Startpos in 1vs1 games

Because each algorithm needs to be implemented and tested and made available, and we are already short on programming time on this website.

Also, I think you should read Matty's post. He makes a really good point at why we don't want to just give the first territory in a region to neutral: it basically removes region out of the gameplay for 2v2 games.

Fair point.. good programmers are hard to come by, believe me I know.

I did read his post, and I guess that's the underlying issue that I have with 1v1 2v2 games. I don't think a region should be given from the start of a game, it should have to be earned. Elsewise, you have an unfair advantage over every other player in the game. I guess a way of saying it is this.. If a player in Classic World is given Asia and a +7 bonus in a 9 player game.. would you ever consider that to be a good way of dispersing troops? Do you think the other players would definitely be at a disadvantage? Of course.

In the same light, a player having a +5 bonus because they were given a region from the drop also has an unfair advantage over another player, especially in a 1v1 game, and especially moreso if they start the game - with +5 they can take very easily the other player to a +3 bonus and be well on their way to another region before the other player even has a chance to disperse any troops.

Your 'organised randomisation' idea has been proposed before, and was rejected too: the reason is that there will be very little randomness left.
Better in that case to just try, say, three random drops and pick the most fair one.

Also, if you make an example, why not make an example that is sort of likely to happen?
I don't even think getting Asia in a 9p game by drops only is possible. You don't get that many territories to start with.

Personally, I feel that the "organized random" of having every continent have 1 player of each color much more random than what is currently "random", and again, more fair.

The purpose of the example is to highlight the unfairness of a player starting with a continent, not necessarily to be "real", but to uh.. give an example of the parity basically.

I mean, I didn't think I needed to give an example of the issue, it's clearly stated multiple times, the problem is that it's being mixed with another issue of neutrals impacting gameplay by being in the way (so I gave an outlandish example to highlight it - rather than acknowledging having Asia at the onset being a major advantage, the focus is on it not happening in a 9 player game, which is irrelevant. Make it 8,7,6,5,4 players, etc. Who cares.. it's an example of something that shouldn't happen, happening).. that to me boils down to strategy. Attack the neutrals, don't and make your enemy, grab continents on the other side of the map, etc, etc.. That being said, if people can't strategize around that, then maybe a decent solution is 1/5 rather than 1/3. I don't care either way, it's a solution to alleviate the concerns of multiple players.

What doesn't come down to strategy? -> Players shouldn't start with a continent - especially in a 1v1 game. No amount of strategy overcomes a poorly randomized "random" drop of giving a player a continent without them doing anything.

I don't have a great solution other than organized random that I can think of at the moment except for maybe giving players the option to reset the map at game start if more than 50% of the players click the option.. but that would be abused, so a poor solution. Good luck, maybe the issue continues, maybe someone smarter comes with an acceptable solution.

I'm out.

Not sure what you think randomness means, but usually if people say something is 'more random', then usually they mean it's harder to predict what's going to happen.
If you have an algorithm that (tries to) assign(s) 1 color for every territory per region, then how a drop turns out becomes a lot easier to predict - and thus, less random.

Now of course, it would be more fair.
In fact, it would be even fairer if we ditch the whole randomness at all, and just assign everyone the same spot. Always.

That would also be boring, which is why I think it's a bad idea.

Playing in a 1v1 tournament. Several games my opponent has had a bonus to begin with. Something has to be done for at least 1v1 games where assignments are made evenly and it doesn't end up being a luck of the draw and a loss for me before I even take my turn...

I discovered this in the feedback for Brecourt Manor (test map):


It occurred to me that the one and only map with no Bonuses opens a new possibility of maps where points players can now enter 1v1 games without the 1st to play getting an advantage by grabbing and sealing off bonuses, having the upper hand throughout the game. The game becomes about raw strategy only.

1) You cannot start with more than 3 reinforcements, making it harder to guarantee a kill on turn 1.
2) There are still intersections and neutral buffers to help with strategy.
3) If you choose "No Cards", there will be almost no luck advantage apart from dice.... though getting 1st card set is not necessarily best.

Perhaps the veteran point players would like to put this map to the test as a way of playing a 1v1 on the strength of exercising their strategic abilities without fighting the usual disadvantages of 1v1? That would be interesting to read about for two reasons; New options for this 1v1 debate and feedback for Brecourt Manor as a new concept map for D12.

Whether or not you should go for a region (and possible even kill a neutral to do so) is a big part of the 1v1 strategy. Not saying this map doesn't have it's place, but this doesn't just solve all problems with 1v1 matches.