Firstly just wanted to say a thank you to those of you that continue to think about improving the game from the player pov, and those of you that keep bringing new ideas. Keep it up.
While I'm not against the idea of change, randomising or reshuffling the regions would make little difference imo because to state the obvious, I believe the server outcome is fundamentally determined by the team you have, the opposition you play against and TGs in game management of issues.
Premade teams will always have the advantage over non-premades due to experience, trust, communication and co-ordination. As a founding member of the Twelve Monkeys (TM) and Bedlam alliances, the same core team has played all the special servers to date. We've won and lost with and without the "Epidaurum/Delphi/Sparta/Philippopolis super-center". Geography has played a part yes, but it comes down to how effectively the team executes their strategy and maintains momentum and activity for the duration of the server.
The pressure to conquer Pictavium and Epidaurum for small boots in the early game has started to feel a little predictable, even if it does lead to the excitement of early fighting, so yes there's reason to review new strategic alternatives.
I think reviewing the artefacts themselves would be interesting. The regional servers are very different from the traditional WW servers and yet the artefacts remain the same. I like the idea of variables on artefacts as suggested, be that capacity, speed, build time or unit cost. Imagine if small trainer either allows cheaper troops or faster build time. Would make for a more versatile and sought after artefact in the early game. There needs to be more balance to small boots in the early game imo.
Food for thought.
aka Monkey Nuts