A suggestion: Whatever method is used to determine which player goes first should be changed. It is very significant who is chosen to go first in many games...especially when there are only two players playing. Usually the first player wins. It would be much more fair if the players traded the advantage of going first each time that they play one another.

A possibly quick solution to your dilemma is to ask the map maker to add a 'duel' scenario, which would be specifically designed to balance 1v1 games.  The map designer can change the # of units & cards that each player starts with to make up for seat position.  For most boards I like something around 3 for seat one & 6 for seat two.  I also usually increase the rate that cards increase.  If it was typical 4,6,8,10,...  I might instead go, 5,10,15,20.  This gives seat #2 a more substantial long-term advantage.

Ozyman wrote:

A possibly quick solution to your dilemma is to ask the map maker to add a 'duel' scenario, which would be specifically designed to balance 1v1 games.  The map designer can change the # of units & cards that each player starts with to make up for seat position.  For most boards I like something around 3 for seat one & 6 for seat two.  I also usually increase the rate that cards increase.  If it was typical 4,6,8,10,...  I might instead go, 5,10,15,20.  This gives seat #2 a more substantial long-term advantage.

+1 to Ozyman's post.  It is the designer's prerogative/responsibility make try and make boards 'fair.'  Look at the "charts" for any board and you will notice that some are fairer than others.

That said, over time a random system of seating for any given board should end up reasonably fair. This is a die throwing community, so that aspect of the system shouldn't be so hard to digest.  You're opponent will get first chair three or four times in a row on occasion, but so will you.

That said, over time a random system of seating for any given board should end up reasonably fair. This is a die throwing community, so that aspect of the system shouldn't be so hard to digest.  You're opponent will get first chair three or four times in a row on occasion, but so will you.

Fair - but not necessarily fun.  If the game is already 90% determined before your first turn, it gets boring very quickly.

Ozyman wrote:

That said, over time a random system of seating for any given board should end up reasonably fair. This is a die throwing community, so that aspect of the system shouldn't be so hard to digest.  You're opponent will get first chair three or four times in a row on occasion, but so will you.

Fair - but not necessarily fun.  If the game is already 90% determined before your first turn, it gets boring very quickly.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but.. If the game is 90% determined before your first move (with any regularity), then the board is poorly designed.  Regardless. better players win with more crappy opening positions than lesser players.  It's not a perfect analogy, but it's like asking for the dice to not be random so players can't roll 6 sixes in a row because "it's not fair."  War isn't always fair.  Many (heck, probably most), were all but decided before the first skirmish by virtue of having superior troops, high ground, etc..

What would be interesting would be ratings based on performance given a set of circumstances..  No doubt, there's enough data with WGWF that an algorithm could be created that returns a probability based on starting territories.  Someone could probably easily improve on this because I'm just spewing off the top of my head, but basing it on the mean of the probability of winning for each starting territory would be a start.

If the game is 90% determined before your first move (with any regularity), then the board is poorly designed.

I was thinking of squintgnome's analysis for 1v1 wgwf games:

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/2173/

Overall Win %     59%

Seat 1 win %     72%

Seat 2 win %     39%

Win % if game luck is positive     85%

Win % if game luck is negative    33%

Win % for seat 1 and pos luck     93%

Win % for seat 2 and neg luck    19%

 

And I believe most boards would fall into similar patterns for 1v1 games (assuming they don't have a specific 1v1 balanced scenario), so for that particular situation, I guess I'd say that most boards (including some of my own) are poorly designed.

charlesdale wrote:

A suggestion: Whatever method is used to determine which player goes first should be changed. It is very significant who is chosen to go first in many games...especially when there are only two players playing. Usually the first player wins. It would be much more fair if the players traded the advantage of going first each time that they play one another.

My suggestion is to  have the players alternate who goes first. It seems simple to me.

charlesdale wrote:

charlesdale wrote:

A suggestion: Whatever method is used to determine which player goes first should be changed. It is very significant who is chosen to go first in many games...especially when there are only two players playing. Usually the first player wins. It would be much more fair if the players traded the advantage of going first each time that they play one another.

