It's a topic that hasn't been discussed very much in depth so I've looked into it to try to understand it as best as I can. Major credit goes to Farah, TBest, MarkusBM, Platinum, Wick, Gnuffone and Jaymer along with some other insightful players for helping me understand how the picking phase works based off previous forum threads.

The discussion over mirroring picks vs. spreading picks in Warzone is something I've found confusing, especially since my friends like to mirror cities on my favorite map, Rise of Rome (A map where full mirroring honestly doesn't make that much sense and yet I've been conditioned to do it anyway xD).

Based on my understanding from forum threads, mirroring picks can be both an advantage and a disadvantage, depending on game settings, team coordination, and the opponent's strategy.

To really analyze this we need to understand Warzone’s ABBAABBA picking system. Each player is assigned a priority number which determines the order in which they receive their picks. The highest priority player (Player A) gets their first pick, then the second player (Player B) gets their first and second picks before Player A gets their second pick.

This also means Player B wins their 2nd and 3rd picks in situations where players A and B are picking the exact same spots in the same order. Sometimes this can lead to weird situations where a player wins a pick further down their picking order than the other player.

This cycle repeats in the ABBAABBA order, meaning that when two players pick the same spots, the lower priority player is forced to move further down their list. How this affects a team's final distribution can seem a bit confusing, especially when there are many players fighting for the same picks.

When mirroring is nice:

Mirroring works well when the territory is extremely important for a team to win and helps ensure that at least one teammate can be lucky enough to secure it.

On the 3v3 ladder competitive teams often use full mirroring because the map is slightly unbalanced and control over certain regions is more essential. For example, securing Iceland + Ireland on can be crucial due to their positioning and income. Mirroring also helps with team coordination since it makes a team's distribution more predictable.

When it's not so nice:

The biggest downside of mirroring is that it can waste multiple picks on the same territory, especially when the enemy team spreads their picks efficiently. If each opponent prioritizes a different city, they are more likely to win more total cities uncontested because every player gets their highest available pick first. This means players avoid contesting the same city against each other and instead secure more cities overall, while the mirroring team ends up competing with their own teammates for the same locations because only one of them can win the spot they're aiming for while the others teammates move to lower picks.

For example:

Team A Mirrors: (Ctesiphon → Roma → Carthago)
Team B Spreads:
Player 1 prioritizes Ctesiphon
Player 2 prioritizes Roma
Player 3 prioritizes Alexandria

The result is that team B wins more cities because Team A wasted picks on the same contested areas.

Mirroring can also result in poorly scattered distribution or weak positioning, especially if the team is not selecting other potential picks logically. Depending on the template it can often lead to situations where players of a same team end up awkwardly sharing the same super bonus which I often see in my RoR games.

A partial mirroring strategy (where all teammates pick the same first pick but switch their next picks) can also be an option, but I'm not sure how useful it is. But the idea is just to maximize the chances of winning a key territory while still allowing some leeway for teammates to cover specific areas efficiently based off the rest of their picks.

Example in Rise of Rome of partial mirroring:

Everyone in Team A picks Ctesiphon first but varies their next picks.
Everyone in Team B picks different cities as their first picks.

The result is that Team A increases their chances of securing Ctesiphon, while trying to maintain broader coverage. This is not necessarily a good idea but it's an example I guess. :D

So my understanding is that mirroring is effective in conditions when a specific place is a must have for the team, when the enemy team is also mirroring making outcomes more predictable, or when the map rewards regional control like in Europe.

But mirroring is a disadvantage when the enemy team spreads their picks better and wins more key territories, when the map rewards rapid expansion over securing a specific spot, and when it leads to a sloppy distribution.

Then of course there's the option of partial mirroring which can help a team win a territory while maintaining some level of flexibility.

But it's all ultimately very situational and in most templates I think mirroring is probably not all that necessary unless there is some kind of imbalance that needs to be considered.

I know this is a lot to read and it's funny I typed all this and I could be wrong about some things but I thought a good discussion about it could be fun and useful! Besides I know that many people would find this information very useful, if it's correct. I would really love to know if others can add input or correct me if I'm wrong about anything!

Some threads I found very useful and fun to read:

https://www.warzone.com/Forum/168121-harms-benefits-mirror-picking
https://www.warzone.com/Forum/169830-2v2-ladder-mirror-picking-dominates
https://www.warzone.com/Forum/6758-quick-2v2-noob-question

Edited 2/24/2025 02:40:20

You are wrong about thinking that mirroring team gets less important spots just because their picks overlap with each other. You should be quick to realise that it’s not how the ABBAABBA works.
Overall, as you said mirror picking is great for something of the high value to be maximised in terms of probability. The issue is that it gets hard to coordinate what each of your player gets and for some templates that’s very important. Then you have to get creative and use all sorts of methods.

Team A Mirrors: (Ctesiphon → Roma → Carthago)
Team B Spreads:
Player 1 prioritizes Ctesiphon
Player 2 prioritizes Roma
Player 3 prioritizes Alexandria

The result is that team B wins more cities because Team A wasted picks on the same contested areas.

What is your understanding the outcome will be here, given various possible move orders? As Rufus has pointed out, what you have pointed out as biggest downside is no downside at all.

Isn’t the main advantage of mirroring picks the ability to know what the turn order is? Any picks you don’t receive acts as great intel. You know where opponents are and know how to threaten their income. Need enough of an advantage from picks to create a threat.

What a long post!

Anyway, in team games, I almost always mirror at least some picks, but not necessarily all.

Advantages of mirroring:
- You contest important territories more efficiently.
- You usually get more intel about turn order.

Disadvantages of mirroring:
- Some ftb's require double picks.
- Coordinating within team gets harder on who gets what. This may mean that even if the team's picks are geographically well balanced, one teammate may get all picks in the west, the other one all in the east. This is particularly bad if there is no gift card.

Isn’t the main advantage of mirroring picks the ability to know what the turn order is?

Not really. The biggest advantage is exactly the thing which the opening post classified as biggest disadvantage. You get the good stuff.

Edited 2/24/2025 19:04:02

Sorry for the mistakes lol I had a feeling I was wrong about some of this, and thanks Rufus and others your input was useful

Edited 2/25/2025 04:17:39