[GP] Starting Territory count for 1v1 Games

[Snowgun]

Concise description:

There are many maps that are essentually WORTHLESS (but great maps!) for 1v1 play due to the number of territories given to each player initially.

These maps are the ones whose Initial territory count coincides exactly with a territory count bonus number. E.g., 12, 15, 18, 21, ect.

This essentially gives an unfair (and often insurmountable) advantage to the first player, and it can be rectified by tweaking the starting territory number. Preferably 2 territories above a bonus number (e.g., 14 is 2 above 12) or anywhere below 12.

Specifics:

• Africa map starts out at 15 territories. This is terrible. Player 1 drops 5, and only has to take one territory to make player 2 have a 4 drop.
  
  Egypt: Valley of the Kings Starts at 17, a perfect amount, two above the last bonus, so first player would have to take 3 territories to make player 2 start with lesser men.
  
  A lot of maps are at 14, many are just 1 above drop bonus (e.g. 16 or 13), which is tolerable. It's just the ones right at the bonus that ruin play.

Maps that would benefit from a initial tert drop change: (there's not that many, I'll add more as I find them)

Africa
austrailia
Iceland
Brazil
Chicago
Draknor
US senate
Dustbowl
Prohibition Chicago
Iberia
Berlin 1961
Europe 1914
Extreme Global warming
D-Day, Omaha Beach
Pearl harbor (this might have been changed...)
Bamboo Jack
rail europe
Ardennes

In these last underlined maps, the large ones like ardennes, the tert number probably doesn't make that much of a difference, but in the smaller maps it is huge.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• 1v1 games will be more fair.
• 1v1 games will be more enjoyable.

[PLAYER57832]

1 vs 1 is not a style everybody likes. End of story. If you don't like the way 1 vs 1 plays on those maps, don't play them! The maps are designed the way they are for reasons. Changing them might make you happy, but will make many others unhappy. I LIKE the maps the way they are! So do many other people!

If you wish to design a new map with new criteria -- go for it! New ideas are always welcome in the foundary. But, be prepared to put a lot of work into the effort. A lot of ideas seem fine in conception, but wind up dying before long when they are hashed out.

[Snowgun]

1 vs 1 is not a style everybody likes. End of story. If you don't like the way 1 vs 1 plays on those maps, don't play them! The maps are designed the way they are for reasons. Changing them might make you happy, but will make many others unhappy. I LIKE the maps the way they are! So do many other people!

If you wish to design a new map with new criteria -- go for it! New ideas are always welcome in the foundary. But, be prepared to put a lot of work into the effort. A lot of ideas seem fine in conception, but wind up dying before long when they are hashed out.

Did you even read my post? Give me one reason why the initial tert drop count is beneficial on those maps for 1v1? I'm not talking about changing the maps, just changing the number of computer generated starting neutrals. Easy. And it's been done before to make maps more playable.

These changes would not affect any other aspect of play on these maps. These are great maps, they are just broken from a viewpoint of 1v1. The fact that not everyone plays 1v1 all the time is inconsequential. Not everyone plays freestyle yet changes are made to make that more enjoyable as well.

[Timminz]

Some maps are completely awful for 1v1, some are useless for large games, while others still suck donkey nuts in team play.

I don't think there's any reason to change that. It's all part of the charm.

[jaimito101]

Click image to enlarge.

snowgun, this is very true and extremelly frustrating, also removes the little amount of strategy that is left in 1vs 1. all maps should start just 1 below the extra bonus army.(11,14,17 countries etc) This is a simple change that will make a huge difference if implemented.

Some maps are completely awful for 1v1, some are useless for large games, while others still suck donkey nuts in team play.

I don't think there's any reason to change that. It's all part of the charm.

whats that for reasoning, map's broken , but hey why fix it?!?!? by changing the 1vs1 set up you don't change anything for the team setting. so if you can improve it you should.

[Timminz]

whats that for reasoning, map's broken , but hey why fix it?!?!? by changing the 1vs1 set up you don't change anything for the team setting. so if you can improve it you should.

Not broken in the least. Just not ideal for every scenario.

[jaimito101]

whats that for reasoning, map's broken , but hey why fix it?!?!? by changing the 1vs1 set up you don't change anything for the team setting. so if you can improve it you should.

Not broken in the least. Just not ideal for every scenario.

correct and that is why we are trying to fix that with some tinkling here and there. people like to believe that this is a game of strategy, though this is not nearly as often the case we should try to limit landslide games from turn 1 foward.

[Snowgun]

whats that for reasoning, map's broken , but hey why fix it?!?!? by changing the 1vs1 set up you don't change anything for the team setting. so if you can improve it you should.

Not broken in the least. Just not ideal for every scenario.

correct and that is why we are trying to fix that with some tinkling here and there. people like to believe that this is a game of strategy, though this is not nearly as often the case we should try to limit landslide games from turn 1 foward.

Thanks Jaimito, at least someone doesn't have their head stuck in the sand. Saying "Thats the way it is" is a bullshit reason for not improving gameplay.

