First turn equals win

[GenuineEarlGrey]

When learning to play the Age of Realms One map, I was fortunate enough to have it pointed out to me that the a standard, two player, sunny game meant the player going first had a big advantage.

What maps and combinations have this unfortunate quirk? How much of an advantage does it give?

Age of Realms One; Two-player, Sunny. Huge advantage.

Oasis, Two-player, Unimited, Sunny. Pretty big.

Any others? I'll update this list with other contibutions as the discussion goes on,

Best wishes

E.G.

[Bones2484]

It may be easier to list maps that don't give the first player the advantage.

[BaldAdonis]

Any two player game gives an advantage to the first player. You can alter it by changing fortifications (unlimited > chained > adjacent, where unlimited gives the biggest advantage) or changing cards (flat rate > escalating > no cards). Fog usually helps the first player, but if both players can see the map before anyone moves, then it doesn't make a big difference. Bigger maps give a great advantage if you play right, but most people don't, so it's still common to win from second.

Every conquest map without fog usually means "First turn equals win". Maps with 36 territories (e.g. Australia, Madness) play this way as well, since each player starts on the cusp of a territory bonus.

Games with more players aren't really affected by who plays first. Exception is team games with just two teams, which are identical to two player games (aside from having to avoid maps like Australia).

[oVo]

Yup, it's true... first move in any 1v1 is a huge advantage. Waterloo may be a little more forgiving in this situation than most with the bombardment feature, if you get some great dice.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

Yup, it's true... first move in any 1v1 is a huge advantage.

Is it? When's huge not so huge! I play Britsish Isles quite often. There the drop has a big effect on outcome.

Sure, I agee on the logic that who goes first has an advantage - chess is a good example. But there you have to still play well to get any benefit form that advantage,

I'm trying to sort out the some advantage huge from the really huge. BaldAdonis's example of maps of certain size is a good one. Are there any others.

E.G.

[oVo]

Chess isn't a good example because even playing as black both sides are still at equal strength and the ability to counter is always there. Going first 1v1 here is always an unfair advantage, because it presents the opportunity to negate your opponent's drop, lessen their first deployment and force them to play catch up for the remainder of the game. I'm not saying that turning around a 1v1 can't be done, just that the odds are against it.

Chess matches alternate who is white and therefore makes the first move. Here 1v1s could only be balanced if the games were created in pairs giving both players had a chance go first... and of course if the drop was identical in both games (players switching sides so to speak) it would require a very good strategy to win both. This would certainly make an excellent format for 1v1 tournements.

[xelabale]

Going 1st is a huge advantage, if both players are good. White wins considerably more than black in top level games - in chess i mean

[BaldAdonis]

This would certainly make an excellent format for 1v1 tournements.

The hardest part is getting the players in.

[lhcguy]

In Prison riot its also extremly important who comes first.

[Timminz]

In Prison riot its also extremly important who comes first.

I don't think anyone ever comes second in that scenario. Once the first guy's done, it's over.

[BaldAdonis]

In Prison riot its also extremly important who comes first.

I don't think anyone ever comes second in that scenario. Once the first guy's done, it's over.

Funny, I've only played it four times, and the person who played second won every one.

[danfrank]

Going 1st is a huge advantage, if both players are good. White wins considerably more than black in top level games - in chess i mean

Nope....

[BaldAdonis]

Going 1st is a huge advantage, if both players are good. White wins considerably more than black in top level games - in chess i mean

Nope....

Really?
http://www.chessgames.com/index.html

[Timminz]

In Prison riot its also extremly important who comes first.

I don't think anyone ever comes second in that scenario. Once the first guy's done, it's over.

Funny, I've only played it four times, and the person who played second won every one.

I think we're talking about 2 very different "Prison Riots"

[joecoolfrog]

Going 1st is a huge advantage, if both players are good. White wins considerably more than black in top level games - in chess i mean

Nope....

Err.......Yes
In fact most top players are very happy to simply look for the draw when playing black.

[oVo]

It's true, there are a lot of drawn games between eqivilents in Chess...
someting that doesn't happen here.

[AAFitz]

Any two player game gives an advantage to the first player. You can alter it by changing fortifications (unlimited > chained > adjacent, where unlimited gives the biggest advantage) or changing cards (flat rate > escalating > no cards). Fog usually helps the first player, but if both players can see the map before anyone moves, then it doesn't make a big difference. Bigger maps give a great advantage if you play right, but most people don't, so it's still common to win from second.

Every conquest map without fog usually means "First turn equals win". Maps with 36 territories (e.g. Australia, Madness) play this way as well, since each player starts on the cusp of a territory bonus.

Games with more players aren't really affected by who plays first. Exception is team games with just two teams, which are identical to two player games (aside from having to avoid maps like Australia).

