Assured armies on first turn of games

[detlef]

Mod Edit: This thread contains suggestions for "fixing" round 1 deploys by either ensuring deploy amounts no matter what happens (ie a broken bonus would still be in play) or by ignoring bonus reinforcements until round 2.

All players should be given the amount of troops they would have gotten had they gone first in the first round of the game :

Specifics:

For instance, in a 1v1 game on Africa, each player is dropped 15 countries but only one player is assured of being able to take advantage of this. Given the number of ways it's been shown that going first is an advantage in 1v1, this will mitigate at least one of those issues.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

Well, obviously, it will make games more fair by eliminating one of the advantages the first player gets in a 1v1 game.

As it stands, the deployment can set off a chain reaction. Player one gets, say 5 armies and can not only quite feasibly take 2 countries from player 2, but also fortify against an advance. Now player 2 needs to take 3 countries, starting with a smaller number of troops and likely having at least one well defended front in their way. This can create a pattern that will require some outstanding luck or a big mistake on the part of the first player to overcome.

Keep in mind, even if this change was made, player 2 may still be fighting an uphill battle. They still need to take 3 countries to establish an early game equilibrium where both players are, say starting their turn with 14 and finishing with 15+.

[Skiman]

I think this a great idea - I'd vote for it

[Hrvat]

Like it.
Smaller the number of armies first player receives, more even the game.





--------------------------

[FabledIntegral]

I like it - except when someone starts with a bonus and you have the opportunity to break it, hate that. Although it's all the same, if you start with a bonus AND go first... oh well.

[yeti_c]

I like it - except when someone starts with a bonus and you have the opportunity to break it, hate that. Although it's all the same, if you start with a bonus AND go first... oh well.

Perhaps it should only count towards reinforcements bonuses... rather than any other bonus?

C.

[Incandenza]

I like it - except when someone starts with a bonus and you have the opportunity to break it, hate that. Although it's all the same, if you start with a bonus AND go first... oh well.

Perhaps it should only count towards reinforcements bonuses... rather than any other bonus?

C.

That would be the only fair way to implement it.

[FabledIntegral]

I would PREFER a change be made that no bonuses account for the first turn as well. Still may be unfair if someone is dropped Aussie, but it's more fair if they don't benefit from it for the first turn. Especially since they can just fortify all the territories to Indo anyways if needed.

[killmanic]

i really like this idea to lessen the effect of going later in a seq game

[yeti_c]

Here's a question though - does this then give the advantage to the players playing later though?

C.

[ctgottapee]

yeah i have been surprised that bonuses are given out in the first round.....

over on the defunct GS, each player in the first round only got 3 armies no matter what they owned or their territory count, so no player got an advantage in the first round. it also seemed to help even out any odd automated deployments as bonus laden players were targeted before they could accure them in the later rounds.

[detlef]

Here's a question though - does this then give the advantage to the players playing later though?

C.

Well, I thought about that but I don't think it would by nature. Certainly if the first guy got crappy rolls but then again, if he gets crappy rolls you're not likely to lose any countries and thus the point is moot.

Really, it's only 1 army once (maybe 2 on large maps like World 2).

None the less, if you coupled everyone getting the same basic armies (that is the spots /3) and nobody getting continent bonuses, I think you'd go a long way to making the start more fair.

Now, there is a negative to getting dropped a continent but not getting the bonus. Having a continent is double edged sword. You get bonus guys but you are more likely to get attacked. Doing it this way getting dropped a continent might actually be a bad thing because you get the bad without the good.

[Soloman]

All players should be given the amount of troops they would have gotten had they gone first in the first round of the game :

Specifics:

For instance, in a 1v1 game on Africa, each player is dropped 15 countries but only one player is assured of being able to take advantage of this. Given the number of ways it's been shown that going first is an advantage in 1v1, this will mitigate at least one of those issues.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

Well, obviously, it will make games more fair by eliminating one of the advantages the first player gets in a 1v1 game.