Again, most new maps are set to have a good number of regions, like 14. It's some of these old maps that haven't been updated. This is a SMALL change that wouldn't affect any other aspect of the map or team games, except to return the 1v1 gaming aspect of these maps to STRATEGY and not the flip of a coin.

I love some of these maps, like Draknor and Dust bowl. They are small and perfect for 1v1 play. However few want to play them because the first player gets to drop 4, and if they win the first 7 vs 3 thats pretty much all she wrote. Player 2 has to deal with a handicap the rest of the game.

[Ace Rimmer]

This is probably something that should be in the Foundry discussions forum (viewforum.php?f=127). I don't think any recent maps start with an unbalanced 1v1 drop, but I'm not positive. It would be nice if Chip's map database listed the number of starting terits for each game type, or at least we had that somewhere. It's difficult to know which maps start with 15, 14, etc without peeking in the XML.

[Snowgun]

This is probably something that should be in the Foundry discussions forum (viewforum.php?f=127). I don't think any recent maps start with an unbalanced 1v1 drop, but I'm not positive. It would be nice if Chip's map database listed the number of starting terits for each game type, or at least we had that somewhere. It's difficult to know which maps start with 15, 14, etc without peeking in the XML.

I've been doing it manually with game finder.

[jaimito101]

think to recall europe 1914 also starts with 15 terrs pp on 1vs1's

[Snowgun]

think to recall europe 1914 also starts with 15 terrs pp on 1vs1's

Indeed it does, updated.

I Think i'm through the "E's" now....

[jaimito101]

think to recall europe 1914 also starts with 15 terrs pp on 1vs1's

Indeed it does, updated.

I Think i'm through the "E's" now....

always nice when a man finds meaning in his life

[jpcloet]

Most of the old maps appear to have been grandfathered in. New maps have to meet new criteria like the suggested.

[donkeymile]

I COMPLETELY AGREE!!!!

Games that start that way are useless to play and a good reason why I avoid those larger maps in 1v1. Landslide, lopsided games on 1v1 have begun to become the norm here, and your suggestion would go along way to taking some of that pain away and maybe actually turning a game of PURE LUCK into a game where some strategy might be involved ...

... imagine THAT .... strategy? Almost forgot the meaning of that word playing 1v1 the past few months.

I wouldn't expect to see this implemented. In my experience, the answers have been basically 'thats the way it is ,deal with it, don't play it if you don't like it' type of bullshit. I hope the guys actually start caring enough about 1v1 to think about changing things to make it worth playing.

[Snowgun]

Most of the old maps appear to have been grandfathered in. New maps have to meet new criteria like the suggested.

Looks like this too me as well...

I'm just mystified why we can't undergo such a simple fix to make these older maps more playable...

[Mass Miracle]

Good Idea.

[Catarah]

Did you even read my post? Give me one reason why the initial tert drop count is beneficial on those maps for 1v1? I'm not talking about changing the maps, just changing the number of computer generated starting neutrals. Easy. And it's been done before to make maps more playable.

These changes would not affect any other aspect of play on these maps. These are great maps, they are just broken from a viewpoint of 1v1. The fact that not everyone plays 1v1 all the time is inconsequential. Not everyone plays freestyle yet changes are made to make that more enjoyable as well.

i love playing random 1v1 no spoils. i often end up on maps you describe, and personally, i love playing them.

yes, it is a challenge to win if you start second. but i like challenges.

also, the 1v1s where you can knock down a bonus by taking a country or 2(start with, say 12 or 13 countries), are the most interesting to play. you continually balance between getting extra bonuses and making sure the other guy gets less bonuses.

on the maps with 14/17/20 bonuses, you basically end up just taking one country back and forth, until finally one guy is strong enough to break trough, basically leaving a lot to the dices.

you might not like some games, but i love them. and theres enough maps which do fit your criteria, yet i like those less.

i say we leave the maps to be, so i can play on my 'challenge' maps, and you can play on your 'balanced' maps.

else i might have to fill a proposal to change all maps so that 1v1 gives us 12,15 or 18 countries, for the challenge

[wreckead]

read all this at first and thought why bother but the more i looked into it the more i agreed. so many 1v1 games are over before you even get chance to start, so yes good sugestion snowgun

[jrh_cardinal]

read all this at first and thought why bother but the more i looked into it the more i agreed. so many 1v1 games are over before you even get chance to start, so yes good sugestion snowgun

a lot of them are on Doodle, Lux., Madagascar, etc. This has nothing to do with this suggestion as these maps are all so small that both players get 3 their first turn (unless they drop a continent, which is what you are complaining about, again this is a completely different issue)

[Snowgun]

Did you even read my post? Give me one reason why the initial tert drop count is beneficial on those maps for 1v1? I'm not talking about changing the maps, just changing the number of computer generated starting neutrals. Easy. And it's been done before to make maps more playable.

