It seems to me that players who go earlier in the play order generally have an advantage in most WG maps. Giving priority to seat order during simultaneous play selection would only seem to strengthen this advantage, giving them both a chance to go before other players and to start with the best territories.

I propose that simultaneous territory selection should first give priority to the last player in the turn-order, which I think would help offset to some degree the advantage of going first or second.

Kjeld wrote:

I propose that simultaneous territory selection should first give priority to the last player in the turn-order, which I think would help offset to some degree the advantage of going first or second.

This was a Rule on WF that could be enabled.  It makes sense, although I wouldn't mind seeing a "Snake" Rule as well (player selection 1,2,3,4,5,5,4,3,2,1).

I can see the snake rule being useful, as well. Why not make it such that the board author can select from a couple of options?

Yep I'd say these are both good ideas to implement.

How does territory selection work currently tom?

View the History of this game http://www.wargear.net/games/player/11258

Turn 7-10 says order is Purple>Green>Red>Lime, but territory selection (Turn 17) is Red>Lime>Purple>Green.  Not that I'm too concerned with this game in particular, just wondering if something isn't working as intended. (A few other games that I glanced at looked as if they set up correctly, so dunno what drives that.)

Thanks!

With simultaneous territory selection the seat order is randomised when the orders are executed.

i.e. the seat order is first set so that any scenario defined territories can be allocated to the correct seat, then when all the orders are gathered together the order in which they are executed is randomised.

Hope that makes sense, I think that's the correct behavior.

tom wrote: With simultaneous territory selection the seat order is randomised when the orders are executed.

Oh?  I assumed Territory Selection order was the same as Seat Order, which I also assume Kjeld assumed due to this thread. 

I guess that's okay, although not really intuitive IMO.  I think rules for Territory Selection could be Seat Order, Random , Reverse (Seat Order), and Snake would help define this.

Now to go make sure that's working (since I did see some games where they were the same, which may be possible but somewhat unlikely).

Yertle wrote: I guess that's okay, although not really intuitive IMO.  I think rules for Territory Selection could be Seat Order, Random , Reverse (Seat Order), and Snake would help define this.

Agree. Random could be useful, but is not best for all maps. More options for the board designer is usually better.

tom wrote:  then when all the orders are gathered together the order in which they are executed is randomised.

Just looked over about 6 other games and it appears the starting seat for territory selection is random, but the order is then the same as the seat order, so if Seat order is A>B>C>D then it appears territory selection could be C>D>A>B but not B>D>A>C?  Is that intended? 

(I just point this out since I don't necessarily consider this the "Random" I had imagined as a potential option.)

Has there been any movement on the idea of the snake?  I'm setting up a map, but I'd like it to use the snake method for placement due to the huge advantage given to those who go first on this map.

Not yet, sorry.