Further whining and comments regarding the advantage of playing first.

The advantage for the "red" player (by virtue of playing first) seems to me to be the biggest shortcoming of the game.

I think it is a significant problem. I think it is also easily alleviated (with the suggestion that I supplied earlier).

My guess is that with strong players, "red" will win about 2/3 games.
Not all players are "strong", so I suspect that in practice "red" wins less often than this. I wonder if the win percentage for "red" is information that is available (by map would be nice, as certain maps may favor certain units).

The average advantage (I think) is much greater than the advantage of playing the white pieces in chess (and moving first). In chess (among highly skilled players) White generally tries to win while Black tries to draw.

Massive Assault is an excellent game. It's addictive. It's really a lot of fun. It's unfortunate that so many people prefer "quick twitch" junk to a quality game such as MA.

Still, I think it could be even better with minor changes.

Ok, I'm done crying in my beer. Now it's time to drink it and play some MA.

I disagree. Advantage is much less if there is any (in MAPR at least).

It is so phantom problem that there is no any single point of view on it.

I rarely play with green players and my rating in MA says... that I had 9 / 18 victories playing for FNU (50%), Wow!.. and 14 / 17 victories playing for PL (82%). Hmm... Not much statistics but you can see that my opponents defeats me only 50% playing for PL. ))

MAPR says even more but only 9 games are finished. 5 / 6 vicories for FNU (83%), 2 / 2 for PL and 1 draw (83% too)

Agree with that.

Any game statistic by quantitatively of win/loss by PL/FNU is incorrect, because often leave out of account strengh of opponent's.

To be exact, I disagreed with "My guess is that with strong players, "red" will win about 2/3 games. "