Like most of us who play a lot of 1 v 1, I am frustrated with the significant impact of luck in these games, especially since I am on a big 'unlucky' streak. 

I remember someone, I think it was Attila, who suggested that some strategies could mitigate the effects of luck.  Now, I think this could work for multi-player games, but I am hard pressed to think of any effective strategies to do this for 1 v 1 games.  Does anyone have any ideas or suggestions?

One thing I will say before people start answering is that, except for certain circumstances, 'DON'T ATTACK' is not a strategy to mitigate bad luck.  Your odds are better when you attack properly, and waiting for you opponent to attack is just giving him better odds.  You can have bad luck being attacked just the same as when you are the attacker.

Well...anyway...let me hear some ideas!

The #1 way I know is to not use the attack with All button unless I'm 100% happy with losing all of the armies in that country.
I also make a decision BEFORE I attack the first time "How many armies am I willing to lose on this battle?" before I start my first attack.
This helps with making sure I stop my attack before my luck drains an entire

Actually, I really make the decision first, then subtract 10% because I know that I'll always blow through the stop sign when I'm on an attack, so if I subtract an extra 10%, then I know I have some fudge room and I won't drain myself down to zero.

Is this the kind of thing you're looking for??

The single most effective strategy for winning despite having bad luck is to continue to play intelligently.  Don't get emotional and start attacking 2 v 2.  Keep getting cards if they're a significant part of the game.  Keep getting territory and continent bonuses when and where you can.  Be patient.

Since you won't be able to affect the luck, you'll have to work with whatever you have.

Thank you both Boris and Attila, I agree with you both.  Not letting emotion get the best of you may be the only way to deal with bad luck.  I know that more than once I have made ill-advised attacks out of frustration and regretted it a few rounds later.

Accepting that patience and a 'cool head' is good advice, I submit that it is not enough to deflect the ravages of adverse dice when there is only 1 opponent.

Are there any more effective 'luck resistant' strategies for 1 v 1 Wargear Warfare play?  I am at the point where I am considering not playing 1 v 1 Wargear Warfare any more.  I feel I am a decent player but I have won less than 60% of my 1 v 1 games.

I think it depends on the map also.  On a map with a more complex strategy there is more opportunity for skill to dominate luck.  If the board is pretty straightforward, then luck plays more of a role.  Maybe try playing on some 'red' maps and see if those seem less dependent on luck.

Yeah, I like Oz's suggestion: table selection matters a lot for 1v1 skill separation. And you don't have to play the red maps (I think he means 5,7,10, Alpha/Mongrel maps).

Of the maps (with dice) I've played a lot I'd say Gear Wars: The Force Unleashed has the highest skill separation factor, followed by Bomb Factory, Arm Wrestle, Spy v spy, Gear Wars: Episode I, and Bowling. (All are really fun dueling maps, whether you get edge or not. Note that the 1st two are Simulgear maps.)

There are many I haven't tried yet. The designed-for-1v1 maps practically have a league going - you see a lot of the same players, and anyone you don't recognize is usually at a disadvantage!

By Red maps, I meant the ones tagged with a red difficulty (as opposed to green or yellow), but all the ones Hugh mentioned are good choices. 

I actually have a strategy suggestion which I'll share at the end.  But, it's a nit because my experience is that few maps support strategy over luck in 2-player games.  In other words, 95% of the time, luck is all that matters and the only impact of strategy is to delay the inevitable outcome.  For this reason, I no longer join 2-player games except to be polite when invited. 

It goes without saying that playing emotionally in *any* game never helps.  But, unless one has a special "strategy-afterburner" button in their head that they can press to give them extra strategy power when it's *really* needed, they are already playing with as much strategy as their brain can muster and all that can be hoped for is that it buys time for a dramatic reversal in luck.  But, since your opponent has been getting disproportionately stronger than you during your bad luck, his luck has to not only be as bad as yours has been up to that point, but significantly worse and/or last much longer just to allow you to regain equality.  Fat chance.  It's your opponent's game to lose and unless he/she is an awful player, you might as well just resign or play resignedly to hasten the end. 

