Why bother with 1 on 1???

[wedge8858]

What is the point?? Even with the neutral territories, I bet 80% plus are won by the player to go first. Why even try?? Same principle as overtime in NFL games (for the football games), team that gets the ball first wins the vast majority of games.

[jako]

then u are not a very good at 1 vs 1 then. generally speaking, it depends on the drop and luck of the dice. i hav had some 1 vs 1 turn around on me.

[Coleman]

Not sure you could back up that statistic. The point is the theoretical 50% chance to win. At least for me.

[AAFitz]

simple....they are almost always real time...dont have to worry about other players ruining it, dont have to worry about multis, or alliances...though Ive been offered an alliance against neutral, and you can usually have a fun chat.

I would never play it freestyle, because the tactics needed to win those are a little more slippery, so I just assume go head to head and see what happens... nine out of ten are a coin toss, but the one out of ten that turns into a battle, make the other ones worth it...

if I didnt care about my score at all, id play millions of them, but without targeting new players...the chances of winning are only 50%...assuming im playing experienced players, and the score ratio means I have to actually win 70% or more to just break even, so not really a safe bet....

but when challenged by someone I know of, I have a hard time saying no...just too fun

as far as going first, Id much rather get good dice, than go first....its the first round of taking over that can make or break it...if I go first with bad dice, and the other player gets good dice....you have even less of a shot at winning...

[sharrakor]

I've only played a single one versus one game, and I went second. But I dominated it. To say that the first person to go is going to win is a huge presumption.

The first person to go in my game lost a bunch of armies on his very first turn, and he never was able to recover from bad dice on the first turn. In the end, dice rule your fate, not who goes first.

And why bother? Cuz it's (usually) fast, fun, and filled with fellowship and funk.

[wedge8858]

That's the problem coleman....it's NOT 50%. By being first to go, you can claim a cheap bonus easily, and have first crack at turn-in. Let's say you both drop 2 territories in a 4 territory continent. Because you get first go, you can reinforce with 4 or so (usual minimum in a 1 on 1), easily take the continent and reinforce the entrance. Now the opponent only gets 3 (since he lost a couple of countries) and at best has a 6-4 chance at cracking the bonus (assuming splits by the first player - not even likely, and 2nd player has the adjoining territory) and can't even go after his own. Turn-in is another problem. Even on flat rate, if you take a early continent and get a 10 turn-in in Round 4, the game is over. What chance did the 2nd player have??

The only way I can see 2nd player winning is by fluke awful dice by the first player, or hang around long enought to fluke a large escalating turn-in. What skill do either of those require??

[misterman10]

Same principle as overtime in NFL games (for the football games), team that gets the ball first wins the vast majority of games.

Actually, no, the team that gets the ball first has about the same chance of winning as the other team

Source: REAL STATISTICS

[Coleman]

That's the problem coleman....it's NOT 50%.

Well, lets assume you are right and the first person wins most of the time. Your chances of going first are 50%.

[Rocketry]

What is the point?? Even with the neutral territories, I bet 80% plus are won by the player to go first. Why even try?? Same principle as overtime in NFL games (for the football games), team that gets the ball first wins the vast majority of games.

1 v 1 is all about luck

[Optimus Prime]

If you play them with no cards, adjacent fortifications it basically eliminates any and all advantage to going first. I think it is ridiculous to play 2 player games with unlimited fortifications, but if you use adjacent or chained it works out just fine, especially if you play on the smaller maps. I am pretty sure that I am at roughly 45-50% in winning 2 player games and I have won plenty of them without being the first player to go.

[BeastofBurson]

simple....they are almost always real time...dont have to worry about other players ruining it, dont have to worry about multis, or alliances...though Ive been offered an alliance against neutral, and you can usually have a fun chat.

I would never play it freestyle, because the tactics needed to win those are a little more slippery, so I just assume go head to head and see what happens... nine out of ten are a coin toss, but the one out of ten that turns into a battle, make the other ones worth it...

if I didnt care about my score at all, id play millions of them, but without targeting new players...the chances of winning are only 50%...assuming im playing experienced players, and the score ratio means I have to actually win 70% or more to just break even, so not really a safe bet....

but when challenged by someone I know of, I have a hard time saying no...just too fun

as far as going first, Id much rather get good dice, than go first....its the first round of taking over that can make or break it...if I go first with bad dice, and the other player gets good dice....you have even less of a shot at winning...

