1st side vs 2nd side pros and cons

[fastphil]

Howdy fellow wargamers.

I have been getting more and more into MC for over a year now and despite the fact that the thing is valid for any game with the IGOUGO system implemented, I am having an impression that due to the high tech and high mobility and fluidity of the warfare in the modern series, the thing I am bringing into consideration is best seen there indeed.

Namely, is it a fact or only an impression, based on who prefers what, that the 1st side to move seems to have an advantage over the one who goes the next? Basically, who moves first appears to have the initiative which, according to Sun Tzu doctrines, is a vital asset - to be able to give the battle where and when one prefers. On the other hand, the settings are often preset in the shorter scenarios, making both belligerents have to accept and proceed with what they have and the one who goes the second is the one who goes the last - therefore has a final word. Is it only a matter of personal impression that it's better to go first? The second belligerent in a row may feel a little discontented with the necessity to accept what happened during the 1st side moves without the ability to influence that a bit prior to the start of hostilities but for the chance to offset that later on.Certain scenarios, but mainly the campaign ones, like "Fulda Gap '81 Better Dead than Red", allow to avoid the opening impact by incorporating a "ceasefire" period into the game, enabling both players to attempt to maneuver into a position of advantage, both physically and psychologically, and try to seize the initiative rather than wait to prevail by brute force, firepower or manpower or by means of applying the maneuver shock and dissruption through mobility.

How about the game mechanics? I can remember that in TOAW III yet before the latest 3.4 [atch, tere was a wide agreement that because of the game mechanics and the way the game engine worked, the 1st side was given an unjust benefit of getting replacements and being resupplied in a way that it was priviledged over the other.

I think you will find that the first player in a scenario is by design supposed to have the intiative and the second player's job is to take it away. The designer hopefully balances the contest by the composition of forces, set up, fixed units, rules etc.
You avoid discussing the converse. If the game is close the 2nd player can snatch victory from the 1st and there is nothing he can do about it. This forces the MC first player to cover every objective to preserve their control. In the PZC system there is less of a necessity as the air can not control objectives. In MC objectives must be protected and security forces must protect your supply lines at all times because of the air mobile threat. Except in PZC games with paras/partisans, there is no such worry.