New Options for 1v1 (2 player) Games!!

[brianstheman]

I also found one: if the first player misses his turn, he gets the full first deploy in deferred troops something to keep an eye on when this option is made permanent

Perhaps this is fair though. First player advantage has effectively moved to P2 with the opportunity to deploy a full contingent and attack first.

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

I also found one: if the first player misses his turn, he gets the full first deploy in deferred troops something to keep an eye on when this option is made permanent

Yeah, it's been noted. Thanks.

That won't be implemented until the we have the new engine tough. Thanks.

 

[sannheten]

In https://www.majorcommand.com/tournaments/2394/ two games got normal deploy (5) in 1st round for 1st player. All the others got 3.
Strange.

 

[sannheten]

https://www.majorcommand.com/tournaments/2393/ gave full deploy to 1st player in three out of eight games.

 

[ndrm31]

sorry to be late, did I misunderstood that the first player just dploy and ends turn * that was what I did in my 1st turn, sine some players also reinforce after starting their turns

 

[brianstheman]

sorry to be late, did I misunderstood that the first player just dploy and ends turn * that was what I did in my 1st turn, sine some players also reinforce after starting their turns

First player can do whatever they like (deploy, attack, reinforce). However, the initial deploy in the test games is half of normal. Some choose not to attack with the smaller force. You get to decide what tactics you prefer

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

https://www.majorcommand.com/tournaments/2393/ gave full deploy to 1st player in three out of eight games.

Yeah, the code to give 1/2 deploy was not typed correctly.

The error was only noticed after 3 of the tournament games started. Once the mistake was noticed, I corrected the code before the other 5 games started.

So therefore 3 of the 8 games started full deploy, but the other 5 started 1/2 deploy.

 

[d-flat]

The focus is understandably on finding the perfect solution, and that's all very well, but we never will. It has been improved massively though, I for one am enjoying playing 1v1 Classic Evolved again now, thanks to this change. It may not have made it 50/50, but has certainly mitigated the first player advantage.

Thanks! Anyone fancy a game just let me know

 

[Sebrim]

My personal experience after 60 1v1-games with the new rules:

The 1st player won 31 (51,67 %) of the games, whereas the second player won 29 (49,33 %), so that's really even. My own wins (31) showed the same percentages.

Moreover, on the map I played the most - Barbarossa (28 games), the player going second won 60 % of the time (17 games). I think it's a special feature of this map. Maybe the Sheriff can whip up some more impressive data?

 

[brianstheman]

My own wins (31) showed the same percentages.

So you are saying you won 31 of the 60 games. Do you know your approximate win pct under standard deploy rules?

Moreover, on the map I played the most - Barbarossa (28 games), the player going second won 60 % of the time (17 games). I think it's a special feature of this map. Maybe the Sheriff can whip up some more impressive data?

I would think on the maps where deploy is cut to 2, the second player has a better chance at cards. Early sets have can have a larger impact on small-medium sized maps.

 

[Sebrim]

Hi Sheriff! Since there are people here who like to call the new rules: ”THE NEW SHIT RULES“, (probably because they had first turn and didn't automatically win), maybe it's time to roll out some site-wide stats - can you do that?

 

[Cardinalsrule]

Hi Sheriff! Since there are people here who like to call the new rules: ”THE NEW SHIT RULES“, (probably because they had first turn and didn't automatically win), maybe it's time to roll out some site-wide stats - can you do that?

That's fine, but frankly I don't care what the stats show. I'm one of those people... Not automatically winning with first turn has nothing to do with my dislike of them. Those rules suck A** for very small and very large maps. Just my opinion. I also want my points back for joining that tourney without warning that it would be using "TNSR". Just sayin...

 

[AuraCraft]

I prefer stats to anyone's opinion so thanks Sebrim, for the sample of 60
50/50 ish, sheriff mentioned similar figures last month.

"Those rules suck A**"

"TNSR"

(abbreviavtion for "the new shit rules")
Do you need to talk like this? Plenty of ppl like it, noone is forcing you to play these games.

