Bug in the Classic 1 v 1

[rawrubtan]

The 1 v 1 Classic Evolved is supposed to give the first player only three troops.

BUT if the first player skips his turn he is given six troops for the first turn.

Here is proof. Can you fix this please?


07/18/20 20:45:38 MajorTom83 Player Icon MajorTom83 Turn Ended
07/18/20 20:45:38 MajorTom83 Player Icon MajorTom83 Skipping turn - given 6 deferred units for 20 regions
07/18/20 20:41:07 Game on!
--ROUND 1--
Loading game log...

 

[Hortik]

It is supped to give 3 troops only if you play with the new rules (in description, follow must be written: <b>NEW RULES: HALF TROOPS FOR 1ST PLAYER</b>)

 

[brianstheman]

The 1 v 1 Classic Evolved is supposed to give the first player only three troops.

BUT if the first player skips his turn he is given six troops for the first turn.

Here is proof. Can you fix this please?


07/18/20 20:45:38 MajorTom83 Player Icon MajorTom83 Turn Ended
07/18/20 20:45:38 MajorTom83 Player Icon MajorTom83 Skipping turn - given 6 deferred units for 20 regions
07/18/20 20:41:07 Game on!
--ROUND 1--
Loading game log...

Player 1 is given 6 deferred troops in the "New Rules" games when missing first turn. Based on the below, I believe full complement of deferred troops is an appropriate action.

In effect, player 2 (Rawrubtan) became player 1.

On larger maps, from a strategic point of view, I believe P2 would have a stronger than usual first turn advantage. Given that P2 gets to go first, and potentially reduced P1's deploy for his first actual turn:

Example:
P1 skips (therefore cannot gain a command or make any strategic move that P2 must react to)
P2 takes a command, reducing P1's deploy for upcoming round to 5
P1 now has 1 less troop to break the command

I played a series of 1v1 games with an excellent player named Dalinar, where P1 would skip turn, P2 makes first move, then P1 makes move and deploys the deferred troops at end of turn. Overall, in 15 games on a variety of maps, our results were about evenly split. It's not a large enough sample size to make grand conclusions from, but I think it points to neither player having a substantial edge when P1 skips and is given full deferred troops, which is the same purpose and intent of the "New Rules" games.

Might not be an easy search for admin to execute to see results from all MajCom games - there would have to be a search of games where P1 misses first turn, and then neither player misses any subsequent turn, and I'm not sure the database holds all round data.

Rawrubtan, what is your win/loss percentage in games where P1 misses, then neither player misses any subsequent turn, and how does it compare to your overall win percentage from P1/P2 position. In my own games, the effect of a full set of deferred troops seemed negligible in contributing to either player's win pct. If in the broader sample, full deferred troop complement does not lead to substantial win % increase for P1, then reducing deferred troop count would create a larger advantage for P2, and thus countermand the "New Rules" purpose of giving each player an approximately even chance at winning.

 

[rawrubtan]

Hi Brian. Your answer has me a bit confused. If something is a rule. Then it applies to the topic it was created to address. What my winning percentage or your winning percentage has to do with whether people are getting 6 troops for round one when the rule says they deserve 3 is irrelevant.

So basically, your rule can be easily circumvented by skipping a turn. OK. Got it.

Thanks for the response. I think you are the first opponent I had when I joined the site. Nice to hear from you.

 

[brianstheman]

Hi Brian. Your answer has me a bit confused. If something is a rule. Then it applies to the topic it was created to address. What my winning percentage or your winning percentage has to do with whether people are getting 6 troops for round one when the rule says they deserve 3 is irrelevant.

So basically, your rule can be easily circumvented by skipping a turn. OK. Got it.

Thanks for the response. I think you are the first opponent I had when I joined the site. Nice to hear from you.

Amigo....the "New Rules" were created to even out first player advantage. It has been well documented HERE that P1 under traditional settings has a nearly 2:1 advantage.

The "New Rules" goal was to bring closer to equilibrium the odds of winning for both Player1 and Player2 in a 1v1 setting.

My point above is, if P1 skips turn, and gets full deferred troops, in my experience (over a decent but not extensive sample), P1 does not enjoy the same 2:1 statistical edge normally experienced.

So, if the goal is for the "New Rules" to bring winning % close to equilibrium for P1 & P2, .....and P1 skipping while getting a full complement of deferred troops results in win % close to equilibrium......then no change should be made.

The goal of the "New Rules" is to prevent a decided advantage for either player.

 

[rawrubtan]

Got it Brian. Thanks for expanding. I now totally understand the logic. Thanks again for responding.

Hey BTW we are now together in a 12 man 12 kingdoms game and I want to state for the record that despite the fact I like ya, I plan on feeding your carcass to my sword!

 

[brianstheman]

Maybe.....you are close to the player weakest in troops there.....but also to the player strongest in troops....
https://www.majorcommand.com/games/528140/

From a strategic perspective, you will have a difficult time getting a card this coming round, and will be vulnerable once you do, as the barricade to your keep will be down. If you can overcome both your adversaries and neutrals, I'll surely be ripe pickings!