These changes would not affect any other aspect of play on these maps. These are great maps, they are just broken from a viewpoint of 1v1. The fact that not everyone plays 1v1 all the time is inconsequential. Not everyone plays freestyle yet changes are made to make that more enjoyable as well.

i love playing random 1v1 no spoils. i often end up on maps you describe, and personally, i love playing them.

yes, it is a challenge to win if you start second. but i like challenges.

also, the 1v1s where you can knock down a bonus by taking a country or 2(start with, say 12 or 13 countries), are the most interesting to play. you continually balance between getting extra bonuses and making sure the other guy gets less bonuses.

There is no fucking balance. If you went first you got your 4, which makes it easy to hit one damn tert (say if it's a 12 tert drop) and screw the other guy. Now he has 3 armies to take 2 terts to "Balance".

on the maps with 14/17/20 bonuses, you basically end up just taking one country back and forth, until finally one guy is strong enough to break trough, basically leaving a lot to the dices.
P

This is called "strategy". It involves "thinking", forting correctly, not attacking to make yourself too thin, dropping and making plays according to the map. THIS IS RISK, NOT SHOOTS AND LADDERS.

Dice always play a part in any game, but i'd rather stake the outcome on dice (which can go back and forth) than WHO GOES FIRST WHICH IS 50/50 AND HAPPENS ONCE.

[Snowgun]

read all this at first and thought why bother but the more i looked into it the more i agreed. so many 1v1 games are over before you even get chance to start, so yes good sugestion snowgun

a lot of them are on Doodle, Lux., Madagascar, etc. This has nothing to do with this suggestion as these maps are all so small that both players get 3 their first turn (unless they drop a continent, which is what you are complaining about, again this is a completely different issue)

Don't think wreckead was talking about that.

But come on people! We already have to deal with dice and drops on these small maps. FINE! But do we really need to start with 12 terts and f*ck the second player by a flip of the coin?? just make it 11 and let the BEST man win.

[wreckead]

read all this at first and thought why bother but the more i looked into it the more i agreed. so many 1v1 games are over before you even get chance to start, so yes good sugestion snowgun

a lot of them are on Doodle, Lux., Madagascar, etc. This has nothing to do with this suggestion as these maps are all so small that both players get 3 their first turn (unless they drop a continent, which is what you are complaining about, again this is a completely different issue)

Don't think wreckead was talking about that.

But come on people! We already have to deal with dice and drops on these small maps. FINE! But do we really need to start with 12 terts and f*ck the second player by a flip of the coin?? just make it 11 and let the BEST man win.

no i wasnt. and i dont remember complaining about anything tbh just saying the original suggestion is a good one..are we clear

[MrBenn]

The current guidance for mapmakers states:

The number of starting territories varies from the total number of territories on a map, as the game engine distributes territories equally amongst the players, allocating the rest as neutral. In all forms of the game, knocking one or more players into a lower territory band is a fundamental tactic, and so when each player starts with 12/15/18/etc territories, whoever happens to go first gets a huge advantage. Optimising fairness of the drop is therefore regarded as more important than minimising the number of neutral starts.

The following are the "golden numbers" lower than 200, which create a drop that in all (or all except 5/7p) forms of the game require two or three territories to be taken from a player before they are disadvantaged due to territory count and happening to not go first: 24-35, 42, 43, 44, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, (78), (79), 80, (88), (89), 104, 114, 115, 116, (138), (139), 140, 141, 142, 143, 160, 161, 176, 177, 178, 179, 186, 187, 188

Where the total number of territories on the map is not equal to one of these "golden numbers", then expect to be asked to create/merge territories or to code some as neutral in order to ensure that the total number of starting territories is balanced for fair play.

While that's fine for new maps, it doesn't solve the issue with the older maps. At the moment, the only way of limiting the number of territories distributed on the drop is to code a couple of territories to start as neutrals. While this might solve the perceived drop issue, it raises other issues - after all, the current game engine requires that these territories have to be pre-appointed rather than randomly issued. While this is possible, the "grandfathered" principle is one the foundry holds quite strongly.

[Snowgun]

The current guidance for mapmakers states:

While that's fine for new maps, it doesn't solve the issue with the older maps. At the moment, the only way of limiting the number of territories distributed on the drop is to code a couple of territories to start as neutrals. While this might solve the perceived drop issue, it raises other issues - after all, the current game engine requires that these territories have to be pre-appointed rather than randomly issued. While this is possible, the "grandfathered" principle is one the foundry holds quite strongly.

So you are saying that it can't be done?

It boggles my mind that the game engine can't be coded to randomly place these coded neutrals in the old maps, since it does this with the current maps, but granted i'm not as familiar with the code. Maybe one could pick 4-5 territories that could get pre-appointed a neutral, and run some sort of code that picks one of these as the neutral when the game starts. This wouldn't be perfectly random to all terts but it would work just fine. It just requires some out-of-the-box thinking, I know this problem can be solved in an acceptable manner.

"Grandfathered" is just a way of saying that we're too lazy to make it right. If we only had problems with 2 maps then I can see letting them slide. But it's starting to look like 30-40% of the maps here are hosed for 1v1.

If there was another problem on this site that was that big it would get fixed as best as possible. I'm confident we can fix this together.