Skip to Content
 

First player to begin

15 replies [Last post]
Tue, 03/26/2019 - 05:50
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

I have a bit of trouble of deciding which player may go first.

The only noteworthy randomness that the game contains are the different value's on the cards. These range from 1 to idk.

There are no dice or other variable's!
I would like to refrain from adding tools.

This is what I have so far:

Quote:
First player to begin
Both players shuffle their deck.
Each player draws a card from the top of their deck and reveal these to each other.
The player that reveals the highest value may choose to begin or not.
With an equal value; continue to draw cards in this manner.
Stop after drawing 7 cards.
Put them back in the deck and restart by shuffling the deck.
Any picked cards will go to the players hand for the first round.

The main problem is that, starter decks contain a lot of low value cards.

The choice of revealing the first cards to each other is to lift a bit of the fog of war. Normally, most cards are already revealed on the table. Except for the very first round. So, this way the first hand is partly known to the other player.

Any suggestions in how to make this better or simpler?

Perhaps letting players draw 7 cards right away and reveal the entire hand? I figured that standard definition makes the chance on equal hands higher than having just a few cards.

Top
Tue, 03/26/2019 - 08:47
#1
Jay103
Jay103's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
Rock-paper-scissors? I'd just

Rock-paper-scissors?

I'd just finesse the whole thing and say "Select who goes first by any random method of your choice."

Then they can flip a coin, or roll a die, or arm-wrestle, or let the youngest go, or whatever.

(Please don't say, "Whoever last ate a hamburger goes first" or similar.. I really hate that, personally)

Top
Tue, 03/26/2019 - 10:45
#2
wob
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2017
the silly ways to pick first

the silly ways to pick first player can be fun, but probably not in a serious war game.
i agree with jay here that just telling them to pick a starting player is fine and it happens in a lot of games.
however it depends on how big first player advantage is.

Top
Tue, 03/26/2019 - 10:53
#3
let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Chwazi et. al.

Dare I say, "There's an app for that." And I don't even own a smartphone. :)

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.marcelnijman.startplaye...

I've seen people use things like this a LOT at board game pub nights.

Top
Tue, 03/26/2019 - 10:54
#4
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I am having the same problem

In Monster Keep (MK), a similar problem occurs:

+ Basically on the first turn there are NO cards in "The Keep". This means that Player #1 can be at a disadvantage...

It's mostly because Player #2 has always an EXTRA card he may elect to attack.

How I "solved" this issue is for Player #1 gets +1 cards in his hand. This means that the other players may benefit from seeing an extra card in play, Player #1 has one more choice when it comes to playing a card into play...

That's what I figured was the best solution in my circumstances.

Cheers!

Top
Tue, 03/26/2019 - 11:13
#5
MAR
MAR's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2017
Who goes first?

I agree that you can say something generic such as, "Select a player to go first". If you want you could cut each players deck, revealingva random card in the middle somewhere, and the highest value goes first- or lowest value or whatever you like. This way they won't have knowledge of each others hands. But I like the first suggestion I made better- I think.

MAR

Top
Tue, 03/26/2019 - 11:15
#6
Jay103
Jay103's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
wob wrote:the silly ways to

wob wrote:
the silly ways to pick first player can be fun, but probably not in a serious war game.

Silly ways can be okay if they fit the game, sure.. though even then, it seems stupid to me :) They always seem forced, and typically guarantee that the same person goes first if you play more than once..

Top
Tue, 03/26/2019 - 15:23
#7
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
5 year old kids are great

...We use counters in the game...

[In Jack Blacks voice]And he said!
[In 5 year old kid voice]Put a counter behind your back in one of your hands? And let the other pick a hand?

*shrugs*
Outsmarted by a kid...
I need vacation guys. I really need one. Or lets start with sufficient sleep and vitamins.

Same works with 2 different cards. Shuffle, let the other player pick one. It can be so simple. Why am I so blind?

***

Ps.
It doesn't really matter who begins. It should be balanced since both players would go defences first. After roughly 3 rounds, the best deck will start to show the upper hand.

This topic is done I guess. But please do comment on my <5 year old intelect due to lack of rest.

Top
Tue, 03/26/2019 - 17:50
#8
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Hmm... That not true in all circumstances

X3M wrote:
It doesn't really matter who begins. It should be balanced since both players would go defences first. After roughly 3 rounds, the best deck will start to show the upper hand.

That does not work when BOTH player decks are identical to each other. What do you do when this is the case...

Top
Wed, 03/27/2019 - 06:10
#9
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
But why?

Ok, let's pretend that both players have both a deck of 60 identical cars. All Riflemen.
Then you get something along the lines of tic-tac-toe.

Of course you mean that the players have 15 different cards times 4 in their decks. But the decks are identical.
In that case, shuffling should change things. And players don't know when certain cards show up. That is random as well.
So, when starting the first initial attack. Without knowing if the proper backup will show up. Wil mean that players will go more into defence. But there could show up a moment that a player should feel that it has to attack to gain a bit of an upper hand.