Actually he isnt completely correct here.. on adjacent on a big map, if player one has a great first turn, there is nothing you can do about it... but on unlimited, you can access all of your armies for turn two, and have a better shot at it. It is also possible that unlimited will make his turn impossible to beat, but over all, your chances are better on unlimited. You can make some big armies, and at least have a chance at a reversal. Also, escalating gives you another possible chance of evening a sunk game. Of course, if you dont get the cards, it will sink you further, but the goal is to either go first, or have as many chances at coming back from death as you can. Flat rate is far too deciding though, because even on a big map, if your opponent gets a 10 set, and you dont, it will be hard to recover from that. With escalating, it gives you some choices and timing, which may just mean the game. And fog can help the first person, or can even help the second person, if you have a bonus that they did not break.

[Timminz]

Actually he isnt completely correct here.. on adjacent on a big map, if player one has a great first turn, there is nothing you can do about it... but on unlimited, you can access all of your armies for turn two, and have a better shot at it. It is also possible that unlimited will make his turn impossible to beat, but over all, your chances are better on unlimited. You can make some big armies, and at least have a chance at a reversal.

Actually he isn't completely correct here. Unlimited forts give a far bigger advantage to the player who goes first (especially on larger maps) since they can stack large forces up, and the second to go can only deploy onto 3's, thus making it nearly impossible to do much damage to those large stacks before the first player gets to go again. Combine unlimited forts with a large map, and going first, and any good player will be almost guaranteed of a win. Whereas, given the same scenario, using chained, or adj forts instead of unlim, the first player will not have been able to put up as much defense, thus making it more likely that the second player can counter before things get too lopsided.

[AAFitz]

Actually he isnt completely correct here.. on adjacent on a big map, if player one has a great first turn, there is nothing you can do about it... but on unlimited, you can access all of your armies for turn two, and have a better shot at it. It is also possible that unlimited will make his turn impossible to beat, but over all, your chances are better on unlimited. You can make some big armies, and at least have a chance at a reversal.

Actually he isn't completely correct here. Unlimited forts give a far bigger advantage to the player who goes first (especially on larger maps) since they can stack large forces up, and the second to go can only deploy onto 3's, thus making it nearly impossible to do much damage to those large stacks before the first player gets to go again. Combine unlimited forts with a large map, and going first, and any good player will be almost guaranteed of a win. Whereas, given the same scenario, using chained, or adj forts instead of unlim, the first player will not have been able to put up as much defense, thus making it more likely that the second player can counter before things get too lopsided.

Actually, he thinks hes right, but is wrong...its not his fault though, hes only played world 40 times...im at 1200...Im not guessing, Im simply posting what Ive seen.... unlimited can give a bigger advantage, however, with adjacent or chained, on a really big map like world, is much harder to come back from going second than on than unlimited. On 1v1, if player 1 goes first, and hits you hard, you will come in with 11 or 10 armies, you then have to not only counter what he attacked, but hit at least two more to get him down to 11. It is practically over right there. However, on unlimited, you can pool 20 to thirty armies, which with good dice, can overturn a good first round by your opponent. If you opponent plays it well and gets good dice, you are dead anyways, but that is true on any setting. But with unlmited...and really only on world, or a equally big map like Conquer, being able to get all armies at once gives you a fighting chance. On adjacent, or chained, on round two, you were only able to access two armies, and without truly good dice on your part, and truly bad dice by your opponent, the game is essentially over.

A guaranteed win by going first is only if the person gets good dice, or maybe a good drop. If you get good dice and go second, and you can then pool all of your armies, and get good dice again, you actually have a shot. On adjacent or chained however, you are limited to your initial drop on round two, which means you can only undo so much damage from round one. This does not apply to medium maps such as omaha though...on those maps unlimited and going first is really close to a win.

Make no mistake, going first is almost always better, and some games are unwinnable, but on world, your best bet of winning by going second is with unlimited, or super dice of course, assuming you play it correctly. Overall though, id almost always want better dice, and a better drop, and better timed cards than going first. Going first is nice too though. Its something many underestimate, and therefore dont play world...but its also why many that do know it, play world exclusively. Some just have to see it to believe it though.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

It's true
[that most top players are very happy to simply look for the draw when playing black.], there are a lot of drawn games between eqivilents in Chess...
someting that doesn't happen here.

You only get draws in chess cause you are allowed to - we don't have that option here [yet?]!

With the chess argument, the key words are games between eqivilents however I'd change that to
games between eqivilents top players.

In CC you don't always have top equivalent players in a 1 v 1.

I'm still left wondering about the maps where there is a big gain from going first as opposed to a small one.

E.G.

[Timminz]

...on unlimited, you can pool 20 to thirty armies, which with good dice, can overturn a good first round by your opponent.....

You seem to be neglecting the fact that the first player will have the same stacks of 20-30 armies available for use before the second player will. What good it stacking up a large force, if your opponent is going to get a chance of attacking it with their equally sized force before you can use it?

