I have been playing a good number of 1v1  WarGear Warfare games, and I have got to thinking a bit about advantages/disadvantages

I know there has been a lot of prior discussion about the advantage of going first - and of course there is always the issue of having some really bad luck of the dice - but I haven't seen much discussion in the forum in regards to initial placement of armies. 

Specifically, (IMHO) I feel the greatest advantage/disadvantage in this game involves having an single territory completely surrounded by neutrals at the beginning - what I call an "isolated territory". Having an isolated territory is like starting the game with 3 less armies than your opponent, since there really isn't much you can do with them offensively or defensively.  Heaven forbid, having 2 isolated territories puts you at a 6 army disadvantage - something extremely hard to overcome.

The fair situation is when you have an isolated territory as well as your opponent, then they balance each other out. 

At the beginning of a 1v1 WarGear Warfare game, every army is crucial - and frankly taking 3 or 6 armies out of one side of the battle is a significant disadvantage.   I wonder if there is any way to go back at games and figure out the statistical advantage of winning when your opponent has an isolated territory or two.  I just think the world would be a better place without isolated territories. :)

Thoughts?

Sure you can't attack with those three guys... but they are also VERY well defended. That might count for something.

ratsy wrote:

Sure you can't attack with those three guys... but they are also VERY well defended. That might count for something.

I was thinking the same thing - To take an extreme example, let's say you caught Eastern Australia on the draw and both W. A and N. Z were neutral. You know people are coming in for the early bonus, so let them do the work for you and then surprise them by having more on your territory than they expected, especially in a fogged game.

@BS, I'm not saying that your comment is wrong, but I am suggesting that the over-arching conjecture might be more subtly complicated than it seems on the surface.

I agree with what BigSkin is saying - and it generally can happen in any size game.  

Generally japan is a waste as a start.  Sure you can dream up a specific case where it helps out, but strategically it's usually blah.

Of course it's great when you easily capture Australia and Siam is neutral. 

ratsy wrote:

Sure you can't attack with those three guys... but they are also VERY well defended. That might count for something.

Understood, but what is the point of having a single territory well defended, while your other territories are getting taken away by you opponent's stronger, unbalanced number of armies? 

There is an argument to say that it helps add to a potential territory bonus, but again that does not stand up because your other territories are getting taken away by an opponent with more armies to use as attackers.

M57 wrote:

ratsy wrote:

Sure you can't attack with those three guys... but they are also VERY well defended. That might count for something.

I was thinking the same thing - To take an extreme example, let's say you caught Eastern Australia on the draw and both W. A and N. Z were neutral. You know people are coming in for the early bonus, so let them do the work for you and then surprise them by having more on your territory than they expected, especially in a fogged game.

@BS, I'm not saying that your comment is wrong, but I am suggesting that the over-arching conjecture might be more subtly complicated than it seems on the surface.

That makes sense in a fogged game, for sure.  Actually I like isolated territories in a fogged game.  It  makes is much easier to figure out where the other neutrals might be. ;)

I also get the point that in a non-fogged game, having that isolated territory in Australia may take that it out of a potential continent bonus (who wants to go in there and take out 6 or 9 neutral armies?) - but I argue that may leave South America wide open for an easier bonus, as your opponent has more available armies than you to win that over

Good points.

I think I posted this into the suggestion forum years ago, but I've  thought it would be nice to have some sort of test that could be applied to territory possession after it had been selected.  The test would be designed by the map maker and would check for unfair setups.  If the test failed, a new random set of territories would be created and the test reapplied.

It all goes with the luck of the draw. Is it fair in a 3 or 4 player game when 1 player starts with owning Australia and gets to go first with 5 armies? I personally think everything is fine the way it is.

If anything should be changed, it should only be in a 2 player game with less or no neutral countries.   

> Is it fair in a 3 or 4 player game when 1 player starts with owning Australia and gets to go first with 5 armies?

Nope, and ideally the site would detect start conditions that were extremely unfair and reroll the starting state.   It's not much fun to play in a game that is mostly decided by the first turn.

But the starts then aren't random. If you start fudging the starts, it loses a lot of the appeal imo.

Babbalouie wrote:

It all goes with the luck of the draw. Is it fair in a 3 or 4 player game when 1 player starts with owning Australia and gets to go first with 5 armies? I personally think everything is fine the way it is.

If anything should be changed, it should only be in a 2 player game with less or no neutral countries.   

I agree with this - with one additional caveat: going first is such a huge advantage, and I've often wondered what the simplest way to fix that is.  My idea is to (in a two-player WGWF game) give the player going second a card to start the game.  Being able to cash in cards with 3 when your opponent likely doesn't have a set with 3 is a big edge.

Just a thought...

>  My idea is to (in a two-player WGWF game) give the player going second a card to start the game.  Being able to cash in cards with 3 when your opponent likely doesn't have a set with 3 is a big edge.