As it stands, the deployment can set off a chain reaction. Player one gets, say 5 armies and can not only quite feasibly take 2 countries from player 2, but also fortify against an advance. Now player 2 needs to take 3 countries, starting with a smaller number of troops and likely having at least one well defended front in their way. This can create a pattern that will require some outstanding luck or a big mistake on the part of the first player to overcome.

Keep in mind, even if this change was made, player 2 may still be fighting an uphill battle. They still need to take 3 countries to establish an early game equilibrium where both players are, say starting their turn with 14 and finishing with 15+.

to be honest this is a crap Idea.the game we all know and love which originated as a sequential game never would have allowed for this your armies are based on territories owned if you have the good luck to start with a bonus great game for you I have seen games go either way with that even in 2 player games. When playing the board game we did random drop based on cards to keep all fair o a lot of games and sometime by luck of draw you started with a bonus and it made the game that much more challenging. Just like the dice there is a random factor involved with the drop that should not be perverted by this type of change.Just my Opinion ,I would rather lose by that randomness then win because everything was kept in a balanced order on what should have been a random drop...

[detlef]

All players should be given the amount of troops they would have gotten had they gone first in the first round of the game :

Specifics:

For instance, in a 1v1 game on Africa, each player is dropped 15 countries but only one player is assured of being able to take advantage of this. Given the number of ways it's been shown that going first is an advantage in 1v1, this will mitigate at least one of those issues.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

Well, obviously, it will make games more fair by eliminating one of the advantages the first player gets in a 1v1 game.

As it stands, the deployment can set off a chain reaction. Player one gets, say 5 armies and can not only quite feasibly take 2 countries from player 2, but also fortify against an advance. Now player 2 needs to take 3 countries, starting with a smaller number of troops and likely having at least one well defended front in their way. This can create a pattern that will require some outstanding luck or a big mistake on the part of the first player to overcome.

Keep in mind, even if this change was made, player 2 may still be fighting an uphill battle. They still need to take 3 countries to establish an early game equilibrium where both players are, say starting their turn with 14 and finishing with 15+.

to be honest this is a crap Idea.the game we all know and love which originated as a sequential game never would have allowed for this your armies are based on territories owned if you have the good luck to start with a bonus great game for you I have seen games go either way with that even in 2 player games. When playing the board game we did random drop based on cards to keep all fair o a lot of games and sometime by luck of draw you started with a bonus and it made the game that much more challenging. Just like the dice there is a random factor involved with the drop that should not be perverted by this type of change.Just my Opinion ,I would rather lose by that randomness then win because everything was kept in a balanced order on what should have been a random drop...

I mean this with all due respect. Based on your response, I don't think you understand the rule being suggested and I also think you need to embrace some of the elements used in the English language to prevent unreadable blocks of words.

The rule as it is being suggested, and as you have quoted has nothing to do with luck of the drop. There have been suggestions regarding not awarding bonuses but that is not part of the original idea which only pertains to the luck involved in going 1st. As it stands, there is far too much to be gained by simply going first.

I do most humbly suggest that you, 1) understand the issue at hand and 2) manage to produce readable text when you launch your post with, "this is a crap idea".

[FabledIntegral]

Soloman, you're basically arguing that the original designers of the game had it perfect.

Fact is, there's a huge difference when you're playing with friends and when you're playing vs other random people. When you're playing with other random people, the atmosphere is a lot less friendly, despite what is said in chat. You want to win. Getting paired up against someone random and having that sort of drop is ridiculous. This game should NOT revolve around "make it that much more challenging for this person," and "because you were randomly generated to go first you get that much more of an advantage." All I've seen you argue is that whoever goes first *deserves* this advantage, simply because it's random.

That detracts from the integrity of the game, in my opinion. This is a strategy game. That's how it should be viewed. There are massive flaws in the original RISK board game - it is anything but perfect. Yeah, it still provided a fun game, but to simply think that a board game in itself was perfected by a few designers is absolute crap.

[Incandenza]

As loathe as I am to admit it, I do think soloman stumbled across a small point in that this may not necessarily' be a good option for anything other than 1v1s and maybe 2v2s. Larger games make it A) way less likely for someone to get an unholy drop and B) easier for an unusually lucky drop to be counteracted if for no other reason than that there's more than one person (or two-man team) with a vested interest in dragging a player with a great drop back down to the pack.

