[GP] How to make 1 vs 1 more fair

[TheFissk]

looks like we should just make whoever goes 4th deploy only also.

god this sounds like real life...

[TheForgivenOne]

looks like we should just make whoever goes 4th deploy only also.

god this sounds like real life...

Well, it has to be fair for everybody...

Maybe we should get the same dice as the opponent did to make it more fair?

[TheFissk]

yay sounds like a plan, plus add the hug option so you can give your opponent HUGSS!!

so say the ignorant

[Frogmanx82]

Concise description:

• I propose that the player going first should not be allowed to attack, but deploy only on the first turn.

Specifics/Details:

• After the player goes first, they would be able to deploy only. No card. In a sense you could look at it like your going last to assault, but you are given the opportunity to at least have some armies on the board to compensate for the likely fewer territories you will have and that you are last to get a card. In a freestyle game there is no first player, so this would not apply to freestyle games.
  
  The player who goes first gets to choose their spot on the board and deter others from attacking. There is an advantage currently in going first by getting first card, first deployment, first assault. In a two player game the player 2 is often knocked out of a region before they even go. This way the person who assaults first will have to go up against better defended territories. It just evens things out.
  
  I played Risk this way for many years in two player and team games, its been tested.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• Two player games would see the most benefit as the player going first would have more armies on the board, but player 2 would be able to cut into their bonus. Right now player two is just behind all the way. I posted in a non form post and saw some silly arguments that this would have to carry all the way through the turn order or that somehow player 2 would have an even bigger advantage. That's just not the case.

[TheFissk]

as a member of the "silly arguement" i'll stick with what is said in the previous posts

i don't know how this would work in larger games, and i do not think this is beneficial

so say the ignorant

[TheForgivenOne]

You easily could have edited your first post in your original thread. Merged

[Fircoal]

Going first is only really a great edge when you're playing 2 player. All other games there really isn't much of a problem.

[TheForgivenOne]

Going first is only really a great edge when you're playing 2 player. All other games there really isn't much of a problem.

Exactly. How is going first in an 8 man escalating game an advantage?

[Commander9]

but then the 1st player is going first AGAIN. plus you get some sort of wierd half manual deployment, so if that is what you want play manual

then we'll just have to insist the person going 3rd also deploys and doesn't attack

Hilarious

[ljex]

as an option...yes
for every game...no

[thebest712]

Going first is only really a great edge when you're playing 2 player. All other games there really isn't much of a problem.

In 2 team teamgames also

[thebest712]

Going first is only really a great edge when you're playing 2 player. All other games there really isn't much of a problem.

Exactly. How is going first in an 8 man escalating game an advantage?

it is, but anyway you prob don't attack in first turn then

[SirJohn13]

Going first (in sequential games only of course) is always an advantage. Even if you just deploy and don't attack, it is like going last but with 3 extra troops.

The thing is, luck is a big part of CC games. Sometimes you get lucky to play first in 2-player games and sometimes you don't. Sometimes you get great dice that decide the game, sometimes you get terrible ones and lose. Overall, after a large number of games you will have probably played first in about 50% of your 2-player games and also have just about the expected number of great or terrible rolls.

[silversun6]

Concise description:

• Player who goes first will be able to drop his troops and fort , but not attack

Specifics/Details:

• Special Gameplay option next to Fog and Trench will be the "no attack on the first tunr" - or some better name.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• Too many games (1vs1 mostly but not only) are decided in the first turn , on maps with 12 /15 territories going first with decent dice will decide the game.This option should give some advantage to the player going second

[agentcom]

I'm strangely intrigued by this idea. They would also be allowed to fort, right? And I think you're right to not limit this to 1v1 games.

[Metsfanmax]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 1&t=144465

Also, here are some other suggestions that attempt to ameliorate the first turn bonus:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 1&t=104860
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 1&t=123130
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 1&t=113837
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 1&t=108955

[Kaskavel]

Beyond all that, which are interesting, there is an even simpler idea. First players takes only 50% of the troops he would normaly take in the first turn. In a 1 vs 1 game (this is where all those propositions are targeting to) with, lets say, 14 initial regions for each player, it becomes entirely unclear who has the advantage of first turn. The number of total troops with perfectly balanced dice would go +2, -2,+2,-2 etc. More fair than that couldnt be.

[chapcrap]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 1&t=144465

Also, here are some other suggestions that attempt to ameliorate the first turn bonus:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 1&t=104860
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 1&t=123130
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 1&t=113837
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 1&t=108955

Merge or something...

[agentcom]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 1&t=144465

Also, here are some other suggestions that attempt to ameliorate the first turn bonus:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 1&t=104860
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 1&t=123130
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 1&t=113837
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 1&t=108955

Merge or something...

Topics should really be identical to be merged. I haven't had time to look through all of these, but at first glance it looks like they attempt to tackle this problem from slightly different angles. For anyone who is following us closely (not that I think that is a large group) should note that a lot of what we're doing around here is just organizational. Hopefully, we'll be able to continue making this forum a little easier on everyone to navigate. That includes identifying similar suggestions as well as merging identical ones.

[Frogmanx82]

DESCRIPTION

Simple, the first player in any game can deploy but not attack.

REASON TO DO THIS

This would be like going last, but at least you have more troops on the board. Any way you look at it, this minimizes the advantage of deploying first, or takes the sting out of attacking last, especially in two player games. Is it a disadvantage going first with this rule? Maybe, but its way better than attacking last without extra troops on the board. Since turn order is random anyway I just can't see how this wouldn't create a more equitable start.

Sorry if this has been suggested before. Didn't see it in the reject pile.

[patrickaa317]

I think this is fairly intriguing. It'd definitely shake things up; I'd have to play it a couple times this way to truly derive an opinion but it definitely seems that it would balance things out a little.

[nicestash]

I agree, this sounds like a smart suggestion.

[jsnyder748]

wow, that would be....very fair. You would have to make it a game type I think....it would be popular with team games, which I assume is the purpose.

[nicestash]

wow, that would be....very fair. You would have to make it a game type I think....it would be popular with team games, which I assume is the purpose.

Actually, I don't see why this would need to be a game type. You could complain about the waste of time, but it really wouldn't be that big of a deal.

[Just_essence]

I think the "each player, for their first turn, gets the same amount of deployed troops no matter their territories" suggestion is more preferable.