an option to reduce the 1st to play advantage in most 1 x 1 games !?!

[SgtPatton]

extra account was mentioned to test the server...as you can see I made it obvious... 'bilsi-tester'...Would never use it for anything else...

Bilsi, with 1 account you could set up 1x1 tournaments in advance. Instead of the hassle you have now waiting for people to set up their game you could set do the set- up then invite the 2 active tournament players then go AWOL.

Same with 2x2 tournaments you could set up all of the Round One matches with 2 teams of 2 players and you and yourself being one team and you both go AWOL.

You'd have more control over keeping the tournament flowing and tracking how the games are going and how they end. You'd know from day 1 for each match what the url is.

The only flaw would be if an interloper jumped in before the designated players were all in.

Something to ponder.

I'm willing to work with you this fall on setting up a 1x1 tournament and a 2x2 tournament using AWOL's as a tournament device.

 

[bilsi]

Bilsi, with 1 account you could set up 1x1 tournaments in advance. Instead of the hassle you have now waiting for people to set up their game you could set do the set- up then invite the 2 active tournament players then go AWOL.

Same with 2x2 tournaments you could set up all of the Round One matches with 2 teams of 2 players and you and yourself being one team and you both go AWOL.

You'd have more control over keeping the tournament flowing and tracking how the games are going and how they end. You'd know from day 1 for each match what the url is.

The only flaw would be if an interloper jumped in before the designated players were all in.

Something to ponder.

I'm willing to work with you this fall on setting up a 1x1 tournament and a 2x2 tournament using AWOL's as a tournament device.

Don't get it...I set up a 1vs1, invite 2 players. I can wait for 1 then leave the game hoping the 2nd player joins quick...Or I have to set up a 1vs1vs1 then still hope the 2 players get in...Then I go awol but I have starting points and troops...guess thwy are treated as neutrals....
tell me where I'm wrong.

 

[bilsi]

Don't get it...I set up a 1vs1, invite 2 players. I can wait for 1 then leave the game hoping the 2nd player joins quick...Or I have to set up a 1vs1vs1 then still hope the 2 players get in...Then I go awol but I have starting points and troops...guess thwy are treated as neutrals....
tell me where I'm wrong.

2vs2 the same

 

[SgtPatton]

Don't get it...I set up a 1vs1, invite 2 players. I can wait for 1 then leave the game hoping the 2nd player joins quick...Or I have to set up a 1vs1vs1 then still hope the 2 players get in...Then I go awol but I have starting points and troops...guess thwy are treated as neutrals....
tell me where I'm wrong.

as the awaiting games works now, interlopers will happen either way and may be a bit less likely to happen with 1x1 as there is only 1 opening to be quickly filled vs 2 for the AWOL approach. The AWOL player stays in the game, that is, they don't bail before the match starts.

The designated AWOL player stays in and when the game launches, assuming both of the desired active players made it into the match before an interloper jumps in, the Neutral player goes AWOL, not taking their turn, not placing troops, not attacking any other tert or player.

During the 1st round, once launched, the 2 active players do not attack each other. They can and probably will attack the Neutral player to gain a card and for strategic purposes. As well they use the end of their turn placement to prepare for the battle between the 2 active players that will begin in round 2.

I've been running a few beta trials and it is definitely a game changer ... and it does appear to reduce the 1st to play advantage.

Want to give it a try? I can set up a match and let you know the URL. You join and when a 3rd player joins the game will begin and I will go AWOL to leave you and the other player to begin the battle. Ideally the other player is someone who knows the game set up or at best is not the 1st to play ... and reads the comments where I'll add the AWOL game setup.

It is one way for you, as a tournament creator, to set up each match and to be able to monitor each match and the outcome. You create each game and send the URL to the 2 desired opponents and hope they respond and join quickly before and interloper jumps in.

Let me know if you want to give this a try for a game or two to get the feel for this format. Ideally a volunteer to be the 3rd player would help reduce the chance of an interloper.

<< any volunteers to give this a try? with 3 or more players, we could even run it as a small scale tournament >>

 

[bilsi]

as the awaiting games works now, interlopers will happen either way and may be a bit less likely to happen with 1x1 as there is only 1 opening to be quickly filled vs 2 for the AWOL approach. The AWOL player stays in the game, that is, they don't bail before the match starts.

The designated AWOL player stays in and when the game launches, assuming both of the desired active players made it into the match before an interloper jumps in, the Neutral player goes AWOL, not taking their turn, not placing troops, not attacking any other tert or player.

During the 1st round, once launched, the 2 active players do not attack each other. They can and probably will attack the Neutral player to gain a card and for strategic purposes. As well they use the end of their turn placement to prepare for the battle between the 2 active players that will begin in round 2.

I've been running a few beta trials and it is definitely a game changer ... and it does appear to reduce the 1st to play advantage.

Want to give it a try? I can set up a match and let you know the URL. You join and when a 3rd player joins the game will begin and I will go AWOL to leave you and the other player to begin the battle. Ideally the other player is someone who knows the game set up or at best is not the 1st to play ... and reads the comments where I'll add the AWOL game setup.

It is one way for you, as a tournament creator, to set up each match and to be able to monitor each match and the outcome. You create each game and send the URL to the 2 desired opponents and hope they respond and join quickly before and interloper jumps in.

Let me know if you want to give this a try for a game or two to get the feel for this format. Ideally a volunteer to be the 3rd player would help reduce the chance of an interloper.

<< any volunteers to give this a try? with 3 or more players, we could even run it as a small scale tournament >>

We'll try it out when these tourneys are done. I have zero time right now...dealing with a cry baby right now, not fun.

 

[SgtPatton]

gg, gap. This turned into quite an extended see-saw battle. The jury is still out on if the 1x1+1 approach helps level the field on the 1st to play advantage. But it definitely changes the dynamics of the battle. Though 1st to play, the battle lasted 20 rounds, see-sawing back and forth. In the end it was the luck of the dice and the luck of the timing of the bonus sets that finally swayed the tide.

I like it. It adds spice and variety to the game.

> https://www.majorcommand.com/beta/52268

note: this is a variation. the idea is that the neutral player would go AWOL, it is slower for the first few rounds but faster after round 3 or 4. In this match mnatt chose to be a neutral, non-aggressor observer rather than go AWOL. The outcome will be the same.

 

[OverYourDeadBody-Sure]

Why not do the initial drop by bonus area, rather than by the entire map? It would be like dealing cards to each player for the first bonus area, then start with the next player for the second bonus zone. The neutrals get dropped in as needed.

I recently played a game where the opponent only needed one tert and went first. That one tert was occupied by me. Oh, and there were neutrals outside all the entrances to the bonus area.

With this suggestion, no player would ever start with an initial bonus (unless there are bonuses for single terts, in which case I suggest they be occupied by neutrals).

It makes sense to drop anywhere on a map if there are no bonus area. But once bonus areas are introduced, it seems like they should become drop areas. \

jmo