2 player games

ok. now I understand. This is an excellent idea. I'm going to add it to the 'to do' list.

That doesn't seem too hard to do. The only thing is that the players would not be able to choose what color they wanted to be they would have to choose one of the colors that is already pre-determined.

we could change the colors pretty easily. The game would start with the same two colors every time for example you can choose between the red drop and the black drop. Once you choose then the colors are changed to the colors that were picked when the players joined the game.

Sounds good as long as its programmable.

There might be a problem here with fog games, are players allowed to see eachothers starting position? Its a very good idea though!

Muzuane's idea is nice, but... First i thought it was very smart, now I'm not convinced anymore. I'm sorry but I guess it doesn't solve the problem. Who has the possibility to choose: "go first" or "better placing", still has the advantage! When the placings are pretty equal he will choose to go first, when one placing is extremely convenient he will choose to go second. Just in a few cases the game will be balanced. Well, Matty noticed another important problem. One solution could be to give one territory less to the first player. Or if you want: one player choose a neutral territory and it become one of his own territories; then his opponent starts play. Or also... very simple: who plays first receives in his first turn only half reinforcement (low rounded). This is the best solution for me.

yeah, it's not a perfect solution but i think it would make it better because it would guarantee that player1 doesn't get to go first AND have the better setup. I'll have to think a bit about your new ideas before commenting.

I would like to know if this idea (chosing what you prefer: be the first one attacking or the best set up) is still in the To Do List. These days I cannot play long Live games and I am just joining 2 players game and sometimes they are a little bit frustrating or boring (if you are the winner), and if we find something to balance them it would be very helpful. I also asked Matty if it would be posible make dice for these games with 9 numbers to make them more predictable.

I checked the todo list yesterday actually and I know for a matter of fact that it is indeed on the todo list.

ok. Thanks Cireon. Good to know

If this idea is combined with the idea that on the first turn all you can do is swap 1 territory with an opponent or neutral - no placing or attacking - then it counterbalances a little the advantage the first player has because the second player can make his swap without the first player being able to swap it back.

Don't you think it's better to change one thing at a time? Even you can implement both things separately; just to know the impact of each one in the gameplay.

I like Muzuane's proposal but I think it would be in this way: Player A chooses [i]'Swap'[/i] or [i]'Don't Swap'[/i] Player B start playing. This way it's guaranteed the player who plays 1st [u]always[/u] has the worse drop. Otherwise there would be 50% of cases in which the 1st player already has the better drop since the rule would be ineffective. Plus if you add the cases with almost equal drop, then the rule would be efficient in few cases. But what about Fog games? I don't know what to say about that. Vexer is speaking about the right to swap only one territory. It's a different thing, but it can work also with Fog. Plus it may be a strategic weapon to get visible an area of the map that you could not see. Honestly I can't see the emotion of playing 1v1 with Fog. Since also if you will find a solution non-optimal for Fog games it will be o.k. for me.

I must admit, it does sound fun to swap two territories that you can't see. Or to swap a territory you can see with one you can't. Maybe you are actually helping him. Of course, a lucky start, even with a swap for the 2nd player only, can still happen, but the chance is alot lower. Playing 1v1 with fog can still be fun - I can't see anything in SA, but maybe theres neutrals there... or maybe not.

I'm not really convinced about the idea to swap one territory. It can give you a super advantage, so your opponent would be forced to swap it back, then there's no result. [i]@Matty - I guess when a game with fog starts I can see 80% of the map and I can understand 95% of what my opponent is doing. For example I can't see anything in SA and I can't see my opponent's move, so he's killing neutrals in SA to conquer the region! What I cannot see is the exact result of his move, then if I can I'm going to check or break. Same for capitals, I can't know how many are in his 'cap', if I can I'm going to check or kill. But still I don't think to play 1v1 with fog.[/i] Apart from that, the best and simplest idea for me is: [u]one player chooses the setup, the other one starts.[/u] Sorry for repeating that, but if it doesn't work because it is not good for games with fog, then I vote for no changes. In my opinion 1v1 games are not so unfair as many say. The luck factor is important of course, but if you choose the right settings and map the game will be not so much based on who goes first or who has the better setup. Skills and dice will eventually decide the winner - as normal! My suggestion then are: - Avoid large maps that give a great advantage to the 1st player; - Avoid absolutely Caribbean map that gives many unfair situations; - Avoid unlimited fortification that is too much based on luck; - Choose capitals as a gametype, it's more interesting and I guess even more fair; - In case try same-time games: no one will be the first! ;)