Game option for 1st turner attack limit

[narutoserigala]

My suggestion (if not already suggested) is that we build into the gameplay settings which allow players to choose whether or not to restrict the first turner's attack.

This idea deals with the problem of 1st turner advantage in 1v1 games both in team and non team games.

How will this work specifically?
Under such a proposal, game creators can set the first turner kills threshold to no more than “x” and triggers an automatic end to the assault phase. “x” can be number of kills or number of territories.

Consider the 2 examples below.

Example 1: If “x” is set to zero, then this becomes a deploy only/no attack option.

Example 2: If “x” is set to 5 kills then the first turner attack phase automatically ends at the first instance this number is breached. For example, lets suppose the first turner already got 4 kills. His next roll could increase his kills to either 5 or 6. In either case, this triggers an automatic halt to the assault phase.

How is this beneficial?

1) Because it allows game creators to set kills thresholds, it is inherently superior to the current CC unlimited attack default settings. The current default settings deprive the 2nd turner of a fair chance to compete. Too often, the game is virtually over even before the 2nd turner starts the game.

2) It is also superior to the “deploy only/no attack” option that is really just a “blunt” instrument.

By allowing a range of kills, map specialists can experiment to find out the right kill number which will allow fairer opportunity for the 2nd turner. The right kill number depends on the map and also the relative skill differential between the players.

For example, if both players are equally skilled, then in the case of Waterloo, the right kill number is between 3 to 6 kills (neutrals included). This number could even be zero if the first turner is more skilled than the 2nd turner.

[DoomYoshi]

Interesting idea. It seems familiar, but I couldn`t find another thread on it.

[narutoserigala]

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=13443595


I tried the Polymorphic, 2 armies per player at Waterloo.

Got +8 reinforcements, and as first turner, I blasted 5 terrs. It was an uphill climb for the 2nd turner from the word "go".

The 2nd turner started his turn, got bad dice. Could he come back into the game somehow?

You guessed it, game over for the 2nd turner virtually by the end of round 1, even when he is an elite player like dkmaster!

I might try trips or quads to see if Poly works better there. Maybe Pol(l)y wants some crackers before work? Or you could limit first turner attack?

[patrickaa317]

I don't want to see any thing implemented where i have to decide each game how many territs the first attacker can take. I would however support some option where first player in any 1v1, poly, or 2-teams game was limited to only being able to deploy, no attacking allowed.

That would also solve the good old foggy map fairness thing.

[agentcom]

For suggestions like this, go to advanced search and type in "first turn" (with the quotations marks); limit the topics searched to Suggestions (and subfora); set results to show topics (rather than posts); and look through the titles. I found at least 2 suggestions related to restricting the first player's move on the first page of the results.

[narutoserigala]

I don't want to see any thing implemented where i have to decide each game how many territs the first attacker can take. I would however support some option where first player in any 1v1, poly, or 2-teams game was limited to only being able to deploy, no attacking allowed.

That would also solve the good old foggy map fairness thing.

Thanks patrick for responding and agentcom for showing me some helpful threads.

I have consulted those threads and they did speak about the no attack option. This is but one extreme and CC's current default for no attack limit option is the other. Between the 2 extremes, I'd settle for the lesser evil- no attack option ...its a no brainer. In fact, I played with no attack option and was pleased with the result.

However, as with everything, when some new strengths are gained, they come at a price.There will be some flaws along with it. It's just like taking medicine, you'll feel the side effects.

While we want to make it fairer for the 2nd turner, it is also important not to be excessive to the point where the first turner actually gets disadvantaged. Here are 2 examples, in flat rate games, missing out on a spoil because of the no attack option can be very significant to the game outcome. Secondly, when the 2nd turner gets initialized with bonuses which is very common with maps like Waterloo. Shouldn't we let the first turner break it?

You can see that the first turner actually becomes disadvantaged when prevented by no attack option in those 2 cases above. Starting first might actually handicap the firsturner.

That is where my suggestion for the option of limiting kills is useful. It is designed to create a fairer gameplay for the 2nd turner. At the same time, it also respects the right of the 1st turner to convert his fortune of being first, into some strategic advantage, however slight (or at least attempt to break the any 2nd turner's bonus at the minimum).

Patrick, if it is not feasible to have a range of allowed kills, I wonder if kills limit can be set to 3 options only: a) 0 kill, b) 3 kills (i.e. 1 territory) or (c) the usual default of no limit? Wouldn't that be more manageable?

