Conquer Club

Well, I looked through all of my 2v2 sequential games, and it seems like I lost all the ones where I went second and won all the ones where I went first. I think most of them were classic, though. Hmm.

Pearl Harbour is probably the most uneven map with regards to who goes first. It's virtually impossible to win if you go second unless your opponent is an idiot or a three toed sloth, or similar.

ahote wrote:Pearl Harbour is probably the most uneven map with regards to who goes first. It's virtually impossible to win if you go second unless your opponent is an idiot or a three toed sloth, or similar.

PH's drop can really affect a game, and going first on almost any setting is an advantage on that map.

all I got to say is FS for the win!

BaldAdonis wrote: Every conquest map without fog usually means "First turn equals win".

This is just not true.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BaldAdonis wrote: Every conquest map without fog usually means "First turn equals win".

This is just not true.

The key word is usually.

And yes, it is very true.

Bones2484 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BaldAdonis wrote: Every conquest map without fog usually means "First turn equals win".

This is just not true.

The key word is usually.

And yes, it is very true.

Unless one or both players aren't very good at it. For a player who knows what they're doing, going first is almost a guaranteed win.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BaldAdonis wrote: Every conquest map without fog usually means "First turn equals win".

This is just not true.

I am talking strictly between intelligent opponents. Obviously you can win from second by playing a bunch of inferior opponents (which is the same reason AAFitz believes that unlimited is "more fair"), but if both players know what they are doing, the first player will win a large majority on conquest maps without fog. Of course you can't win em all, and you may have a game where you never win a single roll. As with everything else in life, we're discussing probabilities and phrasing them in simpler terms.

As for AAFitz and his "1200" World 2.1 games (of which only 732 are recorded in the game finder), we've just finished a series of 20 games, and the person playing first won a huge majority of the unlimited games (and a large, though slightly smaller, majority of the adjacent games), although this could have also involved the other factors which help the person playing first, like using cards and fog. Combine all three for public games against the best in the World (2.1)! [spoiler=Map Rank]AAFitz + World 2.1 + 2 Player + Unlimited + Fog + Escalating + Public:
562 games, 78% wins, +2286 points, 0.683 relative rank. We might as well be asking for strategy advice from kingherpes.

"Just like, uhhh... get some scripts, and then uhhh... sit at your computer all day and beat new recruits. That's how to be the best! Also, lewd jokes."[/spoiler]

BaldAdonis wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BaldAdonis wrote: Every conquest map without fog usually means "First turn equals win".

This is just not true.

I am talking strictly between intelligent opponents. Obviously you can win from second by playing a bunch of inferior opponents (which is the same reason AAFitz believes that unlimited is "more fair"), but if both players know what they are doing, the first player will win a large majority on conquest maps without fog. Of course you can't win em all, and you may have a game where you never win a single roll. As with everything else in life, we're discussing probabilities and phrasing them in simpler terms.

As for AAFitz and his "1200" World 2.1 games (of which only 732 are recorded in the game finder), we've just finished a series of 20 games, and the person playing first won a huge majority of the unlimited games (and a large, though slightly smaller, majority of the adjacent games), although this could have also involved the other factors which help the person playing first, like using cards and fog. Combine all three for public games against the best in the World (2.1)! [spoiler=Map Rank]AAFitz + World 2.1 + 2 Player + Unlimited + Fog + Escalating + Public:
562 games, 78% wins, +2286 points, 0.683 relative rank. We might as well be asking for strategy advice from kingherpes.

"Just like, uhhh... get some scripts, and then uhhh... sit at your computer all day and beat new recruits. That's how to be the best! Also, lewd jokes."[/spoiler]

just uhhh...like get a script..and uhhh..maybe learn how to actually use it before posting

I need no joke here, because this is funny enough.

