what exactly is the process with this? first time commenting in this section, was there something else i should be doing?

Accused:

mrlonely23




The accused are suspected of: being multis

Other: <Explanation>



Game number(s):

12369523
12359929
12351464
12359852


Comments: Has beaten several 2500+ rated players quite effectively. We all have our doubts about this player. Seems quite smug when confronted ...

Apologies for the frustration.

It really seemed liked we weren't talking about the same thing for a while there.

It's all context.

sorry, i must have missed your one post with the bolds and direct responses to my phrases.

I don't think we disagree to much then about a lot of things like drop and so on.

in any case, yes in chained this would not be advisable.

I find that with unlimited, 2nd player counter play can be more ...

You got the idea from my post that this was generally a playable idea?? ... It's contextual.

"Now, are these odds very good to work very often? No. Are you taking 6 men, with 4, and not losing a single man, and can you ever really count on this strategy as legitimate option? Probably not." - right ...

My suggestion isn't about the mathematical odds being in your favour. When will it ever be in your favour to hope for dice that go 6 kills zero losses?

In any case, the scenarios in my own experience are 90% deploying four stacks to capture 2-4(+) bonuses on drop. This is not a strategy for maps ...

Well of course MOST of the time you don't. I think the OP makes it quite clear this a decision you make to go for the gutsy attack (it can backfire, in that you go from getting 2 to losing 2, I acknowledged this beforehand).

Really isn't even about breaking bonuses like stated, but that's ...

Well that just depends on your goal. If you want to take territories, go for the 1. If you want to eliminate his counter play, attack his 3.

You can't just forget the scenario. After you invade the 1, you no longer have a 3-2 die role. That ends it.

I completely agree if your goal is to take a ...

I still don't see your point.

I can do more than kill a single 1, I can take two territories. And the point is to do it on assault, lowering your opponents counter play, troops, territories, and possibly troop income...

What?

Make this quick:

"After all, if you win 6-0 in dice, it doesn't matter what tactics you are using"

? ? ?

Of course it matters what tactics you use. If you invade the 1 stack with your 4 stack before attacking the 3 stack, you won't get 6-0 with the dice period. The whole point is to ...

While it is a fairly rare thing, it can happen on a fair number of occasion, and while most rare with 4 stack, is helpful in other scenarios, for instance with 5 and 6 stack etc.

If you have 4 stack, and there are two adjacent 3 stacks look for chance to knock them both with good dice. Let's call ...

Yes, if they were both random drops, but gave both sides a shot at first turn. I would be fine with this.

We could make it that in fog games only, the board drops are random in both games. Where as sunny they are same. Perhaps.

A potential issue to make it that all games are random drops, is if we do make them identical it might lead to attempted copying.

Although this is not a large issue. Even if ...

any
any
12+
1 v 1
Alright test this out for posting. I think some things need to be considered for 1 v 1 games. I feel for small maps there is little that can be done. But for large maps, I think it is good when there is a cap on the most territories that contribute to max troop income. I.e ...

oh, you meant the discussion. I am involved in other sites that take suggestions from community, and it often comes down to it being a pain to program... my own misunderstanding in that case. I meant nothing by it.

Ok, I'm also fairly new and learning the ropes. I just joined in November... so I'd ...

Agreed, the most balanced maps for 1 v 1 are the larger one's. Hive and Eurasia are decent. Although world 2.1 for reasons listed above is not, and a few others. There are rarely any smaller good maps. Encouraging larger maps like this where you have 12 to start, and 10 in eurasia, with high ...

Hmm, not sure if I know how maps can be so easily customized for 1 v 1 games. I mean how many balanced maps are there for 1 v 1 where all players are content to agree? Even a small list be provided?

Are you saying something like this would take a long time on the technical side to program?

I ...

New gameplay feature setting: Sparring Match

Balancing 1st and 2nd player turn order in 1 v 1 mainly, possibly beyond

Game settings: generates two games, where both player X and Y get shot at 1st turn equally, essentially, an instant rematch.

Optional: Both players will have opportunity ...

An additional thought: I will resolve this issue at least to some degree! I am committed!

What about a future potential setting: *Sparring Match*

In this gameplay feature, a player sets up a game to their suited style: i.e. deployment, reinforcement settings etc.

From here, the computer ...

I am looking for something that works in theory.

I.e. bad die rolls, and bad drops, or super good die rolls, and super good drops depending on how you look at it, are not my concern.

There will always be beginnings where 1st player may be able to take an above or below average number of ...

hmm true. I suppose especially for maps where the initial troop income is 3. And best odds are 6 stack vs 3 stack, which bad dice can ruin easily enough with just a couple bad roles.

I'm still thinking there has to be something that can be tweaked to level the playing field even a little for 2nd ...

Just a sum up, I am looking for a default balanced setting for 1 v 1. This may be in a flat rate context for optimized results.. not escalating, or no spoils. Where this doesn't apply so much. And more generally 1 v 1. Not necessarily doubles or above.

This might take away 'randomness', but these ...

Balancing 1st and 2nd player moves with spoils. i.e. 1 v 1

My idea is to give guaranteed set to player 2 upon 3 turns. And guaranteeing 1st player will not get a set until after third turn. For example: 2nd player gets 2 of one colour, or 2 different colours on first turn. On third turn, the ...

Really? HF is a pretty strong position in my experience. You have 1 village, and 4 woods.

I suppose HB I have had bad dice experience in beginning with trying to take villages. Even waiting and letting the castle build first for extra troops. Still, HB has no easy pickings i.e. Mines or Woods ...

oops. mistook HJ for HI. yes, HJ isn't fantastic, but I think HB is quite a bit worse. HJ you still have easy pickings.