Cheers, naruto

[agentcom]

Another problem is that what's "fair" will differ by map. Let's define "fair" as what will lead to exactly a 50% win percentage between first and second players in a 1v1 game (and assume that can be figured out). My sense is that a drop-and-no-attack option might be "fair" on a map like Classic, but is probably overshooting it for a map like Feudal Epic or Clandemonium. I'm not sure that there's really a good answer here. I think that the best option for "fair" games remains creating multiple games and playing a series.

I think a better option to creating fairness would be to allow mapmakers to code different starting positions/troop strengths for the player who goes second. I just don't think that this setting holds much promise because it's too hard to try to adjust the fairness for a map by creating options like the one proposed. IDK ... this is something that people could test out by themselves as an experimental game type and look at actual results.

[patrickaa317]

I don't want to see any thing implemented where i have to decide each game how many territs the first attacker can take. I would however support some option where first player in any 1v1, poly, or 2-teams game was limited to only being able to deploy, no attacking allowed.

That would also solve the good old foggy map fairness thing.

Thanks patrick for responding and agentcom for showing me some helpful threads.

I have consulted those threads and they did speak about the no attack option. This is but one extreme and CC's current default for no attack limit option is the other. Between the 2 extremes, I'd settle for the lesser evil- no attack option ...its a no brainer. In fact, I played with no attack option and was pleased with the result.

However, as with everything, when some new strengths are gained, they come at a price.There will be some flaws along with it. It's just like taking medicine, you'll feel the side effects.

While we want to make it fairer for the 2nd turner, it is also important not to be excessive to the point where the first turner actually gets disadvantaged. Here are 2 examples, in flat rate games, missing out on a spoil because of the no attack option can be very significant to the game outcome. Secondly, when the 2nd turner gets initialized with bonuses which is very common with maps like Waterloo. Shouldn't we let the first turner break it?

You can see that the first turner actually becomes disadvantaged when prevented by no attack option in those 2 cases above. Starting first might actually handicap the firsturner.

That is where my suggestion for the option of limiting kills is useful. It is designed to create a fairer gameplay for the 2nd turner. At the same time, it also respects the right of the 1st turner to convert his fortune of being first, into some strategic advantage, however slight (or at least attempt to break the any 2nd turner's bonus at the minimum).

Patrick, if it is not feasible to have a range of allowed kills, I wonder if kills limit can be set to 3 options only: a) 0 kill, b) 3 kills (i.e. 1 territory) or (c) the usual default of no limit? Wouldn't that be more manageable?

Cheers, naruto

The flat rate argument seems to make sense until you think a little bit more on it. Rather than I go Round 1, then you go Round 1, think of me deploying only in Round 0, then you getting the first turn in Round 1. I would also then get a turn in Round 1 where I can card.

I used to play with a group of guys that when we'd play a tank map, they wanted to load up the first player to go that way we could have a big army at the start of Round 2, though there was no significance of the starting of Round 2 in comparison to the end of Round 1 or the second turn in Round 2.

And you can talk hypotheticals in bonus breaks all day long but what happens if the player that goes first, can attack but is limited. Now he gets to deploy with a bonus, attack the other players bonus, then reinforce to protect his bonus fully.

This type of setting just really convolutes game creation and doesn't directly solve a problem. The best uniform way to do this, is to allow the first player to drop only (A). If you would rather look at this as the second player gets a deployment before the first round (B), that is fine. In the end it's the same either way since we alternate turns, Round numbers are pretty much irrelevant.

A)
Round 1
Patrick - deploy only
You - deploy and attack

B)
Round 0
Patrick - deploy only
Round 1
You - normal
Patrick - normal.

[narutoserigala]

My post was merged with the no attack thread and I do not understand why. In fact, because I found the no attack solution to be extreme, I spoke about a different solution altogether that is to allow players to choose the max kills themselves. This is a completely different concept from (1) deploy only (no attack allowed) and (2) unlimited attack.

As for option (1), a case can be made when the first turner is relatively more skilled than the 2nd turner.

If they are equally skilled, then I believe the 1st turner loses more often than he wins. Worse, you can imagine what happens if the 2nd turner is actually more skilled.

Like I said before, the no attack/deploy only is just 1 extreme option and the current CC default setting of no attack limit is the other.

If there are no other other choices available between the 2 extremes, then the lesser of the 2 evils would be option 1.

Let me reiterate, I don't believe that option (1) can fully solve the 1v1 problem. It is a weak solution and can work in selective cases but at least it is not as bad as option (2) .

naruto