As for AAFitz and his "1200" World 2.1 games (of which only 732 are recorded in the game finder)

Map Rank For aafitz on World:
Options:
Map Rank Points Win/Loss Unique Defeats Kill Ratio Relative Rank
Totals15 Field Marshal +5293 985 from 1325(74%)
I said Ive played world 1200 times and Ive actually played world 1300 times.... Maybe check your facts before insinuating that Im lying...I never said I played 1200 1v1s, and I actually think I posted that only 600 or so were on 1v1's at one point...but cant remember. In any case, whatever number that 732 is its still more than the 60 or so youve played...lol

I used map rank too though...

Map Rank For BaldAdonis
Options: Number of Players: 2
Map Rank Points Win/Loss Unique Defeats Kill Ratio Relative Rank
Totals28 Corporal 1st Class95 +205 1022 from 1608(64%) 307 (43) Serial Killer (64%)736 Point Hoarder(0.784)

Map Rank For aafitz
Options: Number of Players: 2
Map Rank Points Win/Loss Unique Defeats Kill Ratio Relative Rank
Totals8 Major223 +1277 1088 from 1766(62%) 773 (20) Serial Killer (62%)946 Equalitarian (0.844)

sure, you have exactly 2% more wins than I do...but then your a point hoarder...so your opinion is not valid in your opinion...



Of course, I just play 1v1's for fun...and world is the best map there is for them.
Also, Ive had fun playing the best on the site on world..and the 1v1s mean nothing...I actually prefer doubles....and though my RR will be low on those too, because I simply cant keep my score down without trying...I can beat the best teams on it, and have. I regularly join teams that have played it more than me, and still win.

As far as winning by going first, which is what this thread was about.... we just played 10 world 2.1 games... you went 1st in 9 of them

I won 5 of them...

The dice and drop decided them just as much as turn order.

and it was much easier in the unlimited games...more importantly...it was more fun in the unlimited games...which is half the reason to play it.

But then youre a newbie on that map too. You had played it very few times when we started, and my RR went down playing against you...so Is that just noob farming too?


And though many low ranks join my games, I am not silly enough to judge my theories on that. Unlike you, I actually play a map before stating I know everything about it. And in my experience, of well over 600 1v1's, including the ones against you....I have found that unlimited gives me much more of a chance than adjacent or chained.

Its a simple numbers game. Unlimited allows me access to all armies at once...which means I can come back from going second. Adjacent gives me access to 2 armies that I can fort...which means turning the tide is extremely difficult. Again, im not theorizing... I simply know from experience what gives me the best odds.

I do admit...on any medium sized map, unlimited really does go to player one....but on world, excluding the fringe games....unlimited evens the playing field...I get 11, or even 10 compared to 12...the dice mean far more....and if the player who goes first had a good run, I have lots of options for round two... I can defend, I can fort to one spot...I can fort to many spots, I cant break bonuses..or protect them...I have numbers of strategies, and many armies that I can use to fight a war on many fronts....instead of just hoping to get lucky, which is the only way to come from behind in and adjacent or chained game. I have tried to explain this...and Im sorry you just cant seem to understand it...

but again, this is based on hundreds of games...and while you can assume I am not methodical enough to analyze my games against the experienced players, that does not mean I have not. You can blame me because I have a high score, and people that have low scores play me...but I have no control over that. Obviously, my win rate will decrease as the skill of opponent increases...but that does not mean Im wrong.

I have picked the perfect settings, on the perfect map, to make 1v1's as fair a fight as can be had, whether going first or going second.

Again, I do admit to playing it many times, and testing these ideas before posting, unlike you, but I nevertheless stand by them.

10 games... you went first 9 times

I won 5....

Either way... maybe play enough games before posting your opinion... and maybe use map rank correctly...or not at all...

One more thing though king herpes RR is very low....you realize, if he played 50 games against you....his RR would still be low right...his score is nearly 2 or 3 times your score....

In any case, this isnt about you... its about giving players advice about maps that isnt just made up, and shows different insights...not just the ones of you, because you have decided you have figured out every map and every strategy, including the ones you have not played.

