Fair play Troop allocation at start of game

[drunkmonkey]

This would create problems when a person starts with a bonus and the other person goes first. Even if he breaks it, it would be useless

I knew there was something I was overlooking. I think I posted a suggestion once to eliminate first-turn bonuses, but it was blown off. Oh well.

[Woodruff]

This would create problems when a person starts with a bonus and the other person goes first. Even if he breaks it, it would be useless

This seems to me like further justification FOR this idea. First-turn bonuses are an abomination (ok, that's overstating, but you get the idea) to fairness in the game. I think this is a great suggestion and, as someone earlier mentioned, particularly on those maps where starting armies are evenly divisible by three.

[drunkmonkey]

First-turn bonuses are an abomination (ok, that's overstating, but you get the idea) to fairness in the game.

When I suggested a method to eliminate first-turn bonuses, I was told that they were "part of the game", and eliminating them would be equivalent to eliminating the dice. I wish I was making this up.

[TheForgivenOne]

The drop is as random as the dice. So i think that's why eliminating the randomness of the drop is like eliminating the randomness of the dice. Plus some known mapmakers have said that they don't want to rewrite their XML on certain maps. From what I remember, cairns did not want to redo Madness! because of the +1 the Dog house gives. Some people wanted to make the Dog House neutral.

[drunkmonkey]

One dice roll doesn't have as great an effect on the game as dropping a bonus. You're comparing apples and oranges. Yes, they're both random. So is who goes first in an 8-player game. That doesn't mean they all have the same effect. My suggestion didn't require an XML change to the maps. If someone drops a +1, you can recover. +2 is tougher. +3 and up is near impossible.

[Metsfanmax]

It's true that there are significant advantages to starting with a bonus, but that's inherent in the luck-based nature of the game. You take away a significant part of the game if you take away that luck.

[TheForgivenOne]

One dice roll doesn't have as great an effect on the game as dropping a bonus. You're comparing apples and oranges. Yes, they're both random. So is who goes first in an 8-player game. That doesn't mean they all have the same effect. My suggestion didn't require an XML change to the maps. If someone drops a +1, you can recover. +2 is tougher. +3 and up is near impossible.

Really? Dice rolls don't change the game that much? Then i wonder why so many people want to punch a hole in their screen when they see a string of terrible dice.

[Woodruff]

The drop is as random as the dice. So i think that's why eliminating the randomness of the drop is like eliminating the randomness of the dice.

See, I'm ok with leaving the random drop as it is, even as that means some folks will drop a "bonus area". It just seems to me that the player shouldn't actually get that bonus until the 2nd turn, so that the other player has at least had SOME opportunity to break it.

[drunkmonkey]

One dice roll doesn't have as great an effect on the game as dropping a bonus. You're comparing apples and oranges. Yes, they're both random. So is who goes first in an 8-player game. That doesn't mean they all have the same effect. My suggestion didn't require an XML change to the maps. If someone drops a +1, you can recover. +2 is tougher. +3 and up is near impossible.

Really? Dice rolls don't change the game that much? Then i wonder why so many people want to punch a hole in their screen when they see a string of terrible dice.

Yes - dice don't change the game. That's exactly what I said.

Never mind. I give up.

[Queen_Herpes]

I see both sides here. It certainly is frustrating to drop a bonus or drop 15 armies and then end up with fewer troops when your turn begins and come to find my opponent now has a bonus. I could go either way here, but I lean towards giving every player the same number of starting troops...of course, that is what happens in freestyle...but if that timer thing goes through with freestyle where the game doesn't start for 30 seconds or something....

[gho]

Starting first already gives you the advantage of staking out your territory and being the first to trade cards, why should it also give you the bonus of having more reinforcements at the beginning.

With the continent bonus you could just make continent bonuses not part of the troops calculated on initialisation, though I don't see the big deal about them, this is no different than the person who takes the first turn landing a bonus, because nobody will have time to steal the bonus of them.

This suggestion was provoked when I played a 6 player World 2.1 manual game. Everyone started with 18 territories, meaning 6 reinforcements, but because it was manual, by the time it was my turn I ended up with only 3 reinforcements, which is a significant difference. With 6 men you could place them all on your manual stack, auto attack a neighbouring stack and should win, basically meaning game over for the other player or you could invest in another area, something really not viable with just 3 troops.

[TheForgivenOne]

Starting first already gives you the advantage of staking out your territory and being the first to trade cards, why should it also give you the bonus of having more reinforcements at the beginning.

Not always true about being able to cash first. MANY a time in Flat rate, i've lost, even though i went first, because the opponent got a BGR, while i got RGG.

[gho]

Starting first already gives you the advantage of staking out your territory and being the first to trade cards, why should it also give you the bonus of having more reinforcements at the beginning.

Not always true about being able to cash first. MANY a time in Flat rate, i've lost, even though i went first, because the opponent got a BGR, while i got RGG.

What cards you get are irrelevant for this suggestion (I'd personally like to see a card rate option with a set amount, but thats also irrelevent to this thread), everybody has the same chance with which cards they get. You could say that who starts first is random and is part of the game, but with cards if the game progresses long enough all players will have bad sets and good sets.

This change would significantly affect the way 1vs1 games are played. Currently 1vs1 games would be the most up to chance, with who starts first having a significant affect on who wins. The most common strategy for 1v1 is to knock off your opponents territories to get them with less than 12 territories while you keep expanding to improve your territory bonus. Due to this I think alot of people avoid 1v1, I know I definitely avoid playing 1v1 because of it.

How do I get this suggestion to progress?

[Woodruff]

Starting first already gives you the advantage of staking out your territory and being the first to trade cards, why should it also give you the bonus of having more reinforcements at the beginning.

Not always true about being able to cash first. MANY a time in Flat rate, i've lost, even though i went first, because the opponent got a BGR, while i got RGG.

Or better yet, an RRRRG. <sigh>

[drunkmonkey]

Starting first already gives you the advantage of staking out your territory and being the first to trade cards, why should it also give you the bonus of having more reinforcements at the beginning.

Not always true about being able to cash first. MANY a time in Flat rate, i've lost, even though i went first, because the opponent got a BGR, while i got RGG.

Or better yet, an RRRRG. <sigh>

I usually get the BBRRR. They like to tease me.