Games decided by turn order.

[TruePurple]

Check this map out please http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=4689491.
Last turn if I had moved first I would have won, probably within that turn. This turn if I hadn't moved first. I probably would have lost. Now having moved first I will probably win, unless opponent lucks out with spoiler & some battles then it is anyones game perhaps.

The first or second turn I got sizable advantage by waiting it out and playing last.

This is a most extreme example of what I have observed in freestyle games. Where too much can ride on turn order. So those willing to push the clock might get the most advantage.

On the other end, some have claimed sequential games are decided by who moves first. Now in my case I wouldn't know that because in my sequential game, I was the very last to move, and I am winning. But is this belief of most sequential games decided by who moves first pretty universal? Or are there some dissenters?

Here I was hoping to hear what people had to say about which to use, sequential or freestyle, for the most fair play. Please vote.

A couple little ideas I came up with to make turns more fair here.

[BaldAdonis]

On the other end, some have claimed sequential games are decided by who moves first. Now in my case I wouldn't know that because my sequential game, I was the very last to move, and I am winning. But is this belief of most sequential games decided by who moves first pretty universal? Or are there some dissenters?

That really only applies to two player games (and some two team games). In those games, I don't think anyone disagrees that the first person to play has an advantage, but it won't make you win on its own.

In multiplayer games, it really doesn't matter who plays first, although there are some people who try to join after the weakest player, to take advantage of their mistakes.

[oVo]

Red certainly has a better shot at a comeback if blue doesn't deadbeat
but John Mcgrath seems to be AWOL, which is in your favor.

[cu chullain]

Let me start by saying that I do NOT play any crazy maps like City Mogul, JailBreak, Operation Drug War, Supermax, or any of the other games where you have to do Algebra to calculate the bonuses, decide strategies, etc. I want to play, not re-run high school math and risk missing one tiny little thing and losing the game because of that. People get paid to do QC and such as work, I'm not doing it for free and calling it a game.

Not that that's out of the way... This problem is exacerbated in larger games, specifically 1 v 1. I'll use World 2.1 as an example, since it is most familiar to me. If the drop is perfectly fair and divided evenly, then it's not too much of an issue. But as in most games, drops rarely are. The problem is that due to how many troops players get in their first round, the first move is critical. However, whoever goes first has 3 options. (1) If they have an unfavorable drop, they can correct this most of the time. While they might not make any progress, they have a chance at "leveling" the playing field, and if they have average rolls, can put themselves in same position as someone going 2nd, but ***they have a spoils card***. (2) If they are close (within 3 territories) of a big bonus they can go that route. (3) If they are 1-2 territories away from 2-3 smaller bonuses, they have a chance at securing them easily.

They key is that in any case, they can set the tone of the game. Under option (1), they simply turnin first and, all things being equal, get the first leg up. Here's where the real problem starts.

Under option (2), Player 1 effectively FORCES Player 2 to waste most, if not all of their troops to take away a territory and remove that bonus. If it's a Chained game, Player 2 is stuck in this mode until they either have a great turn, can set up other attacks elsewhere through a turn by turn reinforcement strategy (this assumes that they don't have to use their reinforcement to bolster their next turn's takeaway if Player 1 regains the bonus in question), or get a turnin. If Player 2 does NOT break that big bonus, it's pretty much game over, as Player 1 will use the influx of additional troops to easily break whatever bonuses Player 2 temporarily secures. This is what happens probably 90% of the time, with those rare instances where Player 2 has a really good drop and can secure AND hold multiple other bonuses due to positioning, and has bonuses that can offset yielding that initial bonus to Player 1. But this instance is rare.

Under option (3) Player 1 forces Player 2 to spread out their deployment to try to take away multiple bonuses. This is actually even harder, as the occurrence of a single unfavorable roll can prove devastating, while odds in a single battle with more superior numbers (as in Option 2) could be one battle where it's 14 vs. 8, which is alot better (89% chance on winning) vs. 7 vs. 4(75%) or even 8 vs. 4(83%). If Player 2 goes for their own bonuses and leave Player 1 alone, they run into the same problem as in Option 2.

Basically, going first in any map larger than Classic gives Player 1 (A) The first spoil card, (B) the chance to have more troops based on # of territories versus a subsequent player who drops below the next lowest denominator of "3", and (C) the power to decide the initial course of the game.

The only solution I can really think of is to use the missed turn "troop deferment" feature (I hate it...it encourages loafers and changes the gameplay too much in 3+ person games) and set it to "1" or "2" to give a few extra troops to anyone other than Player 1.

Just my 2 cents, but this issue wrecks the World 2.1 map, especially in Chained games.

[oVo]

In 1v1s the player who goes first generally sets the tone of all games
and is also most likely to win the majority of them.

Waterloo gives you a good chance of turning the tables going second,
but I believe the odds are still skewed against you there as well.