I think the hardest map to go second on is city mongal. A good player who goes first can take away 1/3 of your starting territories. That means you have to be really really lucky to even get back in the game. I refuse to play a 2 player city mogul game.
F

Feanor79 wrote:I think the hardest map to go second on is city mongal. A good player who goes first can take away 1/3 of your starting territories. That means you have to be really really lucky to even get back in the game. I refuse to play a 2 player city mogul game.
F

I played one once against herpes, of course it was freestyle and I suck at that, and it was also my first (and only) time playing on that map.

No points for guessing the winner

ahote wrote:Pearl Harbour is probably the most uneven map with regards to who goes first. It's virtually impossible to win if you go second unless your opponent is an idiot or a three toed sloth, or similar.

I have to agree that going second on that is just painful to say the least... a win requires some serious luck, or some serious bad play on the part of the player who went first...

I think many of the medium maps are like that...omaha, north america..etc. player one gets enough to hit you hard...and the amount that you lose, as a proportion to your initial deployment is so large, that coming back is very difficult.

BaldAdonis wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BaldAdonis wrote: Every conquest map without fog usually means "First turn equals win".

This is just not true.

I am talking strictly between intelligent opponents.

Yes, well, thank you for your assessment of my intelligence, but disagreeing with you does not make one an idiot.

I have played a few of those maps myself.. gee, seems like I might have played them all. (and not just once or twice).

AAFitz wrote:

ahote wrote:Pearl Harbour is probably the most uneven map with regards to who goes first. It's virtually impossible to win if you go second unless your opponent is an idiot or a three toed sloth, or similar.

I have to agree that going second on that is just painful to say the least... a win requires some serious luck, or some serious bad play on the part of the player who went first...

I think many of the medium maps are like that...omaha, north america..etc. player one gets enough to hit you hard...and the amount that you lose, as a proportion to your initial deployment is so large, that coming back is very difficult.

I have to disagree with that. North America (and charleston, chinese checkers, CCC) are a good size for 1v1, as they have 60 terits, giving each player 20, to start. With 20, you'll get a 6 deployment to start with, and in order to get the second player down to 5, you'll need to take 3 terits from them. Not always a simple task with a deployment of 6. 60 terits is what I would consider the lower limit of what makes for a decent 1v1 game. On average, bigger is better, but North America sized maps are a decent size to avoid the huge advantage that some maps can give for going first.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BaldAdonis wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BaldAdonis wrote: Every conquest map without fog usually means "First turn equals win".

This is just not true.

I am talking strictly between intelligent opponents.

Yes, well, thank you for your assessment of my intelligence, but disagreeing with you does not make one an idiot.

I have played a few of those maps myself.. gee, seems like I might have played them all. (and not just once or twice).

If you're losing anywhere near 50% of the conquest 1v1's that you go first in, you're doing something wrong.

Timminz wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

ahote wrote:Pearl Harbour is probably the most uneven map with regards to who goes first. It's virtually impossible to win if you go second unless your opponent is an idiot or a three toed sloth, or similar.

I have to agree that going second on that is just painful to say the least... a win requires some serious luck, or some serious bad play on the part of the player who went first...

I think many of the medium maps are like that...omaha, north america..etc. player one gets enough to hit you hard...and the amount that you lose, as a proportion to your initial deployment is so large, that coming back is very difficult.

I have to disagree with that. North America (and charleston, chinese checkers, CCC) are a good size for 1v1, as they have 60 terits, giving each player 20, to start. With 20, you'll get a 6 deployment to start with, and in order to get the second player down to 5, you'll need to take 3 terits from them. Not always a simple task with a deployment of 6. 60 terits is what I would consider the lower limit of what makes for a decent 1v1 game. On average, bigger is better, but North America sized maps are a decent size to avoid the huge advantage that some maps can give for going first.

North America is better than most but starting with 6 means you can knock down the other player to 17, and thats 1/6 of the deployment...then, the second player has to kill 3 territories, just to get player one back to not getting more...

its very easily tipped on turn one. Its hardly always a blowout, but it still gives and advantage....but omaha is much worse...mostly because of them many bonuses that exist...its so easy to get a little bonus on one turn, that the game really is a coin toss very often... its fun...but so many games are over on turn one before you get there, that it isnt all that fun.