In the most extreme case, the complete deck will show up on the table. Then you get a game of chess.

Top
Wed, 03/27/2019 - 09:16
#10
Jay103
Jay103's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
X3M wrote:Ok, let's pretend

X3M wrote:
Ok, let's pretend that both players have both a deck of 60 identical cars. All Riflemen.
Then you get something along the lines of tic-tac-toe.

.. in which the player who goes second can at best force a tie..

Quote:
In the most extreme case, the complete deck will show up on the table. Then you get a game of chess.

.. which also has an advantage for the player who goes first :)

Top
Wed, 03/27/2019 - 10:33
#11
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
What if the other players have an advantage???

If you were designing for my game (Monster Keep)... And Player #1 was ONE (1) card behind all the other players. What kind of advantage would you use to improve on this type of scenario???

Is offering Player #1 a LARGER hand (+1 card) as a bonus something reasonable?

What are your thoughts?

Top
Wed, 03/27/2019 - 18:00
#12
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
@Jay103 Hahaha, you

@Jay103
Hahaha, you understood the first one perfectly. But those kind of games, why would they even play them? With magic the gathering, the same issue would arise, no?

Regarding the "chess" variant. I don't know how to put it without sounding defensive about it.
But let's say that in the beginning, an attacking player is at a disadvantage.
In the middle, the attacker is not at a disadvantage, by random draws and planning; the strongest player/deck will attack.
And at the end (if any), without attackers, the attacker would be at a disadvantage again.

A second factor in the game:
Depending on the type of cards. There might be "chess" situations at the end. Where the attacker could mathematically eat away certain RPS factors of the opponent in order to gain the upper hand.

Which reminds me. I need to repost the combat mechanic soon in the other post.

Also. It isn't written in this topic. But cards can be played multiple times at the moment of placing them on the table. This depends on if the player decides to have more resources first. Or decides to try to gain a table control by placing more forces.
Also, trying to gain more table control by attacking while the opponent is still weak is a valid strategy.

***

@questccg
I considered an extra card. In the early design stages.

But due to RPS and the fact that cards can't attack in the same round. The first few rounds are a gamble for either side.
Sure, the one with better cards AND the starting position has the upper hand.
But the one with better cards AND going second has even more chances to win.

A key strategy in this is that players always. ALWAYS have some cheap cards in their deck.

Top
Thu, 03/28/2019 - 14:33
#13
Jay103
Jay103's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
[quote=X3M]@Jay103Hahaha,

X3M wrote:

Hahaha, you understood the first one perfectly. But those kind of games, why would they even play them? With magic the gathering, the same issue would arise, no?

I'm not a Mt:G player, but I believe they now have some sort of asymmetric rule in place, where the first player has a slight handicap of some kind. I think.

Top
Thu, 03/28/2019 - 15:41
#14
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Jay103 wrote:X3M

Jay103 wrote:
X3M wrote:

Hahaha, you understood the first one perfectly. But those kind of games, why would they even play them? With magic the gathering, the same issue would arise, no?

I'm not a Mt:G player, but I believe they now have some sort of asymmetric rule in place, where the first player has a slight handicap of some kind. I think.

There are 2 I think.
But the main one is that the first player doesn't pick an extra card on 7. The second however does. And has 8 at that moment. At the end of the turn, more than 7 cards means that the opponent may discard for you??? Correct me if needed here, I have not played in ages.

However, my game says that the hand cannot exceed 7 unless there is a special card placed on the table.
Each round, players REFILL their hand to the cards they are allowed to have. So spending no cards means simply skipping a turn. In that regard.

Players need to perform at least one of the following actions in their turn:
- Draw cards (you can't if your deck is depleted)
- Gather resources (even if it is throwing away cards 1 by 1)
- Attack (you need units).
- Buy cards (you need resources and cards in your hand).

If they can't do any of the above. They loose!

Top
Thu, 03/28/2019 - 15:41
#15
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Jay103 wrote:X3M

Jay103 wrote:
X3M wrote:

Hahaha, you understood the first one perfectly. But those kind of games, why would they even play them? With magic the gathering, the same issue would arise, no?

I'm not a Mt:G player, but I believe they now have some sort of asymmetric rule in place, where the first player has a slight handicap of some kind. I think.

There are 2 I think.
But the main one is that the first player doesn't pick an extra card on 7. The second however does. And has 8 at that moment. At the end of the turn, more than 7 cards means that the opponent may discard for you??? Correct me if needed here, I have not played in ages.

However, my game says that the hand cannot exceed 7 unless there is a special card placed on the table.
Each round, players REFILL their hand to the cards they are allowed to have. So spending no cards means simply skipping a turn. In that regard.

Players need to perform at least one of the following actions in their turn:
- Draw cards (you can't if your deck is depleted)
- Gather resources (even if it is throwing away cards 1 by 1)
- Attack (you need units).
- Buy cards (you need resources and cards in your hand).

If they can't do any of the above. They loose!

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut