Incrementaly increasing the max bulk teritory count bonus

[Mikoyabuse11]

Incrementaly increasing the max bulk territory count bonus from 1 to reduce the significant first move advantage

My idea is to have a game option which would limit the bulk territory count bonus at the beginning of a game to cut down on the huge advantage granted by having the first move in the first turn of a game (especially in 1v1 and 2 team games). The option would limit the amount of deployment and gradually relax those limits round by round, thus starting a game more gradually, and therefore more fairly.

Specifics/Details:

The simplest implementation of the mechanics as I am picturing this are as follows (though many variations on this idea are certainly possible):

• The deployment limit would only apply to the bulk territory count bonus.
  
• The deployment bonus would be limited equal to the round number, so in round 1 every player would receive up to 1 troop, regardless of the bonus usually conferred by their starting territory count. In round 2, everyone will receive up to 2, in round 3 they receive up to 3, etc.
  
• The territory count bonus limit is only a limit, once a few rounds have elapsed the limit will begin to exceed the normal bulk territory count bonuses on most maps and will gradually stop effecting play.
  
• This limit does not apply to region bonuses, cards, special map rules, auto deploy areas etc. The only limit is on the bonus from total territory count. This prevents this rule from interfering with any special map set ups that rely on very non-standard bonus rules to work for their unique mechanics.
  
• This would be a game option that can be selected just like fog, trench and the like, though I honestly think this would be universally beneficial.

I think this would be a very effective way of reducing the huge first move advantage which in some cases can end a game before it really starts. Players wouldn't need to resign themselves to a losing position simply by being unlucky enough to not have the first move in a game. By more fairly lengthening the first few turns, games will benefit from more maneuvering and development of tactical play.

Since this would not have any adverse effects on special rule sets or more unique maps I don't see a downside to this rule change idea, and honestly believe this could be universally implemented, however simply allowing the option for it in the game set up would awesome.

Thoughts?

[DoomYoshi]

There have been many proposals to reduce first turn advantage. The number one question you will have to answer is "how do you stop player 2 from getting the advantage"? I think this idea has some glimmers, but a few things don't seem great. First, it goes on too long. It shouldn't gradually increase. Whatever happens should only happen in the first turn. Second, if it is universally beneficial, it shouldn't be an option. If you are serious about this, it has to be a rule that can apply to all games.

[Mikoyabuse11]

This doesn't give the advantage to player 2, it spreads player 1's advantage across more turns to allow for the game to develop. I don't understand why it can't extend past 1 turn? I can't think of a reason for that to be an issue, could you explain that one? And yeah I do think this would be universally beneficial and would prefer it as a rule, however simply being given the option to implement it in a game at the players choice would be enough for me, and still allow for the "pure" risk to still be available.

[DoomYoshi]

This doesn't give the advantage to player 2, it spreads player 1's advantage across more turns to allow for the game to develop. I don't understand why it can't extend past 1 turn? I can't think of a reason for that to be an issue, could you explain that one? And yeah I do think this would be universally beneficial and would prefer it as a rule, however simply being given the option to implement it in a game at the players choice would be enough for me, and still allow for the "pure" risk to still be available.

The game is played a certain way. Having the game change to an indefinite amount of turns is a major change that nobody will want. Any turn to eliminate player one bonus should be done on turn one only.

Having it as an option is not feasible. It has to be a global rule change. Everytime you introduce a new option, the player pool shrinks (as there are the same amount of players looking for smaller sets of games). With what you are proposing that includes a major rule change, having it optional will just confuse people.

[Mikoyabuse11]

The game is played a certain way. Having the game change to an indefinite amount of turns is a major change that nobody will want. Any turn to eliminate player one bonus should be done on turn one only.

Having it as an option is not feasible. It has to be a global rule change. Everytime you introduce a new option, the player pool shrinks (as there are the same amount of players looking for smaller sets of games). With what you are proposing that includes a major rule change, having it optional will just confuse people.

Ah yeah I understand what you mean, and you're right. I can see how it would need to be a global change and global changes would be really hard to have the entire player base accept it without issue. I still stand by my idea, I think it would improve the game across all matches without any drawbacks but it would be a very present and noticeable alteration to the base game.

[Mikoyabuse11]

So how about this? First turn bonus for total territory count is 3, regardless of total starting territories. Everything after first turn is completely normal. Super simple, still plays like normal risk, doesn't reduce the first move advantage nearly as much, but would still be effective at reducing the huge advantage, especially in large map games with big territory counts. Also like before it doesn't transfer any advantage to player 2, merely spreads player 1's advantage out a little bit, allowing player 2 a slightly better chance to react.

Thoughts on that?

[Jdsizzleslice]

So how about this? First turn bonus for total territory count is 3, regardless of total starting territories. Everything after first turn is completely normal. Super simple, still plays like normal risk, doesn't reduce the first move advantage nearly as much, but would still be effective at reducing the huge advantage, especially in large map games with big territory counts. Also like before it doesn't transfer any advantage to player 2, merely spreads player 1's advantage out a little bit, allowing player 2 a slightly better chance to react.

Thoughts on that?

What about maps where every player starts with a bonus, like on Salem's Switch?

[BabySasuke]

dont be messing with salems!

[Mikoyabuse11]

What about maps where every player starts with a bonus, like on Salem's Switch?

The rest of what I described in the OP would still apply, I'm only talking about putting a limit on the bonus from total territory count for the first turn. Maps with special bonus systems would be unaffected.

[Doc_Brown]

Then you end up with a problem with very large maps, like Hive, where your starting territory count gives you well above 3 troops to start. Could this work in that situation? Maybe. It would be a very different play style for the opening rounds, which probably means you won't get a lot of support for this proposal from the community. And even if you did, don't count on anything changing. There are very good and highly supported suggestions that have been sitting awaiting action for years. The number of people playing has declined to the point where I think not much will happen beyond basic maintenance and keeping the site alive.

[Mikoyabuse11]

Then you end up with a problem with very large maps, like Hive, where your starting territory count gives you well above 3 troops to start. Could this work in that situation? Maybe. It would be a very different play style for the opening rounds, which probably means you won't get a lot of support for this proposal from the community. And even if you did, don't count on anything changing. There are very good and highly supported suggestions that have been sitting awaiting action for years. The number of people playing has declined to the point where I think not much will happen beyond basic maintenance and keeping the site alive.

Yeah, you're totally right, I fully understand that big changes are unlikely to get implemented regardless of how much they would help. I just had to put it out there anyways after starting a 2v2 recently where my teammate and I got destroyed before even having the chance to make a single move. I'll admit that I've never played a 1v1 on Hive yet, but that's the exact type of map where I can imagine player 1 being able to knock player 2's territory count down so hard in the first turn that it'd be super hard for player 2 to recover. That's the situation I think my ideas solve.

Definitely would be a different, slower paced play style in the opening rounds, which I would very much prefer, but would be harder to get general support for sure.