Vortex Wars

I have been playing this game for the past few weeks on another site and love the game and am happy to say I have stumbled upon this site. I will begin playing here from now on!

One improvement idea: For games where you select your starting location and subsequantly drop an army on there, the first player always has a distict advantage (as anyone who has played more than a few games knows this) How to combat this is a question to level the playing field... Here is my suggestion: Bottom half of players on the starting line up get an extra army only on the first go around. After that it's game on. Example: For two player games, player A selects a country and adds an army. Turn over. Player B selects a country and adds two armies. Turn over. This is how it looks going forward:

Player A has 2, player B has 3.
Player A has 4, player B has 3.
Player A has 4, player B has 6.
Player A has 8, player B has 6.
Player A has 8, player B has 12.

Notice after each players turn they have slighly more than their opponent and in turn they have the same chance at winning the game in a pure 1v1 game.

This same idea can be applied to any number of players (2-8) and I suggest allowing the bottom half of the starting board to get the one extra army to start the game:

2 players - player 2 only
3 players - player 3 only
4 players - player 3 and 4
5 players - player 4 and 5
6 players - player 4, 5, and 6
7 players - player 5, 6, and 7
8 players - players 5, 6, 7, and 8

I think this creates a little more level play in the game, is deemed as an advantage to those that need to pick a start location after the first half of the players begin (reducing the number of players that drop early in the game), but is in all reality only leveling the playing field.

Thanks,

Phil (rednaz23)

Beautiful! I never saw this and made the same argument in another topic.
I'm in total agreement with this suggestion.

Is there any further discussion on this? I still think this is a good idea and is a potential solution to MANY problems I have seen people post in the forum... yet I see no discussion. Why not?

I believe that Lopdo already said he isn't going to do this. And if I remember correctly, it is also on the "Game Ideas that will NOT be implemented! Please don't ask! " topic.

I don't remember saying I won't do anything about FTA, I hope I didn't this was already discussed somewhere and I even tried that, but backlash from players was terrible. They hated it and I had to change it back. Maybe they just misunderstood how it works or something, I am not sure

The little problem with that is that it is easy for second half players to pop right next to a player from the first half.

It's easy, and they will have an advantage (2-3, 1,3-3, 1,3-5,1,1 but this will stop because player 1 won't have any place to expand before player 2, on average) and will, still on average, eventually win.

Solution:

Do that AND Forbid player to start right next to each other.

you will just delay that one turn, that second player can immediately expand towards him and because he has 3 unit, there is bug chance he can block him

Nope.

Because expand to player 1 will take him one way out to expand later, so he will run out of expansion path before player 1 and will on average lose.

But I agree that it will be still a lot of time (slightly less than average, definitely less if you're a good player and choose your staring location wisely) that player 2 kills player 1.

I would still venture to guess that it will make the odds closer compared to player one ALWAYS having an advantage.

I'm sure those people complaining the last time this was done were also players who were not willing to adapt to the change. (different game situations call for different game tactics... right!?) Darwin said "adapt or die" and I think it is applicable for VW as much as butterflies, plants, or monkeys. It is my opinion you (Lopdo) should do everything you can to level the playing field as much as possible irregardless of the majority whiplash.

I wish you good luck and will see you on the battlefield.

Phil (rednaz23)