I think we can all agree that phantom league has a natural advantage in going first. They can reposition away from a larger force or reduce the numbers of the enemy at the start. This isn't necessarily an issue in the big maps where starting positions are most likely separated. But in the medium and smaller maps, whcih are more popular also, it can make a defining difference.

Arguments that effective users of free nations can overcome the first turn problem are not likely true. While they can position their starting armies further within borders to make them less vulnerable, it then requires addional turns to invade. That and most countries are too small for an initial army deployment to be invulnerable from all sides. It is undeniably frustrating when you lose several units including expensive rocket launchers before they even get to move. Bottom line: I'm fairly certain that phantom league has significanlty more than 50% of the wins, and way more of the personal preference of the players.

So if a new first turn was implemented where both teams get to reposition their armies without crossing any borders or firing at all, it would reduce the chance that phantom league could gain an advantage in the first turn. The phantom league could then go first as usual. It doesn't need to be justified because it's a gameplay issue but it could be called "preparing for combat" or whatever else.

So basically the game is identical, with a new first combat turn without any combat. There could even be revenue at the end so that the user can place some extra defense or blocking on the border if they want, or supplement their main army in the middle.

I think the result of this new turn system wil be more armies that deploy in the center of their the countries in the initial disclose phase. First turn invasions will be more difficult (but not impossible) because the phantom league will not be able to reduce the size of the other army as much.

Subsequently, in the first few turns people will aim their armies at countries that are as yet undisclosed, shying away from initial battle. The results of this will be more initial turns that are strategic rather than simply force reduction until one side comes out ahead. There are then multiple new strategies, such as delaying combat while you invade neutral (or seemingly neutral!) countries to build up a bigger army before major combat. Or if you have less neutral countries around you might invade to prevent this. The battles will be bigger too, which is the advantage of multiplayer anyways as the big battles are tough on the AI.

I know that the initial randomness is part of the fun, but I don't think that is sacrificed. The starting points are still unique each match, and bigger countries that are disclosed might still be able to invade smaller countries on the first turn.

Anways, comments are appreciated. I love the game already, and just making a suggestion.

http://massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=265

http://massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=359

http://massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=417

summary of all my post - in most cases the first turn does not gives any advantages to PL.only situation there PL will have decisive advantage will require at least the combination of three factors - 1) the FNU and PL are neughbores (that's often on small maps but rare on large) 2) PL deploys to attackexactly at FNU's borders (not at some neutral on other side) 3) FNU player make some mistakes during his deployment allowing to inflict significant losses on him.Such a combination is more an exception than a rule.

But still - such situation happen not always but it SHOULD happen sometimes for the game to be realistic.If you know history just a bit you should remember alot of situations when war starts from sudden strike on unexpectiong opponent.Alot of examples - - any of German campaigns in 1939-1941 especially Plan Barbarossa,Pearl Harbour and more recently - 7 days war when Israeli army completely crushed the arab alliance by sudden strike.If that all was in RL wars it should be in MA.

the only thing i have to add to all above...especally for all new players... FORGET deploying the rocket launchers on the first turn.Deploy anything - tanks,robots, even towers if you want but not launchers.The process of repeatingly losing launchers creates so much SCREAM from beginners so maybe you just forget about those launchers and not use them until you learn to understan when and where you need themt.

Thanks for the links. I had looked through the forums already and I knew that this was already discussed. But the reason for a new topic is to discuss the pros and cons (and ramifications) of my idea, not debate the advantages of the phantom league.

To answer your post, it seems like most people disagree and think that there is some advantage to being phantom league. You mentioned historical instances of sudden strike. Fair enough, I then propose a very simple patch: randomly with a 50% probability EITHER side gets to go first, without anyone knowing at the initial deployment phase. The problem here is that it doesn't really solve the problem, and going first will still be an excuse for losing...

By the way, I dislike the use of analogies since the concept is easy enough to grasp and they create extra points to debate when there doesn't need to be. If you go first, you get to either attack first and reduce their force before they even get a shot off, or you can reposition away from a larger force. This is an advantage.

Yes, real life is not fair, but IMO a friendly game between two people should be.

Anyways, returning to my topic: What's your opinion on how my 3rd turn idea would change the strategies and the deployment or initial phases of the game?

