Going First on Different Maps - advantages and disadvantages.

[welshmaz]

Having been playing Major Command for a few months - and really enjoying it and meeting some great people I might add - and I had a brief search for a thread to see if there was anything on this topic and couldn't see one so I thought I would write my first post.

My favorite map at the moment is Europe Massive, followed closely by the Classic Evolved, and I have started to notice that I tend to win the games that I go first and lose those that I get to go first in 1 versus 1 games.

I am currently reviewing my tactics, of course, but I was wondering whether other players have a preference of going first or second and whether they have noticed whether they tend to succeed at one or the other?

On Europe Massive, in particular, I find going second more difficult to get the same number of troops each round when playing against someone of a similar ranking, with the second turn player always around 2 or 3 troops less and then having to trying to make up ground following an assault. After a 5 or 6 rounds this is, in my mind, almost the same as the first player having extra troops for a round, which is a reasonable advantage.

Any thoughts or comments?

Thanks for reading!

 

[empirejeff]

The person going first on classic evolved should win most of the time.

 

[Bluebonnet]

There is defenite advantages to going first. However, the skill in 1v1 play is to be able to win while still going 2nd.

Search masterjskye's tournaments in the forum area : Official Majcom League. He organized several seasons of 1v1 tournaments that showed some interesting results.

 

[Shepherd]

In a 1v1 game, the player going first has the upper hand in most every map and game setting. It's still certainly possible to go second and win, but those first few rounds it feels like you're attacking up hill.

I've long held that the player who goes first should only be able to place troops, but not actually attack. That way there would be a defensive advantages to being player 1, without the unfettered movement and first access to a card.

 

[masterjskye]

Search masterjskye's tournaments in the forum area : Official Majcom League. He organized several seasons of 1v1 tournaments that showed some interesting results.

Yes, they were quite interesting results. Those stats are for Flat Rate, One, Anywhere - in a league tourney setting where you assume everyone is trying their best.

You might also want to compare them with the following recent stats which were pulled from every 1v1 game ever played on the site:

2nd Player Win %

42.8 ~ Duck & Cover
41.0 ~ NUKES!
40.3 ~ The Twelve Domains
38.9 ~ Classic MINI
38.9 ~ The British Isles
38.6 ~ USA
38.2 ~ Australia
37.8 ~ Classic Evolved
37.7 ~ Middle East
37.3 ~ Sea Of Japan
37.2 ~ Classic Antiquus
37.2 ~ Conflict Africa
36.9 ~ North America
36.8 ~ Mars
36.6 ~ Cold War Europe
36.5 ~ The Forgotten Kingdom
36.4 ~ Balkan Peninsula
36.2 ~ Philippines
36.0 ~ South America
35.9 ~ Classic Massive
35.0 ~ Far East Asia
34.6 ~ Rivals of Rome
34.5 ~ Mexican American War
29.6 ~ Europe Massive

So yeah, it's definitely nice to be first.

 

[welshmaz]

Yes I think this board is one where going first is a plus.

 

[matildathehun]

40.3 ~ The Twelve Domains

Very surprised by that. I would think it's one of the maps that should be near-dead-on 50/50. The dice have much more of an effect. I mean, hey, you can't argue with the numbers I guess. But... wow.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

Very surprised by that. I would think it's one of the maps that should be near-dead-on 50/50. The dice have much more of an effect. I mean, hey, you can't argue with the numbers I guess. But... wow.

I would also have thought that Nukes! would be closer to 50-50 than it is.

 

[empirejeff]

The top four maps are the ones I would expect to be on top of the list.

 

[welshmaz]

I like the idea of the troop placements and no attack. Not thought of that! Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[welshmaz]

In a 1v1 game, the player going first has the upper hand in most every map and game setting. It's still certainly possible to go second and win, but those first few rounds it feels like you're attacking up hill.

I've long held that the player who goes first should only be able to place troops, but not actually attack. That way there would be a defensive advantages to being player 1, without the unfettered movement and first access to a card.

Thanks for your thoughts - I had not thought about the first player not attacking. Would be a good setting.

 

[welshmaz]

Yes, they were quite interesting results. Those stats are for Flat Rate, One, Anywhere - in a league tourney setting where you assume everyone is trying their best.

