[GP] How to make 1 vs 1 more fair

[josko.ri]

Mod Edit: This suggestion was considered by the bigWham administration, however, the project was shelved and has been so since late 2013, following resistance by the community when a thread was started on the topic. If it was implemented in its currently idealized form, it would be applied to balance ALL games- 1v1, team, polymorphic, etc., and as such all topic related to not allowing deploy (and any variations on fortifications) on the first turn may and will be merged into this thread. Please post in this thread if you have anything else to add about this suggestion.

hello everybody!

I play the most 1 vs 1 game, and I think that first playing player has two advantages:
1. he gets bonus troops first, with starting number of regions, 2nd player gets with less number of regions
2. he has first chance to attack

so it is two advantages, and I have suggestion how to reduce it to only 1 advantage, so game will be more fair to both players.
so my suggestion is that first player can ONLY drop troops, not to attack. so, 1st player make drop and end turn, and then real game starts. so the player who attacks first (2nd player) will have attack with equal number of troops, not with more numbers like it is now.
so, what others think about that suggestion? is it possible to make in game rules? it can be additional option, so players can choose to play with that rule or not.

[jpcloet]

Not needed if 1v1 Team Games was implemented. That is one of the best ideas out there right now.

[josko.ri]

I thought about 1 vs 1 standard games, but it can be used for 1 vs 1 doubles, triples or quadraples also.

[colton24]

I thought about 1 vs 1 standard games, but it can be used for 1 vs 1 doubles, triples or quadraples also.

1v1 doubles?

[josko.ri]

1v1 doubles?

I mean team game, 2 teams, in each of them 2 players.

[MeanestBossEver]

100% agree.

[josko.ri]

maybe it can be added like adittional play order option. it can be third option with freestyle and sequential option.

[Evil Semp]

What happens if player 2 is dropped a bonus, then he is starting with more troops than player 1.

[nippersean]

But then player 1 gets a chance to fort that you never get as a player 2.
Suggestion will really even up 1v1

[yrral]

hello everybody!

I play the most 1 vs 1 game, and I think that first playing player has two advantages:
1. he gets bonus troops first, with starting number of regions, 2nd player gets with less number of regions
2. he has first chance to attack

so it is two advantages, and I have suggestion how to reduce it to only 1 advantage, so game will be more fair to both players.
so my suggestion is that first player can ONLY drop troops, not to attack. so, 1st player make drop and end turn, and then real game starts. so the player who attacks first (2nd player) will have attack with equal number of troops, not with more numbers like it is now.
so, what others think about that suggestion? is it possible to make in game rules? it can be additional option, so players can choose to play with that rule or not.

So then player 1 get screwed, we need the start to be fair. how about a coin toss button, with a 50/50 chance of winning the start?

[nippersean]

hello everybody!

I play the most 1 vs 1 game, and I think that first playing player has two advantages:
1. he gets bonus troops first, with starting number of regions, 2nd player gets with less number of regions
2. he has first chance to attack

so it is two advantages, and I have suggestion how to reduce it to only 1 advantage, so game will be more fair to both players.
so my suggestion is that first player can ONLY drop troops, not to attack. so, 1st player make drop and end turn, and then real game starts. so the player who attacks first (2nd player) will have attack with equal number of troops, not with more numbers like it is now.
so, what others think about that suggestion? is it possible to make in game rules? it can be additional option, so players can choose to play with that rule or not.

So then player 1 get screwed, we need the start to be fair. how about a coin toss button, with a 50/50 chance of winning the start?

The problem with 1v1 is on many maps player 1 gets too big a head start. This just controls this a little.
It is all ready a coin toss who gets first turn.
Under this player 1 is still at an advantage - just less so.

[Blinkadyblink]

This is an excellent idea and would make 1 v 1 much more appealing.

[leolou2]

i say if you don't like it then why play go to some dubs trips or quads , myself i am trying to get out of all 1v1 and not join them again even if it means not playing in certain tourney games , if they ever figure out how to make it fair i will reconsider

[Rowney]

i played a lot of 1v1 games and find the game is more often decided by how well the dice are rolling, one player always has better dice than the other. Also the second player has an advantage when attacking second, because he can attack the single army countries left after player ones reinforcement phase, where possible.

