Being first vs. Being last?

[Kite Lanford]

A debate that's been going into my head during a Sequential match:

Is it really a good thing to be first in a Sequestial Match on the first Round? Is it really good to start last? I am perfectly aware that Sequestial is basically randomized starts, but... are there advantages if any?

The reason why I asked is because I may wind up in a hopeless situlation where I play last on every round, where it's easy to lose alot of ground just waiting and waiting... and yes, I've not considered playing a Speed Game before you ask such a question.

[zell565]

Well, if it's escalating cards, the obvious advantage to last place is that you're theoretically gauranteed the biggest payout of troops. If everyone takes one card per turn, your opponents will be forced to cash before you...

...Provided you last that long.

[frood]

If it is just a question of first or last in sequential then first is always better for the simple reason you can deploy your troops and end without doing any thing and you are now effectively last but with more troops to start.

[what,me worry?]

It depends which map your on. If both people start out with the min terr count for a higher bonus then it does. For example maps that give 15 terr to each player, the first player should attack and make sure his opponents get 4 instead of 5. In maps where each person gets 13 then it doesnt matter who goes first as theres no incentive to strike first

[poo-maker]

You always want to go first... You can always place down your 3 men and skip a card. Thus, starting the next round with 3 more men and being last (so long as noone else has skipped).

[MeDeFe]

You want to be the first to go after the 3rd last person in the game has deadbeated out.

[Kemmler]

If it is just a question of first or last in sequential then first is always better for the simple reason you can deploy your troops and end without doing any thing and you are now effectively last but with more troops to start.

arr, clever