Initial reinforcement-advantaged player should move second.

[zen330]

A simple enough suggestion, on any map where one player is starting with more reinforcements than his opponent, the default setting (instead of random selection) should be that the player with the additional starting reinforcements moves second.

Seems intrinsically fair in terms of making things more balanced, and would help avoid what I’m sure many find quite annoying in terms of games that are heavily imbalanced/effectively lost from the beginning (given roughly equal play, and barring some countervailing good dice luck) due to the power of the first move with additional starting troops to work with to further knock down the opponent’s initial reinforcements.

And in team games or even free-for-all games I would suggest similarly if one player (that might otherwise have been randomly chosen to move first) or team has an initial reinforcement advantage.

[michaeljordan]

Initial resource advantages (reinforcements, strong position, vast territory, etc.) can create a huge difference if that person gets to move first.

[insaneJB]

Everything is random. From drop, to who goes first, and even to spoils received.

If you can't play the game how it was intended just say so.

[Apatheist]

A simple enough suggestion, on any map where one player is starting with more reinforcements than his opponent, the default setting (instead of random selection) should be that the player with the additional starting reinforcements moves second.

Seems intrinsically fair in terms of making things more balanced, and would help avoid what I’m sure many find quite annoying in terms of games that are heavily imbalanced/effectively lost from the beginning (given roughly equal play, and barring some countervailing good dice luck) due to the power of the first move with additional starting troops to work with to further knock down the opponent’s initial reinforcements.

And in team games or even free-for-all games I would suggest similarly if one player (that might otherwise have been randomly chosen to move first) or team has an initial reinforcement advantage.

It's impossible to remove the advantage in every situation.
On that basis, there would never be 2-player games, since the person who goes first invariably has an advantage. Everyone starts with the same number of troops. Whilst it's an advantage to drop on a whole region, that means fewer troops elsewhere on the map. Sometimes one has to accept that other people are lucky. It's also satisfying to win a game against the serve, as it were.
What might be useful is if the rematch button is hit, then it ensures that a different player goes first; but even if that's possible, then they may get a region - so which rule takes priority?
I understand the principle of fairness, but I don't think this will go very far I'm afraid.

[williamaguirre]

That actually sounds like a sensible balancing idea. If one player starts with additional reinforcements, having them move second by default could help offset the advantage and make the opening turns feel fairer. In many strategy games, the first move combined with a resource advantage can snowball quickly, so this adjustment might reduce games that feel decided from the start. It would be interesting to see how it performs in both 1v1 and team modes if implemented as a default or optional rule.

[zen330]

Absolutely right William, the first move advantage is already potentially massive by way of providing an easy path for a regional or territory multiplier bonus (especially with the large number of neutrals that impede movement, something I have made another suggestion about), the first move plus an already-established bonus is likely to be a game-winner for the first player, which is libel to ruin the enjoyment for the second player and even likely reduce it for the first player if he enjoys competition.

A related idea would be to reduce the move one reinforcements for the player moving first, probably somewhere between 30-50% would probably go a long way towards evening up the end results which should be generally more enjoyable for players overall.

[Apatheist]

Or you could just accept that randomisation means that sometimes you have the advantage, sometimes you don't, and it's very satisfying to win a game when you start with a disadvantage.
You can end up down a dark alley with this. Is it more advantageous, on the Classic map, to go first or to go second but have Australia? Or have South America, but with your opponent having North America but for a couple of neutrals? I think it's going to be too complex to sort out universally, especially when people have different styles of play, and all of the variations - fog, trench, all the different spoil types etc. I think the calculation is much too complex for it to be fair on all maps with all variations I'm afraid.

[zen330]

Universal fairness will of course never be achieved, but when a large amount of skilful play by the second mover is effectively negated by the first move and/or regional bonus advantage some adjustment would be wise IMO.

A similar idea for better balance on maps with an unusually high percentage of wins by the starting player would be for the first player to start with something like 75% initial reinforcements for his first move.

I'm not suggesting fine-tuning on every map and game mode, just some broad adjustments on the most imbalanced maps that retains the natural advantage of the first move or initial bonus luck but lowers it to a level where skill plays a more deciding factor in wins.