... are for cowards!

I only just discovered that "red goes first". I kept wondering why most times the opponent would get to disclose and then attack me immediately - I just assumed it was because I threw the challenge out there that I was given a disadvantage. Sometimes that first attack can really dictate the game, at least on certain Emerald layouts.

But now I understand why everyone is hot to jump on my P.L. vs. Festy games (I choose F.N.U because I like "good guy green"). But it puts to shame all those Marshals and other high rankers that only throw out games where they have already chosen P.L.

That is so weak!! Ooo, you're a brilliant strategist for exploiting a game imbalance. These are the same guys who think cheating is ok if you don't get caught.

Anyway, for you PR developers, please come up with some kind of equalizer for the second player in the new game.

best thing todo is either set it to random sides or to crate 2 games vs the same person on the same map, 1 from each side. And being a fairly high ranking person I gotta say i never pick pl always one of the 2 options above.

gratz to you Festy - this is exactly 100th post on forum on this subject so you get a prize!
J\K

...has anyone suggested that the P.L. not get reinforcements at the end fo their first turn?

i.e. they go first, they draw first blood, but they don't get the reinforcements to plug any holes they have left in their defenses...

Just thinking aloud...



Ian K.

Has anyone looked at all the games on the MA or MAN server and seen what percentage of games are won by PL? It isn't really useful to suggest a "fix" until you know how big the problem is?

If it is big (say PL player wins 70%+) then a good fix might be to make the opening turns go

PL/FNU/FNU/PL/FNU/PL...

FNU going twice in a row for its first turn would be a huge advantage.

If it is smaller (60 or 65%) then just give the FMU player a few extra resource $ for his first initial disclosure phase.

If it is less than 55% then don't worry about it.

The turns were set up that way on porpose if you play as P.L. you have to be the aggresser. when you play as F.N.U. you have to work on defencive tactics like when to retret. for me if i win as F.N.U. i am alot happier then a win as P.L. i like this part of the game

It'd be a good idea to see how many games overall are won by FNU compared to PL. I distinctly believe there is SOME sort of advantage of going first. In fact I'll prove it, if PL goes first and does nothing at all except buy more troops, then FNU will take it's first turn on a "new" map except PL has deployed more. =)

I would prefer some sort of compensation given to FNU for deploying first. I actually think giving the first 2 deployed regions 1 or 2 extra dollars would be fair.

As an example of how going second affects my play: I like to buy planes in my initial deployment. If I'm going first, I don't need to worry about blocking the path to my capital or placing a unit in it. If I move second, I have to worry about the opponent deployed to invade the country that I have my planes in AND destroying them on the first turn.

Planes on the first turn?

i usually like to get planes about turn 10 when there's 2 nice lines of units along all my borders already. Stay clear of planes near the start, you need quantity not quality.

I don't buy a game imbalance to explain what is essentially flavor. That's fine for single player campains and scenarios (or even two player scenarios if they existed) but for the two player World War game, things should be as absolutely balanced as possible. Giving PL first move is a definate advantage. When I win as PL or lose as FNU, the results often feel a bit tainted. I wonder...did I only win because I was PL or was my game play actually superior.

I think the best thing would be to simply allow FNU to deploy after PL deploys. Then let PL go first. So PL would still be the agressor, getting the opportunity to shoot and move first, but FNU would at least get an opportunity to react.

Or, if FNU is (as you say) supposed to be primarily defensive, then it should be given some sort of defensive advantage. A few extra $ for initial disclosure or something would be sufficient to allow FNU to better cover its borders, I think. Or maybe a unique unit that is better for defense than LAVs.

The simplest way to test your skills against an opponent is to always do two matches, one on each side. Most people will play the pair of games at the same time, so you'll be able to play the two in succession as well. It is the general rule with tournaments to use this method.

These are good ideas, and I know the Devs are considering things like this for MA PR. Until then, MAN probably won't have game-changing features added such as this. Just don't accept too many PL challenges, and don't send all PL challenges.

Other things such as how lucky you get with your SA placement vs your opponent, and how good of a player you are vs your opponent have greater sway on the actual outcome. In practice, the number of wins by PL are only 52% last I checked.