A fix that is possible with out Tom's intervention, is to have a specific 'duel' scenario, and set the starting bonuses on the first round.

For a typical board, I give P1 3 units, and P2 5 units.  If P1 decides to do nothing but place units and wait, (and they get 3 units the next turn) then P1 basically gets the option to go first with 3units to opponent 5u.  Or go second with 6u to opponent 5u. 

Ozyman wrote:

>  My idea is to (in a two-player WGWF game) give the player going second a card to start the game.  Being able to cash in cards with 3 when your opponent likely doesn't have a set with 3 is a big edge.

A fix that is possible with out Tom's intervention, is to have a specific 'duel' scenario, and set the starting bonuses on the first round.

For a typical board, I give P1 3 units, and P2 5 units.  If P1 decides to do nothing but place units and wait, (and they get 3 units the next turn) then P1 basically gets the option to go first with 3units to opponent 5u.  Or go second with 6u to opponent 5u. 

Actually, I think it is possible to grant cards by seat in the designer.. CC's idea is well within the current capabilities of the site.

oh yeah.  I forgot that was an option.

Babbalouie wrote:

It all goes with the luck of the draw. Is it fair in a 3 or 4 player game when 1 player starts with owning Australia and gets to go first with 5 armies? I personally think everything is fine the way it is.

If anything should be changed, it should only be in a 2 player game with less or no neutral countries.   

A two-player game with no neutrals?! Eek, that would be a disaster and reduce everything to complete luck, in my opinion. Neutrals play a huge part in strategy for two player games.

I think, in the end, the luck of two player games evens out and the better player will win the majority of the time. Of course, there are cases when you're fated a loss by terrible board setup, but if you're worried about that against a specific player then arrange to play a best of 7 series.

In support of my argument, check out my results and NWO's results for these two tourneys:

http://www.wargear.net/tournaments/view/1305

http://www.wargear.net/tournaments/view/1355

I'm 39-11 and NWO is 35-13 in those two tourneys. You don't end up with results like that by chance alone. We both probably lost a couple games due to crappy initial placement, but over nearly 50 games it's still possible to prove that you're a good 1v1 player. So, yeah, I don't think that any tweaks are needed to even things out.

erastus25 wrote:

Babbalouie wrote:

It all goes with the luck of the draw. Is it fair in a 3 or 4 player game when 1 player starts with owning Australia and gets to go first with 5 armies? I personally think everything is fine the way it is.

If anything should be changed, it should only be in a 2 player game with less or no neutral countries.   

A two-player game with no neutrals?! Eek, that would be a disaster and reduce everything to complete luck, in my opinion. Neutrals play a huge part in strategy for two player games.

I think, in the end, the luck of two player games evens out and the better player will win the majority of the time. Of course, there are cases when you're fated a loss by terrible board setup, but if you're worried about that against a specific player then arrange to play a best of 7 series.

In support of my argument, check out my results and NWO's results for these two tourneys:

http://www.wargear.net/tournaments/view/1305

http://www.wargear.net/tournaments/view/1355

I'm 39-11 and NWO is 35-13 in those two tourneys. You don't end up with results like that by chance alone. We both probably lost a couple games due to crappy initial placement, but over nearly 50 games it's still possible to prove that you're a good 1v1 player. So, yeah, I don't think that any tweaks are needed to even things out.

+1

http://www.wargear.net/tournaments/view/979

The charts for this board seem to be messed up..

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/WarGear+Warfare/Charts

Enough said. Why would anyone want to make any changes to the most played, most popular board on the site? It should remain untouched! When you start messing with this perhaps it would not be as popular. 

Babbalouie wrote:

Enough said. Why would anyone want to make any changes to the most played, most popular board on the site? It should remain untouched! When you start messing with this perhaps it would not be as popular. 

I agree - it is THE classic; to change the WGWF board would be a mistake, if only because that is the expectation of the masses.

But this doesn't change the fact that 'the classic' is a good design at best.  It is certainly not "Superb" or "Perfect."  If it had never been designed before and someone were to design a similar board (and rules) from scratch on this site, they would certainly create different territories with different borders and better choke points, etc..  Maybe giving a card to the second player or only give the first player 1 bonus unit to start.

I would have liked to see the chart (graphs) for two-player games on the WGWF board, because I suspect they are pretty far out of line ..probably approaching 57/43 with the advantage to the player that moves first.  That's pretty unfair.  I do everything I can in my designs to avoid numbers like that, and if they are unavoidable, I would likely restrict play to 3+ players.

The map Global Warfare was "created" to give everyone the various scenarios/alternatives to the WGWF map.

Those looking for something different than the classic map should check it out. If you don't see the scenario you are looking for, suggest it in the forums and I'm sure someone could make it happen.