New 1 vs 1

[Spazm]

After playing in the new style of the 1v1 (large # of neutrals) I think that the # of neutral territories should be cut back. Quite often what occurs is that the neutrals create a buffer zone between you and your opponent, allowing for even larger first mover advantage (take a bonus, plus have neutrals on all your borders!) It also cuts off the line of attack between you and your opponent in many games I play, making it nigh on impossible to take back bonuses once they are taken.

Prior to the new implementation, even if you took a bonus first round it would be fairly easy to take it back (now that the first round troop count is stable). If nothing else, you attacked and took away some of your opponents troops. Now, not only is it often difficult to break a bonus, but you're doing nothing else but wearing out your own troops, not your opponent's.

 

[Badorties]

hmm ok. Currently the neutral count is 20%. so 40% to each player and 20% neutral, those leftovers go neutral too. I have no problem scaling it back but I would like to hear from some other folks as welll.

 

[zspBANNED]

Yeah there's definitely an overabundance of neutrals in 1v1s...

What do you think about instead of all the neutrals, allow the 2nd player to deploy a few more armies on their first turn?

 

[ghost]

i think it's fine the way it is... it makes a 1 vs 1 game more of a challenge.. who wants an easy win? ugh.

 

[Badorties]

what if neutrals had 2 troops or 1?

 

[ORBOTRON]

what if all the neutrals are secretly me, not so much neutral, but a ninja-like faction that strikes quickly from the darkness. Or I could play it like Robin Hood, and attack whoever is leading, or both, I wear green tights, a black mask and shoot samurai swords at you with my bow!

 

[mapguy]

It is fine the way it is now.
The neutrals make every game different, and (If you know how to read a board), tell you which bonus you should fight over. Also you can use to your advantage, all of the dead ends that they create.

 

[RedBridgeBeach]

The new 1v1 is clearly much more fair than the old one from my experience of it. I'd be very curious to see if cutting the neutrals to 2 troops like Bartodies mentioned would even out things even more.

 

[admiral]

1v1 games are unfair, whoever goes first has too big of an advantage (extra troops, attacking die, first reinforce). 1v1 is not fair with 'sequential' turns.

 

[Incandenza]

1v1 games are unfair, whoever goes first has too big of an advantage (extra troops, attacking die, first reinforce). 1v1 is not fair with 'sequential' turns.

The problem is that someone has to go first, and you can reach a point trying to negate first-mover advantage where you end up making it an advantage to go second. Here's the way I see it: this game is about process, not result. I can play a 1v1 against a trained parakeet, and if that parakeet goes first and gets amazing dice, I'll lose. But if my process if good, if I can keep my wits about me and battle through poor dice, I'll win much more often against the parakeet 'cause I'm simply playing a better game than it. In one game, anything can happen. It's how you play across a spread of games that shows how good you are.

 

[ORBOTRON]

so I'm gonna have to return these sweet ass green tights huh

 

[Chilly]

1v1 games are unfair, whoever goes first has too big of an advantage (extra troops, attacking die, first reinforce). 1v1 is not fair with 'sequential' turns.

I'd be curious to play a couple games with 'serpentine' turns, just to try it out.

 

[WidowMakers]

what if neutrals had 2 troops or 1?

If that was the case, commands that dropped with mostly a single player and a few nuetrals woudl be more easily conquered.
I think the MIN 3 troops needs to stay but the deployment of player regions needs to be more carefully considered.

no more than 50% of a commands regions shoudl be given to a sinlge player. In some maps that percentage might not apply (MINI) but in general dropping in a 1v1 MASSIVE game should no give either player a 80% ownership in any command.

 

[Spazm]

i think it's fine the way it is... it makes a 1 vs 1 game more of a challenge.. who wants an easy win? ugh.

I don't want to make it easier; however on certain maps the current large # of neutrals means that quite often you can get a drop that is so hugely beneficial - only 1 neutral in a bonus region, and all of your borders are protected by neutrals.

As for only 1 or 2 troops on the neutral territories, I'll just say I agree with Widow.

The biggest benefit of the recent 1v1 changes was keeping the intially deployed troops the same, no matter what the 1st player does.

 

[MudPuppy]

I like the current 20%+ territory allocation to neutrals. No need to reduce.