I'd be very interested to see what other players who've played a lot of 1v1 games (with a certain degree of success) think about which fort setting provides a more even game (in sequential). You're the only person with a high score I've ever seen promoting unlimited as more "fair" than chained or adj, except for in freestyle.

[AAFitz]

...on unlimited, you can pool 20 to thirty armies, which with good dice, can overturn a good first round by your opponent.....

You seem to be neglecting the fact that the first player will have the same stacks of 20-30 armies available for use before the second player will. What good it stacking up a large force, if your opponent is going to get a chance of attacking it with their equally sized force before you can use it?

I'd be very interested to see what other players who've played a lot of 1v1 games (with a certain degree of success) think about which fort setting provides a more even game (in sequential). You're the only person with a high score I've ever seen promoting unlimited as more "fair" than chained or adj, except for in freestyle.

Im only talking about world 2.1 for the most part, and Im not neglecting anything. Just posting my experience on it. My win rate goes up huge on unlimited, and its simply because of its size. Its about proportion. And I never said it was more fair per-se...only that my chances are better on unlimited going second. On any medium sized map unlimited is a coin toss a large percent of the time as to who goes first, and certainly on world there are a bunch of coin tosses too...however, because the percentage of lost armies on turn one, is less as the map gets bigger...having access to the total amount means with a good round you can counter act a bad round more easily.

Keep in mind, this is not based on one game... or extreme games...this is based on those in the middle on which you have a decent chance of winning by going second, and with unlimited, on world, my chances go up. With adjacent, and without spoils, there simply is no option, except to have player one have no dice on turn one, and you get perfect dice on round one. But, with unlimited, you have options on round two. You can set up to take bonuses, which can swing the balance, you can set up to break bonuses, that you never would on adjacent, and you can just get lucky by having your big piles hold off the other players piles.

Im not suggesting it takes more strategy, or that its more fair, only that it gives you the most options for undoing a bad round. Ive picked the settings very carefully, and they give me the best chances, and are without a doubt my best settings overall.. my win rate on world is drastically higher, and its only because the number of armies gives me a few extra options, and a few extra chances with the dice, not to mention a few extra options for the opponent to mess up on.

Ive had unlimited games get to the 40 army cash point on escalating, and the same on chained occassionally...most think its so big, that its over on round one. It isnt... It is often, but not always. Again, Im not guessing here. I have over 600 games on just 1v1's on the thing.

And more importantly, id much rather get better dice than go first... BaldAdonis and I just played 10 world games...he went 1st in 9 of them. On one of his rounds he killed 8 or 9 territories, meaning 24-27 armies... on another he killed 5 or 6...same person, same going first.... the difference was the dice, not the turn order. Obviously getting the chance to kill 24 armies is better, but if you dont, and I come back to do it...going first meant nothing. Further, if I get dropped a bonus, and a player cant break it on round one...drop was more important assuming dice are average.

If you can choose between good dice, good drop and good spoils, or going first, pick the dice, drop and spoils...because overall, they will decide most of the games. However, if you can choose to go first too...then by all means go first...lol

[scottp]

The biggest advantage to going first at 1v1, in my opinion, is those maps where each player starts with exactly 12, 15, or 18 territories (like on Africa, each player starts with 15).

Even if the drop is pretty "even" (i.e no one on the cusp of a zone bonus, no one with a lot of armies isolated behind neutrals) the first person to play gets 5 armies and only has to take one territory from the other to reduce his take down to 4. Now the second player must take TWO territories to get player 1's bonus down to 4, which usually will result in some thin territories that player 1 can exploit.

Unless someone gains a zone bonus, this can easily be worked by Player 1 so he just slowly out-earns Player 2 'til the win is inevitable.

[Timminz]

The biggest advantage to going first at 1v1, in my opinion, is those maps where each player starts with exactly 12, 15, or 18 territories (like on Africa, each player starts with 15).

Even if the drop is pretty "even" (i.e no one on the cusp of a zone bonus, no one with a lot of armies isolated behind neutrals) the first person to play gets 5 armies and only has to take one territory from the other to reduce his take down to 4. Now the second player must take TWO territories to get player 1's bonus down to 4, which usually will result in some thin territories that player 1 can exploit.

Unless someone gains a zone bonus, this can easily be worked by Player 1 so he just slowly out-earns Player 2 'til the win is inevitable.

very true. Especially on the smaller maps (12, & 15 each) since a difference of 1 is more significant than it is on bigger maps.

[Rocketry]

When learning to play the Age of Realms One map, I was fortunate enough to have it pointed out to me that the a standard, two player, sunny game meant the player going first had a big advantage.

What maps and combinations have this unfortunate quirk? How much of an advantage does it give?

Age of Realms One; Two-player, Sunny. Huge advantage.

Oasis, Two-player, Unimited, Sunny. Pretty big.

Any others? I'll update this list with other contibutions as the discussion goes on,

Best wishes

E.G.

Doodle and Lux do. its not unfortunate, it's part of the fun.

Rocket.