong player, posted what he says are a couple of exceptions on the Rise of Rome Map, times when it works to place in only one superbonus. Below, I argue that his examples actually help make my point about the importance of spreading out.

1. AWOL said it sometimes works for him to place only in Germany to take Magna Germania on turn one. That would make him a very dangerous player. So what would be the best way to counter this strategy? Spreading out. If the other team is spread out so that at least one pick is in Germany, AWOL doesn't get his magna germania, and AWOL will be unable to quickly attack the bonuses of the player who is in Germany with him. The spread out team should win here. I'd say the lesson here is that NOT spreading can only work if the enemy is too noob to spread out themselves. AWOL's strat is high-reward, but at a very high risk.

2. AWOL also said he sometimes places only in Africa. This one is more interesting to me. I actually agree: placing only in Africa often works very well. But the reason it can work to place only in Africa is that Africa is ALREADY SPREAD OUT. If you are on both sides of Africa, you can mess up the enemy in Spain, Macedonia, Italy, and Asia, and you're within striking distance of partha and gallia. So... choosing only in Africa isn't an example of not spreading out. Done properly, it's an example of being able to spread out while still being within one superbonus. Of course, my personal preference is to spread a little more than that. When I go Africa, I like to have one pick in spain to foil the enemies' trite plans.

The above principles are indeed quite good for team games. I would highly disagree for FFA games though. In the dynamic of an FFA game, one would want to spread out as little as one can because unlike the team games, one cannot help a team mate in trouble because there are no team mates. In the FFA game, then it is likely to be true that the opponents will easily gang up on the person spread out thus crushing him on all fronts.

It is true that in general spreading out is better but what I found is that 2 or so is often enough as long as they are far away such as Macedonia and Spain. As long as the ability to reach more bonuses is available, then one does not need to pick multiple places. Because I have the ability to interfere with multiple places, it counts for spreading out. Likewise, when someone picks 2 bonuses that are really close together like Partha and Asia, then the opponent is often not spread out enough. Spreading out totally such as 1 pick in Partha, 1 pick in Macedonia, 1 pick in Spain, 1 pick in Britan and 1 pick in Italy is not something that I would recommend since now, it is likely that at least 3 players will destroy you. Also, one is not likely to be able to finish many bonuses as well as the fact that it is now certain that the opponent will easily get rid of at least 1 of those bonuses. It must be taken into account that spreading out more will mean taking certain bonuses less quickly. In the previous example, one would need at least 5 turns to get the smallest of those and at least 9 or so to get the largest if the person focused on those. In that kind of time, one can easily reach from say Macedonia all the way to spain and thus would be able to totally screw this strategy over. When one puts 2 or so picks in each place or maybe 2 and 3 for 2 bonuses, one has a good balance of taking over the bonus quickly as well as being able to interfere with multiple other bonuses. For 3 bonuses, one often does 2 in 2 of the bonuses and 1 in the other. In this case, all the players must do 3 places or as many as they can else the opponents will easily crush the one person doing 3. It is not always true that the player who concentrates cannot expand quickly. In places like Illyricum, one can quickly spread out.

I have found that sometimes, players like to actually split bonuses such as Partha empire or Africa. This works too as the important part is that the players can quickly help each other. That is often as important as spreading out although this does mean that spreading out is necessary. I have found that is not always important spread out a lot but a bit will always be needed. The number of neutral armies that are on territories at the beginning of the game can also affect what one needs to do at the start. If say 10 armies were on each neutral army, then if is likely to be the case that one must not spread out lest they be unable to take any bonuses in time since it will take a really long time to finish the first. Likewise, if armies did not exist on the neutral territories, then one can often take a bonus of 4 or 5 on the first turn which means a lot of spreading out.

I think the biggest factor that will determine how good a player is, is their skill at predicting what an opponent will do. This can be on par with spreading out. Players that are very predictable are often easy to exploit. For example, Putt4Eagle often likes to attack everywhere with 2 armies and will always start in Brittan and Germany. This is bad in that if someone one the other team chooses Germany and a different player chooses Brittan then Putt4Eagle would get nowhere. Also, one can easily deploy one army to every 2 army and be sure that he will waste armies trying to get territories that one can easily defend.

Edited 1/2/2015 14:34:22

The people I see doing an "all-in" on a single bonus successfully, tend to be much more experienced players, generally in africa, who are able to make much better usage of their higher concentration of initial standing armies in one spot, to push an opponent out quickly

at least, that's what i tend to see

i also see a lot of really good players who do not focus on their own megabonuses, the priority seeming to be on breaking the opponent's bonuses, related to this, map coverage for being able to help eachother out, seems to be key for most higher level games i have seen

expansion has to be balanced with attacking the opponent, there is no point to taking a bonus if you will lose another one because you diverted the armies used. it is a different matter though if you are already losing on a front, i think

i'm not one of the best, but those are just some things i noticed

Edited 1/2/2015 14:48:32

I would highly disagree for FFA games though. In the dynamic of an FFA game, one would want to spread out as little as one can because unlike the team games, one cannot help a team mate in trouble because there are no team mates. In the FFA game, then it is likely to be true that the opponents will easily gang up on the person spread out thus crushing him on all fronts.

Happens... but how do you make peace with another player if both you and your opponent clustered UK? OK, maybe you are a good player capable of crushing the other UK guy... but will you crush him fast enough to keep paste with the player freely expanding in France in the meantime?

If you have 5 picks then you believe that you should put them all into UK and no single other pick as a backup plan case two other opponents decided to cluster UK?

Happens... but how do you make peace with another player if both you and your opponent clustered UK? OK, maybe you are a good player capable of crushing the other UK guy... but will you crush him fast enough to keep paste with the player freely expanding in France in the meantime?

If you have 5 picks then you believe that you should put them all into UK and no single other pick as a backup plan case two other opponents decided to cluster UK?


^ with regards to the above i think it depends. if there are not very many players, then yes, spreading out more will help.

but what if there are a lot of players? wouldn't you run the risk of spreading out more, and fighting more people? bonuses only help you if you can keep them safe, no?

Mayoo has pointed out that my descriptions are for team games, not for FFA. I agree. I actually stated in the first line of my original post that I was thinking 3v3.

Then Mayoo went on to explain some limits to the idea of spreading out. Again, I agree with Mayoo. Putting 2 picks in macedonia, 2 in spain, one in roma, for example, is (for 3v3 or 4v4) probably better than 5 picks in different places. This is true because, if you have already spread out a good amount (3 megabonuses) then you get most of the benefits of spreading out. Spreading out even more would only benefit a little, and these benefits are outweighed by the benefit of
1) being able to finish large bonuses on first turn by placing 2 picks close
2) being able to finish megabonuses quickly (such as macedonia in 5 turns)

I like to make games with 5 start territories, and usually have my picks in 3 or 4 places within 2 or 3 megabonuses. Not 5 picks each in a different megabonus.