My suggestion is to  have the players alternate who goes first. It seems simple to me.

I would have no problem with this as long as I can opt out. Risk is about the vagaries of war.  I find it strange that you enjoy a game where you can win with a lucky stretch of dice. or a lucky stretch of starting board positions, but an unlucky stretch in the wrong seat is somehow unacceptable.

I think that this would go well with a previous request to be able to start a new game with the same players more easily. I think this would be primarily for private games between people that know each other and would want to be playing regularly. Have a Start New Game button when the game finishes (another site I used to play on had this feature and only the winner got the Start New Game button) that automatically starts a new game with the same players on the same board with the same settings. There could be an option pull down to start the new game with the same seat positions, new seat positions, or switch seat positions for a two player game.

Korrun wrote:

I think that this would go well with a previous request to be able to start a new game with the same players more easily. I think this would be primarily for private games between people that know each other and would want to be playing regularly. Have a Start New Game button when the game finishes (another site I used to play on had this feature and only the winner got the Start New Game button) that automatically starts a new game with the same players on the same board with the same settings. There could be an option pull down to start the new game with the same seat positions, new seat positions, or switch seat positions for a two player game.

 

+1 Private games is entirely a different matter.  While we're at it, I wouldn't mind being able to control everything right down to territories held etc. so as to play out custom scenarios.

That sounds like a great private game option: Custom Scenario. That might also reduce a few of the complaints about card scales.

I used to play private games against my kids, but it wasn't fun for me.  Being able to control the initial set-up as a way to handicap in this situation would be great.

I usually start mapmaking by trying to only allow a range of playable numbers on my maps that I think will result in relatively fair/balanced play. And then I think, well, some people are just going to want to have a certain number of players because that's what is in their circle of friends, so I make a compromise with myself and stretch the numbers out by +/-1. That usually leaves me in a spot where I then think, "well, dang. now that i've got all those, i'm just +/-1 away from allowing essentially everything." so i compromise again and open it up because who am i to stop people from doing what they want. So, if you find a map isn't fun with 2 people, don't play it. I usually only include it because people complain if I don't.

PS - I don't care how this affects rankings and outcomes. So there.

Amidon37 wrote:

I used to play private games against my kids, but it wasn't fun for me.  Being able to control the initial set-up as a way to handicap in this situation would be great.

Yes, I fully uinderstand it was not fun for you, being defeated all the time by your own kids ;)

How can you keep some authority after that ?

I smell a super-premium feature here.

What if you could access the designer for any board and make whatever changes you want (excluding changing the images) and do a "Save As" ..for your private games only? 

M57 wrote:

I smell a super-premium feature here.

What if you could access the designer for any board and make whatever changes you want (excluding changing the images) and do a "Save As" ..for your private games only? 

What if you could "Buy" the board and do that...small perk to the Designer, small perk to WG.

Yertle wrote:

M57 wrote:

I smell a super-premium feature here.

What if you could access the designer for any board and make whatever changes you want (excluding changing the images) and do a "Save As" ..for your private games only? 

What if you could "Buy" the board and do that...small perk to the Designer, small perk to WG.

I actually thought of that, but figured it would sound too self-serving.

Edit:  Hijacked Thread Alert!

M57 wrote:

charlesdale wrote:

charlesdale wrote:

A suggestion: Whatever method is used to determine which player goes first should be changed. It is very significant who is chosen to go first in many games...especially when there are only two players playing. Usually the first player wins. It would be much more fair if the players traded the advantage of going first each time that they play one another.

My suggestion is to  have the players alternate who goes first. It seems simple to me.

I would have no problem with this as long as I can opt out. Risk is about the vagaries of war.  I find it strange that you enjoy a game where you can win with a lucky stretch of dice. or a lucky stretch of starting board positions, but an unlucky stretch in the wrong seat is somehow unacceptable.

If you took a poll of the players here I think you would find that the vast majority of them would prefer alternating starts. I do enjoy the games the way they are but removing a bit of luck out of the equation in this way would be appealing.

Is this just a single board or every game/board?