Thats exactly why I play 1v1.....what Fritz said.....

and I'll bet your 1 of those guys that eliminate the neutrals too...if soo..thats your big mistake....

I use them as cover for most of the game...and only take them out when absolutely needed...(get to an opponenets last area, to get bonuses so I deploy more, etc)

I mostly leave them be..thet can work to your advantage or work against you..

and coleman's right...its a 50-50 game from the start...going first does not mean you'll win, even if you do take a continent.....

you have the advantage from the start is all, but your opponent can screw up royally, and lose alot quick!

[Bavarian Raven]

...i just finished one of my best 1 vs 1 games ever-with the person who left me my last positive feedback-that was a real time game...he one, but only just because i have a bad auto-attack roll...but this game was very intense...and a great joy to play...

[jpcloet]

No cards chained is my preferred as it seems most fair. Also maps like 8 thoughts and Circus Max as you can't hide in a corner are IMO are the truest tests of 1v1. Most people dislike those maps, and those people just want cards and bonuses and don't know how to play straight up smash-mouth CC.
More strategy in placement and when to attack then most can handle.

As for the 50% rule, I don't buy it. I'm around 60% overall and almost 80% (35-9) on 8 thoughts. More importantly I"m 1-0 against AAFitz (Who is a great player).

[DiM]

That's the problem coleman....it's NOT 50%.

Well, lets assume you are right and the first person wins most of the time. Your chances of going first are 50%.

luck is very important in 1vs1 especially if you play flat rate and unlimited fortif. usually if the first player gets a lucky deployment and has decent (not perfect) dice he can take a bonus and reinforce it good. the second player can't break it and it all goes downhill for him.

on a side note i have started 10 1vs1 games and will continue to do so until i have 100. then i'll make some stats.
all the games are on AoM no cards and chained to eliminate as much of the luck factor as possible.

so far it looks really ugly:

Me:
went first: 1/10
had bonus from start: 0/10
had perfect dice in round 1: 0/10

Opponent:
went first: 9/10
had bonus from start: 2/10
had perfect dice in round 1: 3/10

[bigbullyweedave]

If you play them with no cards, adjacent fortifications it basically eliminates any and all advantage to going first. I think it is ridiculous to play 2 player games with unlimited fortifications, but if you use adjacent or chained it works out just fine, especially if you play on the smaller maps. I am pretty sure that I am at roughly 45-50% in winning 2 player games and I have won plenty of them without being the first player to go.

Some excellent points there.


If you play unlimited then the person going first has a big advantage.

In my 1v1 tourny (British Singles Classic Leagues) I've recently moved from unlimited to chained to reduce the advantage of going first.

[gimil]

That's the problem coleman....it's NOT 50%.

Well, lets assume you are right and the first person wins most of the time. Your chances of going first are 50%.

luck is very important in 1vs1 especially if you play flat rate and unlimited fortif. usually if the first player gets a lucky deployment and has decent (not perfect) dice he can take a bonus and reinforce it good. the second player can't break it and it all goes downhill for him.

on a side note i have started 10 1vs1 games and will continue to do so until i have 100. then i'll make some stats.
all the games are on AoM no cards and chained to eliminate as much of the luck factor as possible.

so far it looks really ugly:

Me:
went first: 1/10
had bonus from start: 0/10
had perfect dice in round 1: 0/10

Opponent:
went first: 9/10
had bonus from start: 2/10
had perfect dice in round 1: 3/10

DiM's states dont count because he always has ugly luck

[Nc_Hunt3r]

Hey id like to play a 1v1 with someone who thinks they are expiernced to help me out some and give a few tips! send a game offer..


Thanks!

[Clive]

1 v 1 is not just luck, all of my over 450 games but a few are 1 v 1 and i have a 68% win rate, surely i'm not just that lucky...

[snufkin]

..out of the 1 vs 1 games where the opponent had the first move, I have won twice as many games as I have lost..

If they are unlucky and screw up their first move, you will have a greater "advantage" than they just had..

large maps and no cards - that´s the best way to minimize the luck factor.

escalating cards on the other hand is BS.. roulette.. why?