You might also want to compare them with the following recent stats which were pulled from every 1v1 game ever played on the site:

2nd Player Win %

42.8 ~ Duck & Cover
41.0 ~ NUKES!
40.3 ~ The Twelve Domains
38.9 ~ Classic MINI
38.9 ~ The British Isles
38.6 ~ USA
38.2 ~ Australia
37.8 ~ Classic Evolved
37.7 ~ Middle East
37.3 ~ Sea Of Japan
37.2 ~ Classic Antiquus
37.2 ~ Conflict Africa
36.9 ~ North America
36.8 ~ Mars
36.6 ~ Cold War Europe
36.5 ~ The Forgotten Kingdom
36.4 ~ Balkan Peninsula
36.2 ~ Philippines
36.0 ~ South America
35.9 ~ Classic Massive
35.0 ~ Far East Asia
34.6 ~ Rivals of Rome
34.5 ~ Mexican American War
29.6 ~ Europe Massive

So yeah, it's definitely nice to be first.

Wow thanks very much for these statistics. Very revealing indeed.

 

[5battalions]

i consider start position a huge factor in 1 v 1 games... even if 1st to play. talking about classic evolved map.

 

[ericjkline]

I think getting the sets early is the difference in 12D and Nukes. I expect 1984 will have the worst winning percentage for 2nd player, if people play it like they should. The terts have 4 stacks, so you can attack from every tert with a full strength attack. Also, getting an opponent down to 1 troop on a superstate tert decays then. I think I could win that map 85-90% of the time going first.

 

[F15FreeEagle]

I think getting the sets early is the difference in 12D and Nukes. I expect 1984 will have the worst winning percentage for 2nd player, if people play it like they should. The terts have 4 stacks, so you can attack from every tert with a full strength attack. Also, getting an opponent down to 1 troop on a superstate tert decays then. I think I could win that map 85-90% of the time going first.

Totally agree with this, except of course when you roll a lot of "double ice" and up 2vs4 in a lot of places, like has happened to me 3 times on that map 1vs1. (1 of the reasons why I've pretty much sworn off 1vs1 now. )

 

[once]

Totally agree with this, except of course when you roll a lot of "double ice" and up 2vs4 in a lot of places

yes, that happens more often than you would think. i have played this map excessively, and while 1st turn is usually brutal here, it is seldomnly a game-ender in my opinion. you dont have to roll double ice everywhere - but whereever you do, you obviously create a disadvantage for yourself, that will be easy to exploit at no cost.
i mostly play 1vs1 and this is amongst my favourite maps for it - despite the 4s, my heart does not sink in despair when i draw second turn, i have come back plenty, and this would have to be b/c of a) me being once & b) the flexibility this map allows strategically. my only gripe is the small commands in a 2 player, and i REALLY REALLY WISH there would be some algorithm to guarantee neutral territories in commands smaller than a given number of territories, placement can end this game quicker than anything else.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

i REALLY REALLY WISH there would be some algorithm to guarantee neutral territories in commands smaller than a given number of territories, placement can end this game quicker than anything else.

Well, there is, obviously. You can't start a game with a command. But I guess you're talking about something that makes, for instance, all 4-tert commands have 2 neuts?

 

[once]

yes, something like that, 1 neutral would be enough i think, but it does happen occasionally that i will only have to take 1-2 territories from my opponent to complete a command, and this is problem if i also have first turn (same is true for australia or any of the smaller commands on classic evolved, probably all the maps). if there was at least 1 neutral in this command, i would at least have to consider whether i would want to spend my energy there. thats not a question really if this terr is held by my opponent.
i guess it gets more complicated with some other maps that have multiple mini commands.. i dont know. i just do know that to my mind this is a problem that both 1984 & classic evolved have.. maybe any command that has at least 4 terrs also gets at least 1 neutral?

 

[engineerairborne]

There is an easy solution to all of this. Make a setting were the setup of the game is not done by the computer. In a normal risk game, half the time is sent during the setup. This would eliminate the inherent advantage of the going first and start drop position. Also even in a 1v1 in normal risk there are no neutral terts. You could call it classic risk setting.

 

[riskyone]

yes, something like that, 1 neutral would be enough i think, but it does happen occasionally that i will only have to take 1-2 territories from my opponent to complete a command, and this is problem if i also have first turn (same is true for australia or any of the smaller commands on classic evolved, probably all the maps). if there was at least 1 neutral in this command, i would at least have to consider whether i would want to spend my energy there. thats not a question really if this terr is held by my opponent.
i guess it gets more complicated with some other maps that have multiple mini commands.. i dont know. i just do know that to my mind this is a problem that both 1984 & classic evolved have.. maybe any command that has at least 4 terrs also gets at least 1 neutral?

once brings up some strong points. Seams like Cards thinks there good to. It is either a big advantage or disadvantage depending on your draw.