[Soloman]

All players should be given the amount of troops they would have gotten had they gone first in the first round of the game :

Specifics:

For instance, in a 1v1 game on Africa, each player is dropped 15 countries but only one player is assured of being able to take advantage of this. Given the number of ways it's been shown that going first is an advantage in 1v1, this will mitigate at least one of those issues.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

Well, obviously, it will make games more fair by eliminating one of the advantages the first player gets in a 1v1 game.

As it stands, the deployment can set off a chain reaction. Player one gets, say 5 armies and can not only quite feasibly take 2 countries from player 2, but also fortify against an advance. Now player 2 needs to take 3 countries, starting with a smaller number of troops and likely having at least one well defended front in their way. This can create a pattern that will require some outstanding luck or a big mistake on the part of the first player to overcome.

Keep in mind, even if this change was made, player 2 may still be fighting an uphill battle. They still need to take 3 countries to establish an early game equilibrium where both players are, say starting their turn with 14 and finishing with 15+.

to be honest this is a crap Idea.the game we all know and love which originated as a sequential game never would have allowed for this your armies are based on territories owned if you have the good luck to start with a bonus great game for you I have seen games go either way with that even in 2 player games. When playing the board game we did random drop based on cards to keep all fair o a lot of games and sometime by luck of draw you started with a bonus and it made the game that much more challenging. Just like the dice there is a random factor involved with the drop that should not be perverted by this type of change.Just my Opinion ,I would rather lose by that randomness then win because everything was kept in a balanced order on what should have been a random drop...

I mean this with all due respect. Based on your response, I don't think you understand the rule being suggested and I also think you need to embrace some of the elements used in the English language to prevent unreadable blocks of words.

The rule as it is being suggested, and as you have quoted has nothing to do with luck of the drop. There have been suggestions regarding not awarding bonuses but that is not part of the original idea which only pertains to the luck involved in going 1st. As it stands, there is far too much to be gained by simply going first.

I do most humbly suggest that you, 1) understand the issue at hand and 2) manage to produce readable text when you launch your post with, "this is a crap idea".

Logic Dictates if you were able to respond then you could read it. Your only defense is the lack of punctuation used in my original post and not a actual rebuttal involving the realities of the game. It was a crap idea and I pointed that out nothing personal, I call a turd a turd.

[Soloman]

Soloman, you're basically arguing that the original designers of the game had it perfect.

Fact is, there's a huge difference when you're playing with friends and when you're playing vs other random people. When you're playing with other random people, the atmosphere is a lot less friendly, despite what is said in chat. You want to win. Getting paired up against someone random and having that sort of drop is ridiculous. This game should NOT revolve around "make it that much more challenging for this person," and "because you were randomly generated to go first you get that much more of an advantage." All I've seen you argue is that whoever goes first *deserves* this advantage, simply because it's random.

That detracts from the integrity of the game, in my opinion. This is a strategy game. That's how it should be viewed. There are massive flaws in the original RISK board game - it is anything but perfect. Yeah, it still provided a fun game, but to simply think that a board game in itself was perfected by a few designers is absolute crap.

OK let me get this straight you want to take away the randomness of the game right? SO that it is more fair and balanced for all not just who goes 1st? Lets Do away with the dice then also they are not fair and balanced. We should also balance all board so everyone gets the exact same amount of territory and all is worth the same . In fact we should not allow anyone to win all games should be imaginary stalemates that way noone loses and all is fair and balanced.

All I get from your argument is random is bad and thus should not be a factor in the game because you might lose because you randomly went 2nd and the person randomly had good roles and they randomly had a good army drop. The random factors of this game lend credence to the real life strategy employed if you want a game solely reliant on strategy and not random factors play chess or from the sound of your argument checkers...