That's usually what I do. I do them in succession, though. Too many games on the same map gets me confused.


If that's the case, then I think we can say we are safely inside the "margin of error". For me, most games are influenced by bad SA distribution, poor decision making in initial disclosure phase and poor decisions during the games.

Perhaps FNU has an advantage that people haven't considered. In a close game, the last SA disclosed is often the most important. FNU always has the advantage in this regard. Maybe this makes up for the first turn PL advantage a bit.

Oh...and I never expected the devs to fix this in MA/MAN...always looking forward to the next version.

Found something interesting... though PL/FNU wins around 50% games overall, in the Clan Wars and tourneys, PL shows a much more significant advantage by numbers. In the Wars and Tourneys, PL won 60% of all games.

Just confirming the players suspicions that in the end, PL does give significant advantages .

Thank you Maelstrom for the data you gave us. This makes me sure that the inbalance is really a small one and if I loose I should rather blame myself, not the Game.

From my point of view the result of a battle depends only on 2 things: skills and luck.
I think so because:

1. skills:
1.1. I can bet, that if I play against a better player, I'm supposed to loose that game.
1.2. If both players have similar skills, luck mostly matters (see point 2).

2. luck - consists of:
- which countries you get (which sometimes makes me say "#$%$%#@!!#^^O%#@" )
- your displacement
- your opponent's displacement

Sounds trivial? That's how it is.
However, in my oppinion any of the features I mentioned as luck can really decide whether you win or loose.

I'm a human being, not the AI, so I really do not like to loose.
But If loose, especially as FNU, the first thing I think of is the imbalance

Anyway, I think, that every player should accept defeats.
And in turn based games, no matter if it's advatage or disadvantage, there is always someone who has to move first...

unless there is simulatenous movement

But in most tbs games who moves 1st rarely matter as u start miles apart. That's why it can be seen as an issue in this game as who moves 1st can quite often get a chance to smash up the enemy.

but on the same note he who moves first can also be he who f'ups first even on maps like butterfly i actully have more wins as F.N.U. Belive it or not i feel it makes no differnce sometime i want to be second so i can at least see a little of what my opponet has before i commit god knows i have as P.L. started by invading a city only to find out it was not only F.N.U. main ally but have at least 2 allied touching borders and you know what happends then

It is all about disclosure and guerillas. While it is true that PL may go first that means that they A) already disclose where the first attacks are going to be formed and B) They are already dealing with guerillas. If you plan it right the FNU can use their guerillas in tandem with the reveal of their allies to styme the initial attack.

I have a lot of sympathy for Beerthirty's view that it's sometimes nice to see what your opponent does before committing yourself -- especially when facing Rocklizard in the DEKO as I am now.

All in all, though, I think this starts to diminish when playing the Marshals and top Generals (btw I think it's really unfair for mwigor and then Brett Shaw to become Marshals but later be demoted to Generals??). Between relatively evenly-matched/experienced players PL definitely has a distinct advantage over FNU, as borne out by Maelstrom's Clan War and tournament statistics.





Personally, I think it's actually one of the charms of MA(N) that different tactics are needed when playing the different sides (and that this becomes less and less necessary on the larger maps: New Paradise, Wasserland, and most tellingly Trinity).

Nik

well the map also changes many things.

what about stat on PL/FNU victory for each map.

i do believe in small map PL has got advantage.
in bigger FNU can counter back easier.

it depends also on the "shape" of the map and the ratio of neutral.

for instance a map as Antarticus is more balanced than bizzaria.

a realy good player will win with FNU and PL in most case !

i know that against some player i got very few chance to win with FNU on some MAP. my only chance to win is to got PL on some MAP !

with some other, i know whatever map or side i got great chance to win !

As I've stated many times before(and gotten all kinds of kickback), the game could be made much more pure if the Secret Allies concept were an option instead of being forced.

If both sides could see the opponents SA's, it would reduce the element of chance significantly. In these cases it might also be helpful to set up maps with balanced SA placements as opposed to being random.

Just my 2 cents,
Brashen