But, if luck hasn't yet given the nod to your opponent, one strategy that could help is to attack ONLY your opponent's territories and don't waste units attacking neutrals even if this means sacrificing the possibility of a continent bonus.  Hope that your opponent burns off his luck-gained extra units against neutrals.  Most maps provide a bonus for every X territories owned and often the resulting bonus can be worth as much as the kind of continent bonuses your opponent can capture in a game that's only a few turns in.  But, if your luck-blessed opponent is smart enough to ignore continent bonuses and keep you back-peddling by attacking only you, then save time, honor your opponent's strategy, and resign.  Surprisingly, though, a good number of opponents will keep going for the continent bonuses. 

Thanks for your reply MH.  I agree with your suggestion to avoid attacking neutrals, which I usually avoid unless I want Aust or SA in WW.  I also agree that the best course is to just stay alive and hope your opponent gets distracted by attacking neutrals while you are waiting to cash a set of cards.  If you stay alive long enough until the card count gets high you have a chance winning any game, when the card count is high the dice rolling luck is outweighed by the card matching luck I think.

The greatest impact of luck in a 1vs1 games is right at the beginning of a game. Who will start the match. Since the players who starts out has a huge favour over the one who goed 2nd I suggest to make a different bonus structure at the start of the game to shrink the impact of luck.

For example in WW, let the first player start out with 1 armie instead of 3, and then let them game play out as usual. Now the player who starts has the choice of really starting the game or placing one armie and pass right away. When he chooses to pass the turn, the difference is 2 instead of 3 armies for the other player to start out. Which can make a big difference. 

Still, the luck involved in the first rounds of attack will be more important then ever. Not much we can change about that. Maybe start the game with more armies on the board?

Anyhow, the big impact of luck made me choose not to play them as much anymore, because I like strategie games over luck games.

Luieuil, this can already be done, but it is up to the mapmaker to set it up.  What the mapmaker needs to do is create a scenario that only allows 2 player games.  Then for that scenario they can set how many units each seat gets to place on their first turn.

I've started trying to do more of this with my maps (setting the starting unit counts by seat), but I haven't split off a 1v1 scenario because I rarely play 1v1 and so I'm not sure what the unit counts would need to be set to to make it fair.  I think if you have a strong opinion about what they should be for a particular map, you should contact the map maker and let them know.  It is not that hard to setup a separate scenario (probably <10 minutes to do the whole thing if the map maker knows what they are doing).

Another option that I think would restore some balance is to increase the neutral count in 1v1 games.

Ozyman wrote:

Luieuil, this can already be done, but it is up to the mapmaker to set it up.  What the mapmaker needs to do is create a scenario that only allows 2 player games.  Then for that scenario they can set how many units each seat gets to place on their first turn.

I've started trying to do more of this with my maps (setting the starting unit counts by seat), but I haven't split off a 1v1 scenario because I rarely play 1v1 and so I'm not sure what the unit counts would need to be set to to make it fair.  I think if you have a strong opinion about what they should be for a particular map, you should contact the map maker and let them know.  It is not that hard to setup a separate scenario (probably <10 minutes to do the whole thing if the map maker knows what they are doing).

Another option that I think would restore some balance is to increase the neutral count in 1v1 games.

These are all effective ways to mitigate the 1st player advantage.. Personally, as a designer I avoid the last one because boards that have a lot of neutrals to break through tend to favor the player who throws the best dice.. I.e, it takes a certain amount of skill out of the game.

Provided that the designer has put some thought and Dev work into it, a 1x1 scenario is the way to go with a lot of boards.. Problem is, scenarios are relatively new, and most designers are loathe to go back and up-date things of this nature. Doing it right takes a little research.  I have to admit that I should be going back and making a few Fall of Rome scenarios but I don't know when I'll have the time or inclination.

Hello! Can you see this one? Lol there is no way to win something like this by strategy, you can just surrender after 1st turn!

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/120202

ouch.