bamage wrote:There is no scenario - even this one - where the start wouldn't be "more fair" if the first person wasn't able to attack. I don't think you understand the recommendation. In your scenario, left the way things are, that first player would be able to attack and would take permanent control of the game. At least this way the second player would have a chance.
Your objection is that it doesn't perfectly address the problem, in certain circumstances. It's a huge, easily implemented improvement. Not sure how you get "back to square one" from your objection.
And, like I pointed out, it also addresses the foggy courtesy-rule issue, perfectly.Mad777 wrote:bamage wrote:lawz21 wrote:I feel like the most fair thing would be to not let the person who goes first the ability to attack. Make them wait until the second round while the person who goes second can attack when they both have the same amount of troops. Just a thought
I totally agree with this. Problem solved. It would actually turn EVERY game into a more equal game, not just divvy up the advantages. And it takes the question of the odd game (e.g. the third game) off the table. It would also address the foggy courtesy rule effectively. It's a perfect solution.
It wouldn't with game with high bonus start such as Pearl Harbor for instance, if the first to start would only deploy with a +15 Bonus while the player starting second only have +8 to put down and to attack a stack of 18, where this would even out the advantage? looks like back to square one IMO