Having the last move is often a great advantage such as when 2 large armies are expected to attack each other. It is often worth moving large numbers of single armies just to delay your move. The system works well on small maps where a single unit can matter a great deal, however on large maps when your income is 100+ the number of delaying moves is just limited by tediousness and time. This seems like poor design to me.

Could there be an option to sort move order by the proportion of your total army moved so far? e.g

in terms of % of total army.
move \ Player A \ player B
1 \ 50% \ 10%
2 \ skip \ 30%
3 \ skip \ 60%
4 \ 30% \ skip
5 \ 20% \ skip


This way you would have to sacrifice a larger proportion of your army in order to delay your move (and could do it in just one order instead of hundreds).

Edited 10/15/2018 10:07:36

Can you explain your idea in more detail?

So let's say Player A has 400 total armies and Player B has 600 total armies. First move would be determined as normal (random,cycle or no luck cycle). Lets say Player A gets first move. Lets say Player A moves 100 armies with their first order, this is 25% of their total armies. Player B would then repeatedly move armies until they had moved greater then 25% of their total army. If player B moved 120 armies it would be 20% so Player B would move again. If Player B then moved 60 armies, it would be an extra 10%, so Player B has now moved 30% of their total armies. As 30%>25% it would now be Player A's turn to move. This would repeat until all orders are made.

Edited 10/15/2018 11:09:13

that would totally remove the concept of delaying or move order in general really...... if you had to delay via this alternative you would have to move 1´s as you would need to get as close to the opponents % as possible for having the optimal number of delays, so really it does enhance the need for delaying 1´s if you would need that, even if it would be rarer,since standing or first order attack would get better

Edited 10/15/2018 11:14:32

So it would be possible for one player to make continuous moves before the opponent if the opponent moved most of there armies? I can't help but imagine that would be broken.

"if you had to delay via this alternative you would have to move 1´s as you would need to get as close to the opponents % as possible"

As you don't know how many armies your opponent will move there isn't an exact percentage to aim for.

"So it would be possible for one player to make continuous moves before the opponent if the opponent moved most of there armies? I can't help but imagine that would be broken. "

I think this would be more of a fun trade off from moving large armies instead of a game breaker, but would have to see it in action to see if it really works.

So if I have more armies than my opponent, I can just move all of them from one spot to another with a stack and on the last order attack him with 2 armies? That would guarantee me to have the last order over him no matter what he would do. That favours the winning position even more. And there are a lot more issues with this concept.

it would still work in the limit, which is my point..... in either case it does remove the concept of move order, and as rufus mentioned there is a lot of issues in general, but just the one rufus mentioned is devastating, as you would never be abel to attack if the opponent has first move and more armies, given one shared border, so it would make the gameplay very defensive, and then in the long run the bigger income wins

Edited 10/15/2018 11:42:48

With one army must stand guard it is somewhat harder to calculate who can guarantee last move. In any case, in this system your last move can only attack with a tiny proportion of your army in order to guarantee last move. This seems a bit better than the current system where a far larger player will almost always have the last move anyway, and will be able to use it to attack with a large army.

Edited 10/15/2018 11:59:44

I thought it was suppose to be percentage based? So it wouldn't matter who had more armies.

its not harder at all but thats really not very important.

what you dont seem to like is that players that have larger income have a big adv. I dont really see how to solve that problem as i would define that characteristica as defining for making the game make sense.

Edited 10/15/2018 12:29:15

" I thought it was suppose to be percentage based? So it wouldn't matter who had more armies. "


Say player A has 200 armies and player B has 100 armies. If player A were to move 199 armies they would have moved 99.5% of their armies. It is impossible for player B to get higher than 99% without moving all 100 armies. This allows player A to be certain to have the last move with their 1 leftover army.

This is made more compilated with 1 army must stand guard as 1 army per territory cannot move. Say player A has 200 armies and 100 territories, and Player B has 100 armies and 1 territory. In this case, Player A is only able to move 50% of there armies and Player B can move 99% of there's, thus despite having fewer armies Player B could be guaranteed the last move. As in most games you do not know both the total army size and the number of territories of your opponent it is hard to calculate who could get the last move.

I can't imagine a situation where that would be valid though it would be very unusual for a player to keep 100% of there armies together and wouldn't really be worth a guarantee delay.

As in most games you do not know both the total army size and the number of territories of your opponent it is hard to calculate who could get the last move.

In a lot of SR games, you can, in fact, calculate this. Whether or not you want to go through with that is something else.

I was able to finally understand how this idea would work and your motivation behind it.

First of all, in some sense, it is unfair, e. g.:

Player A is only able to move 50% of there armies and Player B can move 99% of there's, thus despite having fewer armies Player B could be guaranteed the last move.

It is player's B own fault that he is in losing position and that he can't get the last order. There is no need to hurt player A for that. By the way, this problem is solvable by saving Order Delay Card and using it later.

Another problem appears from analytic point of view. It would be very hard to follow what exactly your opponent is doing behind the fog, since moving your armies in stacks would have the same effect as splitting them (in terms of number of orders).

One more thing: delays are overrated.

Edited 10/15/2018 14:07:38

I actually agree that this makes sense as a game option, though it is not needed in a normal strategic game.

@rufus, the fue is not so much that a player can't generate enough delays - it's more that it is a huge pain to make 300 moves per turn. In the 200 & 100 income example, it's more like if the 100 income player is willing to spend 20 minutes creating delays every turn, they might end up with 1000 delays after a few turns. The 200 income person could easily do this as well, and perhaps it would be strategically optimal to do so, but they are not willing to spend as much time as their opponent mindlessly clicking so they will never be able to get last move even though they have more income and more armies on the board

Edited 10/15/2018 15:57:00

dont play games were the income is in the 100´s could be a solution

My solution: cards; or do not use delays at all. Nobody is going to change move order mechanics, it's too much work.

As a "solution", in high income real time games, I deploy about 20 armies in the background on different territories next to each other. Then every move, the first thing I do, is moving them around in a circle, super quick. If I don't see my actual moves happening after the opponents, I just deploy some more. I can't recall ever running into an opponent who can (wants to) keep up with me, if I have the necessary income

I like the idea, but why complicate with percentages ?
Just count the number of armies moved, whoever moved the least armies gets the next order.
(and if the players are tied for armies moved revert to standard procedure)