Conquer Club

First to play indicator on Manual Sequential games

The real game of risk is manual deployment, sequential...Playing on CC a manual deployment game on 1v1 or 3 man plays the deployment as if it is freestyle without knowing who is first to go. This completely ruins and manual sequential games because it is almost invariably the first to go will win. If you didn't have to deploy as if you were attacking first, then you could set your troops up accordingly for defense in the first round and possibly stand a chance.

This could easily be fixed by either deploying manually by the sequence you will play or somehow indicating who will play first.

This could benefit the site by creating a more fair environment for manual deployment games, especially smaller maps with fewer players...Not sure what impact this would have on larger maps with more players..

This seems workable.

Agreed.

Very much in favour.

A very good idea.

I support this as well. I assumed originally that this was an intentional design decision, but it occurs to me that it may not be (and at any rate, we have the ability to define the game as we please, being the community that plays the game). Especially in a 1v1, you can get really destroyed on the first turn if you deploy next to your opponent, and leveling things out that way might help.

I like it!

i like it too

nice suggestion

I like it too. In 1v1, unless the oponent deploys like a retard and/or he gets total BS dice, if you go second it's pretty much game over. This would reballance things a bit.

I like the idea.

Also agree!

I think this could almost completely rehabilitate manual as a 1v1 setting. I really like this idea.

This was suggested right after manual came out... Nothing ever came of it. Lets hope this time it does!

great idea

15 posts in a row, all in favor: stickied.

Bruceswar wrote:This was suggested right after manual came out... Nothing ever came of it. Lets hope this time it does!

I had no idea. I wonder whether it wasn't implemented for technological reasons or for some substantive reason. I think someone needs to track down some old threads

I read through the announcement thread. It was suggested independently three or four times but lack never explicitly responded to it.

while we are on the subject what about holding on to some deploys for after your first turn?

I do not understand the point of manual deployment in 1 vs 1 but yes,if we are to play this, knowing who plays first will make things more balanced. Charging through 2s is not the same as charging through 1s

I agree, too. This would be a welcome change.

macbone wrote:I agree, too. This would be a welcome change.

Isn't part of the strategy in these types of games to deploy so that you are in the best position whether you go first or second? If you put the indicator there, the first player will have a really big advantage.

Of course

agentcom wrote:

macbone wrote:I agree, too. This would be a welcome change.

Isn't part of the strategy in these types of games to deploy so that you are in the best position whether you go first or second? If you put the indicator there, the first player will have a really big advantage.

Yeah. Looking back, I'm surprised I was so in favor of this initially.

Metsfanmax wrote:

agentcom wrote:

macbone wrote:I agree, too. This would be a welcome change.

Isn't part of the strategy in these types of games to deploy so that you are in the best position whether you go first or second? If you put the indicator there, the first player will have a really big advantage.

Yeah. Looking back, I'm surprised I was so in favor of this initially.

I think the discussion has turned from multiplayer games to 1v1.

In 1v1 this will probably increase the already huge advantage that the first player gets. For what most of us would consider "normal" 5- and 6- player games, it is still a very good idea.