Also, Im comparing them to world for the most part, which tends to give you a much better chance...more often than the medium maps, especially if you pick the settings correctly.

BaldAdonis wrote: ".........Map Rank ..........."

The problem with your whole "my rank is higher, I am better" argument is three fold.

1. Someone who likes to experiment .. .with maps, styles, strategies will inherently loose more, rank lower, but they might well know more overall than one who excels at a particular map and style.

2. Not everyone even CARES heavily about rank. Some people just like to play .. luck games, "stupid games" and all! Some maps are heavily luck-oriented. Play those and you will probably rank a lot lower (or will fluctuate a lot more) than someone who consistantly plays strategy games with a strategy that works for that map and style.

3. Not everyone can give each game their full 100% attention. Some people come, focus wholly on CC .. .and crow at their acheivements. Others come here for varied entertainment. If they win, they win, if they lose, they lose. Kids, other distractions can get in the way... so what? I rarely play teams because I do get distracted a lot. If I play teams, I want to give it my undivided attention, it's only fair to my teammates.


In short, no one is disputing that you or anyone else who is a Major or above is a good player. The question is whether that means you have the only or best strategy. The question is if you have the vision to see ALL that CC has to offer, or if you will confuse your preferences for general "good choices" versus "bad choices". Not everyone has to like the same things or perceive things the same way.

I could care less whether AAFitz or you have the "best" strategy for World 2.1 ... or any other game. That neither of you is willing to accept and respect that the other might at least have a reasonable idea ... THAT smacks of lack of intelligence and consideration from you both!

And that's really too bad, because I know you EACH to be very intelligent human beings and BOTH to be pretty good at CC games. (which I make no claims to being! - with one exception)

AAFitz wrote:North America is better than most but starting with 6 means you can knock down the other player to 17, and thats 1/6 of the deployment...then, the second player has to kill 3 territories, just to get player one back to not getting more...

true, but how often can you take 3, 3's with only a 6 deployment? It happens but not often, meaning that both players generally get the same deployment for their first turns.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BaldAdonis wrote: ".........Map Rank ..........."

The problem with your whole "my rank is higher, I am better" argument...

Um.. No one said anything about rank. Map Rank is not even close to the same thing as rank. Do you lose more than half the 1v1 conquest map games you play, when going first? Is that why you think the "intelligent players" comment was a dig at you?

Timminz wrote:

AAFitz wrote:North America is better than most but starting with 6 means you can knock down the other player to 17, and thats 1/6 of the deployment...then, the second player has to kill 3 territories, just to get player one back to not getting more...

true, but how often can you take 3, 3's with only a 6 deployment? It happens but not often, meaning that both players generally get the same deployment for their first turns.

I agreed with you ...north am is a good map...I dont play it alot on 1v1 to be honest...so I conceded that...I dont love it...but thats just preference... omaha is one that I cant stand....though it makes for a quick game...it doesnt make for a very strategic one usually

I think you're making that up. There's no Omaha map. At least, not one that I can find. Is it the same size as NA? You lumped the 2 of them together earlier. I'm so confused.

Timminz wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BaldAdonis wrote: ".........Map Rank ..........."

The problem with your whole "my rank is higher, I am better" argument...

Um.. No one said anything about rank. Map Rank is not even close to the same thing as rank. Do you lose more than half the 1v1 conquest map games you play, when going first? Is that why you think the "intelligent players" comment was a dig at you?

No, its because it was made in response to my quoted comment. I have no idea what my maprank is, I don't have the program. I do know I probably don't rate very well on any of them.

I am saying that if you go back through the strategy and discussion forum, you see all kinds of "musts" and "gottas" when it comes to strategy. Then someone new comes along with other ideas and, guess what? They often end up winning.. until someone new comes along. And there are usually a bunch of arguments about like that BaldAdonis and AAFitz have had.

There are some set rules, yes. "Don't attack mindlessly", etc. But once you get beyond that, its a matter of opinion.

