[GP/UI] First to play indicator on Manual Sequential games

[agentcom]

I agree, too. This would be a welcome change.

Isn't part of the strategy in these types of games to deploy so that you are in the best position whether you go first or second? If you put the indicator there, the first player will have a really big advantage.

Yeah. Looking back, I'm surprised I was so in favor of this initially.

I think the discussion has turned from multiplayer games to 1v1.

In 1v1 this will probably increase the already huge advantage that the first player gets. For what most of us would consider "normal" 5- and 6- player games, it is still a very good idea.

Yes, I was definitely referring to 1v1 games but so was the OP. There hasn't been any discussion about larger games. I'm curious why you think it's such a great benefit for those games.

I agree, too. This would be a welcome change.

Isn't part of the strategy in these types of games to deploy so that you are in the best position whether you go first or second? If you put the indicator there, the first player will have a really big advantage.

Yeah. Looking back, I'm surprised I was so in favor of this initially.

Looking back, I was strongly in favor of it, too. Definitely not in support anymore at least for 1v1 games. Considering I don't think there should be a lot of game mechanics that happen differently for different game types, the reasoning behind adding this for large games only would have to be fairly convincing for me to like this in any form.

Also, I think part of the support behind this suggestion is based on a distaste for certain poorly designed games. Manual, 1v1 on Classic probably goes to the first player to move. The advantage is probably even bigger on other maps. The solution to this problem is not to create or join those games when you can help it. But I can see how manual (especially in conjunction with fog) would be interesting on certain larger maps or ones where players are often/always separated by many neutrals.

[Dukasaur]

Looking back, I was strongly in favor of it, too. Definitely not in support anymore at least for 1v1 games. Considering I don't think there should be a lot of game mechanics that happen differently for different game types, the reasoning behind adding this for large games only would have to be fairly convincing for me to like this in any form.

Actually, having had more time to think about it since this morning, I am starting to be in favour of this suggestion for all game sizes.

I think even in 1v1 this improves the parity of the players.

Conventional thinking is that in Manual deployment, nothing beats dropping all on one tert. However, in 1v1, this idea only works if you get first move. The first player to move uses attackers advantage to smash the other player's superstack, and if dice yield expected results, he ends up having several troops more than the other player. He then parlays that initial advantage into a larger and larger advantage as the turns go on.

If you were going second, however, and if you knew that you were going second, you would not follow the all-on-one strategy. Knowing that the odds are against you winning the superstack vs. superstack clash, you would build in more conventional ways, trying to set yourself up for a bonus, leaving a trail of 2s around the place where the first player's superstack is likely to start, and so on.

As previous posters have noted:

I do not understand the point of manual deployment in 1 vs 1 but yes,if we are to play this, knowing who plays first will make things more balanced. Charging through 2s is not the same as charging through 1s

I know I sound like I'm flip-flopping, and really I am, but that is because I have been thinking it through more and more, and thinking about actual scenarios.

And, in multiplayer games, it will be even more important. If I have 2 terts inside a small 4-tert bonus zone, the turn order tells me whether it's worth putting a superstack in there to claim that bonus, or whether I'm wasting my time. If I'm last to move in a six-player game, I will be totally defensive in my initial deployment, whereas if I'm first I will be superstacking, and if I'm somewhere that is neither first nor last, I will probably follow some middle path.

[agentcom]

Looking back, I was strongly in favor of it, too. Definitely not in support anymore at least for 1v1 games. Considering I don't think there should be a lot of game mechanics that happen differently for different game types, the reasoning behind adding this for large games only would have to be fairly convincing for me to like this in any form.

Actually, having had more time to think about it since this morning, I am starting to be in favour of this suggestion for all game sizes.

I think even in 1v1 this improves the parity of the players.

Conventional thinking is that in Manual deployment, nothing beats dropping all on one tert. However, in 1v1, this idea only works if you get first move. The first player to move uses attackers advantage to smash the other player's superstack, and if dice yield expected results, he ends up having several troops more than the other player. He then parlays that initial advantage into a larger and larger advantage as the turns go on.

If you were going second, however, and if you knew that you were going second, you would not follow the all-on-one strategy. Knowing that the odds are against you winning the superstack vs. superstack clash, you would build in more conventional ways, trying to set yourself up for a bonus, leaving a trail of 2s around the place where the first player's superstack is likely to start, and so on.

I understand that idea. I also get that is the reason that many people are getting behind this (in fact, I think it's why I was behind it at first). However, I don't think that it's actually accurate. In a 1v1 manual game, you can go all to one territ. But that's not usually the best overall strategy. Usually you want to spread your drop around for a variety of reasons: to match the stacks the other player will likely have, to put yourself in the best position to eliminate many territs on first turn without going through neutrals, to block the other player from doing too much damage if he goes first, to give yourself many bonus possibilities and/or to "guard" some of your troops using the opponent's own territs that aren't likely to be stacked. I think part of the fun and challenge of manual, 1v1 games is to put yourself in the best position to win taking into account that you might go first or you might go second. Granted, I've been in games where I was almost certain to lose if I went second, so I played as if I knew I was going first. But most of the time, I'm trying to put myself in the best position to win given the uncertainty of the first move.

