1st side vs 2nd side pros and cons

[burroughs]

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.

[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.

[ComradeP]

Generally speaking, the longer a scenario, the smaller the first turn advantage becomes.

But yes, in most wargames the first player is going to have a good to excellent first turn, also because that's necessary to get anywhere most of the time.

In games where you know what the weather is going to be next turn, the second player can prepare for the weather in a better way than the first player, which can be a substantial equalizer. In a PzC game, I'd say the second player also gets an advantage with dusk turns due to the visibility decrease that he can prepare for in a more efficient manner than the first player.

[Dog Soldier]

Generally speaking, the longer a scenario, the smaller the first turn advantage becomes.

What advantage? First I am going to take your stick away. Then I will hit you on the head with it. Sure you get the first punch. But that settles nothing, even in a two or three day scenario.

But yes, in most wargames the first player is going to have a good to excellent first turn, also because that's necessary to get anywhere most of the time.

Nah! Well designed scenarios are becoming more the norm in the PzC series. There is no perfect first turn. Too many things can still go wrong even on the first turn. My job as the second player is to see that they do for you.
"Just a fly in the ointment, Hans. The monkey in the wrench. The pain in the ass." -- John McClane

In games where you know what the weather is going to be next turn, the second player can prepare for the weather in a better way than the first player, which can be a substantial equalizer. In a PzC game, I'd say the second player also gets an advantage with dusk turns due to the visibility decrease that he can prepare for in a more efficient manner than the first player.

Weather, smeather. It rains or shines on all equally. Ask raizer or Strela.

Dog Soldier

[ComradeP]

Well, I should've added "also: the smaller the time scale, the smaller the first player advantage and the smaller the disadvantage of being the first to deal with the weather during a turn."

I'm not sure how many wargames you have played/are playing where the time scale is a couple of days per turn, but you'll notice a substantial difference between those and PzC. Of course, the weather is poor in half of Moscow '42, but even in the clear scenarios judging by the AAR's here, the frontline rips apart in front of your eyes only slowly, so this is a series where the defender has advantages he would not normally enjoy in a wargame with a 1 day per turn or greater time scale/compression.

Perhaps that's what takes the most getting used to for me, the tricks the defender can pull because everything moves along slowly in winter 1941-1942.

Still, I do feel with my very limited experience the weather and visibility conditions can favour the second player even at this scale (for example by moving units away, possibly in T-mode to prepare for the night moves, pre-dusk because you know the attacker can only see units 1 hex away without using recon).

[raizer]

Being first, dont you get the heads up if dawn is going to be 1 or 2 hexes viz? Can be a pain for the second player. Pretty sure Ive been burned as the second player a few times waking up to see 2 hex viz on my opponents opening day move and blam-if I got stuff in T mode 2 hexes away thinking they would be hidden, Im in trouble.

[Volcano Man]

Yes, but being second you get the heads up on the parting shots and can position your forces to disengage better for resting, fire away and use all your artillery and then withdraw to safety for example. I think it all evens out in the end.

Besides, as the second side, if you are really worried about what lurks two hexes away at night, fearing a surprise attack, the put some of your low fatigue companies on the line into Patrolling status.

[raizer]

One thing that can surprise you...is the 2 hex dawn that brings air on to the scene. Do not assume there will be no air attacks by the first player when dawn comes ;-)

[Dog Soldier]

Well, I should've added "also: the smaller the time scale, the smaller the first player advantage and the smaller the disadvantage of being the first to deal with the weather during a turn."

Actually, I think size has no measurable relationship to this first player advantage. The FPA only exists in games where there has not been sufficient play testing and a will by the designers to make tweaks to remove it.
There should be some small advantage to beginning with the imitative as there was historically. It should not be so overwhelming as to make a perfect set of moves on the first turn result in an impossible situation for the second player. That is what playing the AI is for.

FWIW, I think the shorter the number of turns in a IGOUGO game environment present more of a puzzle to be solved than a game. Mistakes tend to be irrecoverable in these shorter games.

I'm not sure how many wargames you have played/are playing where the time scale is a couple of days per turn, but you'll notice a substantial difference between those and PzC. Of course, the weather is poor in half of Moscow '42, but even in the clear scenarios judging by the AAR's here, the frontline rips apart in front of your eyes only slowly, so this is a series where the defender has advantages he would not normally enjoy in a wargame with a 1 day per turn or greater time scale/compression.

Perhaps that's what takes the most getting used to for me, the tricks the defender can pull because everything moves along slowly in winter 1941-1942.

I think the difference in other games and PzC is not the time scale represented by a single turn per se, but what can be done in a single turn. There are many PzC titles with scenarios that take place in summer where the action is much faster in a single turn. These require more thinking ahead and anticipation of your opponents options, a judgement of which they will choose and experience to know what your best counter is considering the resources you have at the time.

Strela makes an excellent counter argument for this on another thread that the slower mobility in the M42 winter scenarios requires more forward anticipation as a move in the wrong direction takes longer to correct.

Or as others have said many times on these boards...
"Your mileage may vary...."

If it did not then these games could become deadly dull.

Still, I do feel with my very limited experience the weather and visibility conditions can favour the second player even at this scale (for example by moving units away, possibly in T-mode to prepare for the night moves, pre-dusk because you know the attacker can only see units 1 hex away without using recon).

I agree it is more a function of the IGOIGO game mechanic that inherantly gives the defender the option to break off combat. Before the night disruption pdt values were created, this was not the case. It becomes more a combination of that change and the inherent second move that allows defenders a better chance to break contact at dusk than remain in place during the night.
It depends on the situation. It is not always to your advantage as defender to break contact.

Good thoughts.

The strength of the PzC series (and what has kept me engaged by it for 12+ years) is that the designers and testers try to create a product that is less a static puzzle to solve as many games in the industry are, than a set of options to choose from for both sides with positive and negative consequences. The action / reaction nature of play is not always the same, resolving the set piece play many other war games have going all the way back to the 1960s and pushing cardboard.

Not all the aforementioned choices are obvious at first study or play, nor are they spelled out in the manual. Experience reveals them.

That same dynamic can be quite frustrating to perceive and master for some who decide these games are not their 'cup of tea'.

Besides, as the second side, if you are really worried about what lurks two hexes away at night, fearing a surprise attack, the put some of your low fatigue companies on the line into Patrolling status.

Excellent insight and suggestion as always VM.

Or you can play as General Grant of the Union Arny of the Potomac in the American Civil War commanded in his time.

"He doesn't give a damn about what the enemy does out of his sight, but it scares me like hell."
--- William Tecumseh Sherman

Dog Soldier

[ComradeP]

Well, there are wargames around where the first player has much more mobility than the second player, so recovering from a first turn blow is much more difficult than it would normally be. Examples would be the opening stages of Barbarossa in the AGC area (or its Soviet counterpart Bagration). Although being the second player is ideal for backhand blows, the first player can do some really bad things to you if he knows how to use his mobility.

That's where 1 or more day per turn wargames are quite different from this, if only because even if the attacker breaks the line, it happens in a number of turns and you at least theoretically have more turns to prepare. It's not BOOM, the first player is in Minsk when you open the game and you're dozens of miles to the west or east.