Dice matter at least as much as who goes first in most conquest maps. In some maps, the spoils type matters a lot, in others not at all. As for how I do in those ... I usually play with fog, so its irrelevant to your comment anyway. (and I never said I was good).

Timminz wrote:I think you're making that up. There's no Omaha map. At least, not one that I can find. Is it the same size as NA? You lumped the 2 of them together earlier. I'm so confused.

D-Day Omaha Beach

Big Whiskey wrote:

Timminz wrote:I think you're making that up. There's no Omaha map. At least, not one that I can find. Is it the same size as NA? You lumped the 2 of them together earlier. I'm so confused.

D-Day Omaha Beach

Oh, I see. Yeah. That's one of the worst maps for 1v1.

Although, Omaha is a long way from Omaha Beach.

Timminz wrote:

Big Whiskey wrote:

Timminz wrote:I think you're making that up. There's no Omaha map. At least, not one that I can find. Is it the same size as NA? You lumped the 2 of them together earlier. I'm so confused.

D-Day Omaha Beach

Oh, I see. Yeah. That's one of the worst maps for 1v1.

Although, Omaha is a long way from Omaha Beach.

sorry about that, and thanks bw for clarifying

though the way maps are springing up, im sure there will be a mutal of omaha map soon...

that I am making up....

BaldAdonis wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BaldAdonis wrote: Every conquest map without fog usually means "First turn equals win".

This is just not true.

I am talking strictly between intelligent opponents. Obviously you can win from second by playing a bunch of inferior opponents (which is the same reason AAFitz believes that unlimited is "more fair"), but if both players know what they are doing, the first player will win a large majority on conquest maps without fog. Of course you can't win em all, and you may have a game where you never win a single roll. As with everything else in life, we're discussing probabilities and phrasing them in simpler terms.

As for AAFitz and his "1200" World 2.1 games (of which only 732 are recorded in the game finder), we've just finished a series of 20 games, and the person playing first won a huge majority of the unlimited games (and a large, though slightly smaller, majority of the adjacent games), although this could have also involved the other factors which help the person playing first, like using cards and fog. Combine all three for public games against the best in the World (2.1)! [spoiler=Map Rank]AAFitz + World 2.1 + 2 Player + Unlimited + Fog + Escalating + Public:
562 games, 78% wins, +2286 points, 0.683 relative rank. We might as well be asking for strategy advice from kingherpes.

"Just like, uhhh... get some scripts, and then uhhh... sit at your computer all day and beat new recruits. That's how to be the best! Also, lewd jokes."[/spoiler]

Ignoring the ill placed personal insults, and having shown that Ive actually played 1300 world games, and not just the 700 you mistakenly posted....Ill further show you didnt do your research:

We played 25 games
I won 13
I went first 9 times.
You won 12
You went first 13 times.
I won 7 going first, 6 going second
2 were unlimited, 2 were adjacent, 2 were chained
Clearly for me, I prefer going first, but do not require it to win.

you won 7 going first 3 on unlimited, 4 on adjacent
you won 1 going second on unlimited
you won 1 going second on adjacent

Going first did not decide the series...It was either skill, dice, drop or cards...but the person who went first the most, did not win the most...and since you won 12 out of 25, its safe to say you were not an inferior player.

I won just as many on unlimited going second as I did on either chained or adjacent
you won just as many going second on unlimited as adjacent
You call it a huge majority won on unlimited going first on unlimited, when in fact you won more going first on adjacent.

Again, you seem to have just made up your numbers without researching anything, and posted them as fact and just trying to pass them off as fact, simply because it is you who are posting them.

From your point of view however, since you only won 2 going second, you were correct, but if since I won almost as many going second, and was the one to win more games....against an equal partner....going first obviously does not mean you will win.

It only gives you and advantage, and on some maps, you can over come that advantage with the right settings.

This is only 25 games of course, and the data is hardly conclusive....Ive based my ideas on the 1300 games ive played on the map...I posted this here, because it shows that going first, is not always the most important factor, even among equal players.