[josko.ri]

So then player 1 get screwed, we need the start to be fair. how about a coin toss button, with a 50/50 chance of winning the start?

no, we need only to make third option in initial troops (sequential, freestyle). and in games that this option is chosen it will not be possible to make attack because after all units are deployed turn is automatically over.

i played a lot of 1v1 games and find the game is more often decided by how well the dice are rolling, one player always has better dice than the other. Also the second player has an advantage when attacking second, because he can attack the single army countries left after player ones reinforcement phase, where possible.

it is probably because of that player 1 has big advantage and it s not necessary for him to have good dices, he is in big advantage with present rules.
for example, if 2 good players play map City Mogul sequential, in 95% of games 1st playing player will win, and with my suggestion it will not be like that. I used that map for example because there are 1st playing advantage the most obvious, and that advantage also exists on every map but is not so obvious.

[nippersean]

hello everybody!

I play the most 1 vs 1 game, and I think that first playing player has two advantages:
1. he gets bonus troops first, with starting number of regions, 2nd player gets with less number of regions
2. he has first chance to attack

so it is two advantages, and I have suggestion how to reduce it to only 1 advantage, so game will be more fair to both players.
so my suggestion is that first player can ONLY drop troops, not to attack. so, 1st player make drop and end turn, and then real game starts. so the player who attacks first (2nd player) will have attack with equal number of troops, not with more numbers like it is now.
so, what others think about that suggestion? is it possible to make in game rules? it can be additional option, so players can choose to play with that rule or not.

So then player 1 get screwed, we need the start to be fair. how about a coin toss button, with a 50/50 chance of winning the start?

No not at all.

Player 1 will stand much better than player 2 in a similar situation.
What are people that are against this suggestion failing to understand?

Player 2 attacks first but player 1 has all ready forted and will have early troop advantage.
It clearly lessons the advantage to 1 player in 1v1.

[knubbel]

I also thought about this. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be implemented. It just makes the game more fair.

[HighlanderAttack]

I think it would make it a more even start. Of course I like it because I seem to only start about 40% of my games

[olipellat]

Hi,

Why does the one who starts the game attacks first ?

In a 2 player game for instance, if I have the advantage of placing my men, I should not have a 2nd advantage to attack straight away.

It would be fairer if :
* player 1 puts his men with no attacking
* player 2 puts his men and the attack starts with him.

Too many times I see that I have lost the game on round 1 because I have started second...

What do you think ?

olipellat

[parker4s]

You dont always get to attack first when you start a game. Which style are you talking about manual or autodeploy?

[Koganosi]

Probably he is talking about auto deploy. And that is just how the game is. I dont know why this should be changed in any way.

Urs

Koganosi

[olipellat]

Yes, auto deploy.

When the men are dropped on regions, player 2 has no possibility of strengthening the weak areas. This means the 1st player will built his 12 men in one area, decimate your weak ones, and even after that, reinforce to make sure you won't have a chance to get back to this place...this is not fair...

Not very often, but it does happen, player 1 already has a bonus before the game has started, so player 2 is still born...

Thanks for your opinions...

[AAFitz]

usually in maps with auto deploy, there are buffers of neutrals however, and while given the choice, id go first every time....it does not always go to the first player at all.

[Queen_Herpes]

The OP is talking about a version of Mattel's Risk. In said version, first to deploy their armies is not allowed to attack.

[Evil Semp]

Yes, auto deploy.

When the men are dropped on regions, player 2 has no possibility of strengthening the weak areas. This means the 1st player will built his 12 men in one area, decimate your weak ones, and even after that, reinforce to make sure you won't have a chance to get back to this place...this is not fair...

Why would it be fair for the second player to see where the first player deployed his troops and be able to attack and decimate weak ones from player one?

Not very often, but it does happen, player 1 already has a bonus before the game has started, so player 2 is still born...

What about when the second player is dropped a bonus and the first player can't reach the bonus to try to break it?