Ingame you said you thought this ...1st turn half deploy is what it's called, (or lvl playing field if you will) doesn't work for minimaps because if you ice with 5 vs 3, you dont get a card and it's game over.
My response to that is that the odds of player 2 ice-ing are the same.
And this is what Gambit says
3+2deploy vs 3 = 4 die vs 3
37% you lose 0 units
59% you lose up to 1 units
72% you lose up to 2 units
78% you lose up to 3 units
100% you lose up to 4
78 and 100% would mean you roll 1 or 2 dice, which is ill advised. So 59% or 72% that you get a card in your 1st turn on a minimap with 1st tur half deploy. I consider that a good thing; coz getting the 1st card is yet another advantage of going 1st. (even in 1st turn half deploy games, on larger maps) So on minimaps, the fact that player 1 doesn't neccessarily have this advantage, evens the odds even more, which is what we're trying to achieve.

cheers

 

[Bluebonnet]

My opinion, dont care what game bit says. starting with half troops on small maps blows chunks.

I dont change the rules for monopoly, poker, or the game board of risk. Play as the rules state.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

3+2deploy vs 3 = 4 die vs 3
37% you lose 0 units
59% you lose up to 1 units
72% you lose up to 2 units
78% you lose up to 3 units
100% you lose up to 4
78 and 100% would mean you roll 1 or 2 dice, which is ill advised. So 59% or 72% that you get a card on a minimap with 1st tur half deploy. I consider that a good thing; coz getting the 1st card is yet another advantage of going 1st. (even in 1st turn half deploy games, on larger maps) So on minimaps, the fact that player 1 doesn't neccessarily have this advantage, evens the odds even more, which is what we're trying to achieve.

cheers

Your conclusions are completely bogus. You don't know how to do statistics.

 

[AuraCraft]

Your conclusions are completely bogus. You don't know how to do statistics.

I added the link to gambit to prove the odds. run the numbers yourself, or explain what you think is the correct interpretation of these figures, if you think you know better : )
just calling it bogus doesn't make it bogus

 

[Redstorm]

Just for fun, here are my "stats".....100% - games I play, whatever the rules or options, that I choose to play.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

The way you are adding stats together is incorrect.

Regardless, the odds of attacking 5 v 3 and winning (occupying the territory) are 65%
The odds of losing, are, (of course), 35%

That includes all possible throws, down to the last, desperation chance of 1v1 dice. Which, if you get to that point, you've failed, because your opponent will have 1 or 2 terts with only one troop on them to attack. So the odds of being STRATEGICALLY successful, ie. having a lead that won't immediately be taken from you, is less than that.

http://diceroll.stritar.net/Risk.html

So, you have to decide if a 65% chance is enough for you to attack. You have a 35% chance of essentially ceding 1st turn advantage to the other player.

(In a traditional game, you have a 77% chance of being successful and taking a tert.)

 

[AuraCraft]

The way you are adding stats together is incorrect.

I'm not adding stats together; that's what gambit does. I just copied/pasted the output.

With the tool you're using you got 65% output. That's if the (right column) setting is 3 dice vs 2. Obviously not all rolls will be 3 vs 2 which is how you seem to interpret the tool's default setting
4 vs 3 -> roll once; next up is either 3d vsd 2 or 4 vs 1 (or 2 vs 2, which you won't roll)
(So your 65% isn't prefectly accurate)

So this shows 2 things
1 the way you interpret your tool is "incorrect" (I'm guessing this tool probly works best for stacks rather than small numbers.)
2 the findings are similar enough (your 65% and gambit's (59% and 72% which) averages 63%), which means the point I'm making still stands; that with minimaps 1st turn half deploy you get as close as you can to more even odds of either player being the first to get a card. You don't care about that; ppl who want a lvl playing field do.

 

[JCUK]

Interesting...I'll be honest I haven't been looking at stats, I've been serving my lawnmower, way more interesting.