[ctgottapee]

unfortunatley it seems any recomendation for change is met by the hostility of elders who just can't seem to accept any change at all, like the current way is somehow a religous order and any change is blasphemous. so instead of thoughtful discussion of merrits, name calling and over-exagerations are used....

i personally don't believe there is anything wrong with making improvements; improvements that increase fair competition. it is also true that stark advantages can be enjoyable to overcome, whereas that are often just an annoyance though.

the suggested improvement stills alows any player to keep their respective fortunate drop, but doesn't allow them to collect on that drop for a round, basically giving them an opportunity to earn and defend that drop. players who are not so fortunate will not have to be quadruple penalized for a unfortunate drop, no bonus, fortunate drop for others, bonus for others.

the point being made is not as much about the inadequacy of the random drop, but the inadequacy factored in with turn order. it is fairly obvious it exists, so why not make an improvement to lower the leverage and require any player getting the advantage to earn the right to keep it while giving the other players opporunity to play first and factor that in their moves. yes we will still give you your machine gun, but we'll let the other players know about it before you get your bullets.
OR we can just setlle on the un-wise wisdom of doing it the same way because that is the way it has always been done and tack on a few more names and exagerations to boot.

another idea would be to make such feature an option.

and dice are far from random....

[FabledIntegral]

Soloman, you're basically arguing that the original designers of the game had it perfect.

Fact is, there's a huge difference when you're playing with friends and when you're playing vs other random people. When you're playing with other random people, the atmosphere is a lot less friendly, despite what is said in chat. You want to win. Getting paired up against someone random and having that sort of drop is ridiculous. This game should NOT revolve around "make it that much more challenging for this person," and "because you were randomly generated to go first you get that much more of an advantage." All I've seen you argue is that whoever goes first *deserves* this advantage, simply because it's random.

That detracts from the integrity of the game, in my opinion. This is a strategy game. That's how it should be viewed. There are massive flaws in the original RISK board game - it is anything but perfect. Yeah, it still provided a fun game, but to simply think that a board game in itself was perfected by a few designers is absolute crap.

OK let me get this straight you want to take away the randomness of the game right? SO that it is more fair and balanced for all not just who goes 1st? Lets Do away with the dice then also they are not fair and balanced. We should also balance all board so everyone gets the exact same amount of territory and all is worth the same . In fact we should not allow anyone to win all games should be imaginary stalemates that way noone loses and all is fair and balanced.

All I get from your argument is random is bad and thus should not be a factor in the game because you might lose because you randomly went 2nd and the person randomly had good roles and they randomly had a good army drop. The random factors of this game lend credence to the real life strategy employed if you want a game solely reliant on strategy and not random factors play chess or from the sound of your argument checkers...

No - I'm saying that when teh game STARTS it should be as balanced as possible. Everyone on teh board DOES get the same amount of territories - so that point is worthless. Your situation of "imaginary stalemates" is nothing more than you advocating that someone should make a strategically stupid move - nothing more. You know what situation people are referring to, and you are being nothing more than technical on the meaning of "stalemate," which you are wrong by DEFINITION. When the game reaches a point when it is NOT beneficial to attack, thus no progress can be made, the dictionary definition refers to it as a stalemate. Simply because SOME of the definitions refer to something else does not mean that is the definition being used.

[gdeangel]

yeah i have been surprised that bonuses are given out in the first round.....

over on the defunct GS, each player in the first round only got 3 armies no matter what they owned or their territory count, so no player got an advantage in the first round. it also seemed to help even out any odd automated deployments as bonus laden players were targeted before they could accure them in the later rounds.

This is due to bad map making - map makers who don't care about 1v1 games in particular. There is a way they can force some territories to be divided to opposing players, or force a 1 territory bonus continent to start neutral (which I don't advocate... as long as it only carries a sensible bonus). But few maps apparently do it.

I'm mixed about this suggestion. The dice are far more important that 1 or 2 extra armies early in the game. Later in the game, as you compound those extra 1-2 armies behind a stable front, it will of course carry the game. I would much rather see a rule where if you have a continent bonus at the start, or a strong position vis a vie fronts protected by neutrals or continuous columns of fortification, you start second. Because sometimes the drop so much favors one person, that getting in a first move to cut someone from 12 to 11 (i.e., +4 to +3) is the only way to have a competitive game. Understanding that on larger maps, like Actium or 2.1, where you have the ability to knock off way more than 1-2 of your opponents starting bonus if you get the first draw, it is more important. But in reality, I or any reasonably astute player can probably look at a map and within 10-20 seconds tell you who has the better drop and in those games, who "should", in a "fair" match, have the first move.

Is it possible to have some type of analyzer that can do this automatically? Probably not, but it might be possible...??

[Soloman]

yeah i have been surprised that bonuses are given out in the first round.....

over on the defunct GS, each player in the first round only got 3 armies no matter what they owned or their territory count, so no player got an advantage in the first round. it also seemed to help even out any odd automated deployments as bonus laden players were targeted before they could accure them in the later rounds.

This is due to bad map making - map makers who don't care about 1v1 games in particular. There is a way they can force some territories to be divided to opposing players, or force a 1 territory bonus continent to start neutral (which I don't advocate... as long as it only carries a sensible bonus). But few maps apparently do it.

I'm mixed about this suggestion. The dice are far more important that 1 or 2 extra armies early in the game. Later in the game, as you compound those extra 1-2 armies behind a stable front, it will of course carry the game. I would much rather see a rule where if you have a continent bonus at the start, or a strong position vis a vie fronts protected by neutrals or continuous columns of fortification, you start second. Because sometimes the drop so much favors one person, that getting in a first move to cut someone from 12 to 11 (i.e., +4 to +3) is the only way to have a competitive game. Understanding that on larger maps, like Actium or 2.1, where you have the ability to knock off way more than 1-2 of your opponents starting bonus if you get the first draw, it is more important. But in reality, I or any reasonably astute player can probably look at a map and within 10-20 seconds tell you who has the better drop and in those games, who "should", in a "fair" match, have the first move.

Is it possible to have some type of analyzer that can do this automatically? Probably not, but it might be possible...??

I agree about the dice but in defense of the mapmakers it has nothing to to do with them.The armies are dropped at random , given that everyone knows this no one should be upset or surprised that sometimes someone get a whole bonus from the beginning...

[lancehoch]

I like this suggestion so long as it is only applied to the territory count deployment and not a continent bonus deployment.

[groblerg]

Concise description:

• Where a new game is initiated and each player starts with more then 11 regions
• Each player will receive for their first turn (and first turn only), the original troop allocation, even if they lost some regions before they got to play their first turn.

Specifics:

• At the moment, if a game starts and for example, each player has 16 regions, then each gets 5 troops. However, the players who get the first moves (be it a 2 player game or even an 8 player game) can (and will) attack other players, as part of their strategy - which will cause other players to have less regions and therefore a smaller initial troop allocation then the players who got to play first. This is unfair, as the players who get to move last - get less troops, not because they played bad, but simply because they are not first to play.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• The game will start off from a much fair position for all players, as even if a player is last to take their turn in a game, they will still get the same initial troop number they would have received if they we're the first to take their turn in the game.
• Please note, this is ONLY for the first turn and not for any turn after that... or in other words - Once the game kicks off and all players have had their fair share of troops - their on their own.

I realize that as games start a player is selected in random to take the first turn and I assume that it's randomised so that every player get's his share of being first/last/in the middle in equal measure with other players. However, I still think the above can be applied - it will only make it even fairer.

[Metsfanmax]

This will not make game play any fairer. The whole idea of the random selection of turn order is that no one has a fairer chance than any others. By allowing people to obtain troops for territories they do not own, then the troops used by the other players who conquered those territories were effectively wasted. Consider a map where each player starts with a large number of territories. The player who goes first may attack a lot of his opponent's territories on the first turn so that the second player has a much more difficult time. By giving the second player the same number of troops, he now has the advantage actually, because he now only has to attack territories with 1 army each on them.

[AAFitz]

It really would cause more problems than its worth

the best way to adjust first player advantage is to only count bonuses after first round, or give initial deploy of 3 no matter what on turn one, but the latter is really no different than getting full amount, so just eliminating bonuses, and allowing one turn to try to break them could make some games more playable