Lowering starting troop count on 1v1

[Spazm]

After playing extensively in 1v1, I think that lowering the starting troop counts would do a lot of good in evening the playing field. As the first mover, I am often able to take 1, 2 or even 3 bonuses on the first move, in addition to depriving my opponent of up to 25% of his starting troops. That is a massive advantage and pretty much means game over, outside of some very lopsided dice from there on out.

Less troops at the beginning means less opportunity to "dig in" on the first turn, and can prolong the game, which brings more maneuvering and card play into it.

 

[Incandenza]

Rather than lowering the deply bonus, we're planning on mixing in some randomly-deployedneutrals, which will both lower both player's initial deploy, and make it less of a slam dunk taking bonuses.

 

[uscg]

i agree with Spazm. i like 1 v 1 games, but the first player has the advantage, with the reasons stated above. is there any update with this?

 

[grifftron]

yea i dunno, i know i have just started today, but when i failed taking anything right after my opponent takes a bonus / card, its hard to get back from that. especially with the deployment of the troops starting so high.

 

[Badorties]

This is a top priority for us.

The current resolution is

1. 20% of the regions will be neutral
2. Round 1 bonus are fixed, Meaning, if you start with 15 regions and your op takes 5 in round 1, you still start your round 1 turn as if you had 15 regions.

This is on top of the no command bonus in round 1 thing we have in place.

 

[zspBANNED]

I think the OP is stating this after I kicked his butt 1v1

To be devil's advocate, I have been able to win a few times after going 2nd in a 1v1 game. I kinda like the challenge of going 2nd. Not sure if I like the proposed changes to 1v1...

If it's a problem, then I'd say don't play!

 

[Incandenza]

I think the OP is stating this after I kicked his butt 1v1

To be devil's advocate, I have been able to win a few times after going 2nd in a 1v1 game. I kinda like the challenge of going 2nd. Not sure if I like the proposed changes to 1v1...

If it's a problem, then I'd say don't play!

I've played quite a few 1v1s, and it's possible to win going second, but the odds aren't with you. Plus the nice thing about random neutrals is that it might take some small bonuses out of play (or at least make them harder to take), which to my mind is the real disadvantage of going second (in that you pretty much have to react to the first player, who probably took a small bonus unless their dice were garbage).

 

[Spazm]

Does "Reply with quote" lag horribly for anyone else other than me?

Anyway, to address zsp, it was after I grabbed up 3 bonuses on my first turn on the South America map, and I felt so bad I had to post this. A look at my record on 1v1 would show I don't have an issue winning with the current system.

 

[Incandenza]

Does "Reply with quote" lag horribly for anyone else other than me?

Anyway, to address zsp, it was after I grabbed up 3 bonuses on my first turn on the South America map, and I felt so bad I had to post this. A look at my record on 1v1 would show I don't have an issue winning with the current system.

Works okay for me...

And yeah, like I said above, the real kicker is when you go first and can take several bonuses... British Isles and Classic Massive are particularly brutal on that front, with their plethora of 3 and 4 terit commands.

 

[Incandenza]

This is a top priority for us.

The current resolution is

1. 20% of the regions will be neutral
2. Round 1 bonus are fixed, Meaning, if you start with 15 regions and your op takes 5 in round 1, you still start your round 1 turn as if you had 15 regions.

This is on top of the no command bonus in round 1 thing we have in place.

Good news everyone! 1v1s now incorporate the above features.

 

[grifftron]

Good news everyone! 1v1s now incorporate the above features.

very cool

 

[Spazm]

Good news everyone! 1v1s now incorporate the above features.

1. Well in the first game I played, everything seemed to work (Cold War). However in the 2nd (South America), both Chile and Peru & Ecuador had only 1 territory not controlled by my opponent, and each had my troops in there. Two bonuses were taken with the first turn.

2. My troops did not stay constant on my first turn; rather than 8 I was only awarded 6. (Game 2225) [EDIT: I think that with the lower starting territory count, the starting deploy is only 6 rather than 8. If this is true then I did in fact get a flat number of troops for round 1.]

 

[Incandenza]

1. Well in the first game I played, everything seemed to work (Cold War). However in the 2nd (South America), both Chile and Peru & Ecuador had only 1 territory not controlled by my opponent, and each had my troops in there. Two bonuses were taken with the first turn.

2. My troops did not stay constant on my first turn; rather than 8 I was only awarded 6. (Game 2225) [EDIT: I think that with the lower starting territory count, the starting deploy is only 6 rather than 8. If this is true then I did in fact get a flat number of troops for round 1.]

1. That's just a bad drop, not much that can be done about that without standardizing the drop, which would be boring

2. Yes, each player gets a lower deploy since they control fewer terits. And since I checked the game and saw this:
10/01/10 11:31:23 Spazm Acquired 6 units for 17 regions
You did indeed get the flat round 1 deploy, since otherwise you would've only dropped 5.

 

[Chilly]

For discussion:

Since it appears to me that any game with only two "teams"; be they 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, etc. has the exact same issue as was discussed some time ago in this thread with 1v1.

I would recommend that the starting deploy be fixed for 1v1, and all team games with only "two teams".

Thoughts?