But even in your stylized version of manual 1v1 games, the person playing second who engages in your strategy of dropping a bunch of 2s everywhere might even do himself more harm than good. The first player will still want to be in position to take out P2's big stack if it's bordering P1's territs. But if P2 buries his stack behind a bunch of his own 2s, then P1 will just chip away at the 2s until P2 forts his stack forward or until P1 is strong enough to take out the 2s and the stack.

As previous posters have noted:

I do not understand the point of manual deployment in 1 vs 1 but yes,if we are to play this, knowing who plays first will make things more balanced. Charging through 2s is not the same as charging through 1s

I know I sound like I'm flip-flopping, and really I am, but that is because I have been thinking it through more and more, and thinking about actual scenarios.

And, in multiplayer games, it will be even more important. If I have 2 terts inside a small 4-tert bonus zone, the turn order tells me whether it's worth putting a superstack in there to claim that bonus, or whether I'm wasting my time. If I'm last to move in a six-player game, I will be totally defensive in my initial deployment, whereas if I'm first I will be superstacking, and if I'm somewhere that is neither first nor last, I will probably follow some middle path.

[Dukasaur]

But even in your stylized version of manual 1v1 games, the person playing second who engages in your strategy of dropping a bunch of 2s everywhere might even do himself more harm than good. The first player will still want to be in position to take out P2's big stack if it's bordering P1's territs. But if P2 buries his stack behind a bunch of his own 2s, then P1 will just chip away at the 2s until P2 forts his stack forward or until P1 is strong enough to take out the 2s and the stack.

Maybe and maybe.

Let's allow people to have a chance to experiment with what they think is a good strategy for these situations. As it stands, it's just a lottery ticket.

[iAmCaffeine]

I would support this for 1v1 and multiplayer. It brings more strategy into the setting.

[Foxglove]

I like this.

Is agentcom the sole dissenting voice? I will probably Submit this soon.

[Bruceswar]

Please get this submitted.. it will make manual playable in team games

[codierose]

hate the idea leave as is

[codierose]

I like this.

Is agentcom the sole dissenting voice? I will probably Submit this soon.

you like the idea but you have only played 11 manual games how would really know if this was a good idea or not.
how long has manual deploy been in place 2009 ? just leave things alone imo.
i like the fact you don't know who goes first adds to the enjoyment of the game.
whilst we are at it lets change it so red always goes first. call it a reward for making the game lol

[Dukasaur]

I like this.

Is agentcom the sole dissenting voice? I will probably Submit this soon.

you like the idea but you have only played 11 manual games how would really know if this was a good idea or not.

Very few people play it, probably for the same reason that I don't play it much: because it's almost impossible to make a strategic game out of it. I think this change would make it more strategic and therefore more popular.

Please get this submitted.. it will make manual playable in team games

[Foxglove]

I like this.

Is agentcom the sole dissenting voice? I will probably Submit this soon.

you like the idea but you have only played 11 manual games how would really know if this was a good idea or not.

So you are saying that the only way for a person to have a legitimate opinion about a suggestion is if they have played some minimum number of games relating to the suggestion? Can logic, general experience, or the information provided by other people be used to substitute for some of those games in the determination of opinion worthiness?

how long has manual deploy been in place 2009 ? just leave things alone imo.

Keeping the status quo isn't a great argument for leaving things alone.

i like the fact you don't know who goes first adds to the enjoyment of the game.

This is a better argument.

whilst we are at it lets change it so red always goes first. call it a reward for making the game lol

This suggestion is irrelevant to the original suggestion, but feel free to make a new post if you'd like.

[betiko]

1v1 makes it a coinflip and is plain silly. Dropping ofensively or defensively makes much more sense.

[Kaskavel]

It seems to me that some people disagree, just in order to disagree. I hate manual, but if I did not, I would like the idea. Just because we are used to the fact that deploying comes before getting the info of first turn, does not mean that this is the best and more logical sequence. In fact, if you think about it, forgetting your experience, you will probably realize it is clearly not. Obviously there is SOME interest in the unexpected and unknown of who goes first, but the argument that it is more logical to know why we are deploying our troops the way we do, in the places we do, is definately much more strong. I am certain that most people who disagree with the suggestion, would also have disagreed if knowledge was prior to deployment and the suggestion was the opposite one, lol...
Anyway, what am I doing? Manual? That is terrible in all cases...pfff.