MrBenn wrote:Any changes to the number of starting territories in 1v1 will de-facto effect the number of starting territories in all other game types.
If you reduce the number of starts per player to 8 (or 6) in 1v1, then there will only be 24 (or 18) starting territories available for all other game-types.
Actually no, in this case we can reduce the # of starts/player in 1v1 without changing the total # of territories in the starting pool simply by removing some of the predetermined starts, as I've explained at length in the previous post. Right now there are 21 "starting" territories, but I'd coded 1v1 starts so that each player opened the game with 8.
AndrewB wrote:Is there any way to start the 1vs1 game with 8 territories? Cause the proposed solution is not fixing the problem, really.
Currently u need just 1 territory to get extra 1 army in round 1. So does the proposed solution.
If they would start with 6 territories, then it would be ideal. Second best options is to start with 8 (but starting with 6 is better).
Yes, it is possible. It would be quite simple: pre-set three starting territories per player. The 15 remaining territories would be split evenly among P1, P2, and N; 3+5=8.
However, I don't see this as being better than starting with 7. I get that starting with eight territories would require two captures to get to the next step, but those captures would both be virtual locks for player 1 since he would start each round by placing four armies. It seems as if we still have the problem of P1 being given an easy road to consistently higher bonuses than player 1. At least by starting with seven territories we restore the old "luck of the intensity cubes" factor since P1 only gets to start the game by placing three... both players have the same odds of ending round 1 with 8 territories, though what happens from there is about luck and tactics.
AndrewB wrote:Ok, make it 10 then... Really any even number is better...
Then P2 crashes through a neutral and takes out an opponent, pushing his per turn deployment to six and knocking P2's to four, and the game is over. Wasn't the concern allowing one player to have access to a deployment advantage?
My hope in designing this map was that it would actually make a decent 1v1 game, since P1 can't start the game by directly whacking P2. And if P1 does take an adjoining territory and threaten P2, P2 gets the first crack at attacking P1 with a full force. I see now that giving the players an extra army from the get-go actually mitigates the buffer territories, since with a bit of luck you could actually crash through a buffer territory and take one from your opponent. Having played a 1v1 game and analyzed the start (and having won that game as P2) I personally think it would be better to start everybody with the standard 3 army initial deployment.
The XML has been updated to start everybody at 7 in 1v1s. I'll pick up a game or two and see how that pans out, and wait to hear from everybody. Any thoughts from the gameplay gurus out there?