As I explained above, I think it would contribute to a more strategic first few turns. The possibility of sudden strikes is still very real. If you are disclosing your biggest city on the first turn, your sudden attack on a small country could work well.

And I believe it would not remove anything from the game at all.

id

have you read my post? where i said PL has not some advantages?I said that such advantages may be useful in specific situation (not always) i think i clearly defined circumstances where such situation occur.If you can not see difference between phrazes "no advantage at all" and "having advantage in rare situation"....

Though i have no objection to implementing the randim first attack i still think that since PL is being in aggressor in storyline it's logical that it attack first.
LOL imagine a French president in 1940 yelling "Hey!!! that's not fair!!! Hitler wiped me by sudden strike!!! i should have chance to attack Germany first!!!" btw notice that though war was already going on since autumn 1939 nonetheless the german attack on France in spring 1940 was competely unexpected by french generals.

If you think that such a chance for using sudden strike sometimes (not often) are so disbalanceful that they must be completely removed from game...i think you over-exaggerating the importance of this factor.

Probably you will change you opinion when you have more experience as a player.If you make no bad mistakes during deployment you wont suffer such a devastating losses even if you find yourself under a sudden strike.But if you insist that you want to deploy only rocket launchers at first turn and place them immediately near the border...then definitely PL player will have HUGE advantage over you

We are most probably planning to do the following thing with the Initial Blind Disclosure to lower down the higher PL's chances of hitting first:

Those two obligatory Disclosures will be spread out between two first turns:
i.e. you will have to Disclose ONE Secret Ally during the first turn (Blindly), and then during your second turn you will have to disclose the second one.

Thus there will be only ONE country, which Ph. League will disclose blindly and which will have a chance to move and shoot first.
All that without overcomlicating the rules and the procedures.

And the second obligatory disclosure won't be so crucial, because the FNU player will be able to see that disclosure and appropriately react to it before Ph. League's newly deployed units move.

My take on this idea: It has a lot of merit, and probably should be considered (sounds like Vic and team have already come up with a descent solution), but there are two problems with the listed approach:
1) It slows the game down
2) It really doesn't give you very much benefit to the FNU
3) It might actually give more advantage to the PL

The second and third ones needs a little explanation: Basically, when you disclose your initial allies as FNU, you have to chose where to put them. And unless you choose entirely mobile forces (tanks, transports, bots), you will have a difficult time adjusting your line to the enemy's disclosure if you haven't put your initial forces in the right place. The problem with always choosing mobile forces, too, is that they are very expensive, and not cost effective if you don't have a running battle.

For the PL, they actually might have more advantage, because regardless of how the forces are redistributed, the PL gets to strike first, so if they have a chance to readjust their units they may be able to plan out a worse first strike then previously, or even change from attacking a neutral country they originally chose to a disclosed ally of yours.

As far as the discussion on advantages, I agree with Mrakobes. It is only in certain situations that it gives a huge advantage, that being when the PL happens to disclose next to a FNU disclosure. These situations are possibly more common on smaller maps, but they happen very rarely on the larger maps. You're likely to be more affected by SA positioning than who plays what (hence our discussion in this forum on SA positioning strategies).

Perhaps a couple of problems with the proposed approach could be alleviated if you only allow the FNU to reposition his armies, with the PL stuck with where they put theirs. That way FNU has the advantage of reactionary movement, while the PL has the advantage of first strike still. The question is then, does one have an advantage over the other?

heheh
completely agree with TheDS post actually that's rare when i see such a sentient newbie i recommend you to to try online warfare.send me a challenge if you want.

Here's another theory. How about the Phantom League get to move first, but are not allowed to purchase at the end of their first turn. This gives them the element of surprise, but means the FNU gets a chance to recover and form a counter attack.

Haven't played online, or anything beyond the demo, so shoot this down as you will

Hypothetically, if you cannot attack the first turn, but the PL gets to go on the second turn, then would nto it be the same thing only time delayed? PL still goes first, and your units are still positioned in the same way, only difference is that you have to wait a turn.

I personaly play PL, but only because I liek the idea of being a tyranical dictator. This is the same with all TBS games, the first turn always seems to have an advantage. There is NO way around it...