The acronym FTA stands for First-Turn Advantage, and which is a phenomenon of an inherent game advantage given to players that move before others do that is present in almost every turn-based game to exist. Advance Wars, as a turn-based strategy game, is no exception to this - some amount of FTA always exists in any perfectly symmetrical map.
The FTA may be broken down into two main components - the positional advantage of moving first, and the financial advantage afforded by capturing properties and receiving funds first. The presence of FTA presents a problem for competitive play by introducing a noticeable imbalance between different players which can lead to unfair and lopsided games.
In Advance Wars By Web, all good competitive maps are made with an inbuilt FTA counter in mind, which attempts to compensate for these inherent advantages through various different methods. Common FTA counters include an extra predeployed Infantry for later players, putting properties in slightly further locations, and giving later player preowned Cities near a preceding player for a small funding boost for the first few turns. An FTA counter that overcompensates for the advantage of moving first however may produce the opposite effect, STA, or Second-Turn Advantage. As it is ultimately impossible to compensate for FTA precisely, all maps will contain some form of FTA or STA, though a proper FTA counter implementation can minimise the advantage for either side to the point that highly competitive matches can still be played, usually to within a few % points of a balanced 50% winrate for 1v1 maps.
Move order is determined by the default countries featured on a map in AWBW, with countries further down the list being successively lower down in the move order. As such, on any given map, 
Orange Star will always move first, and 
White Nova will always move last. In this article, Orange Star will be used as Player 1 and 
Blue Moon will be used as Player 2 for demonstration purposes, but you should familiarize yourself with the acronyms for each army as they will be used frequently.
Proposed Proof of FTA[]
Proposed Proof of FTA: Player 1 has the choice of whether to go "first" or "second", by either issuing orders on their first turn, or not. In no scenario will the decision to skip a turn place Player 1 in a less favorable position than Player 2 would have been in had Player 1 taken his turn. Skipping a turn is always detrimental. So then, if Player 1 can make a strictly incorrect move (skipping a turn), and suffer no disadvantage relative to going "second" in normal circumstances, then the privilege of having the first turn must therefore grant an advantage.
Factors that Influence FTA[]
Reinforcement Time[]
Reinforcement time is a factor that is critical in balancing Advance Wars maps and can be thought of as the amount of time that it takes for newly built unit to reach the important conflict zones. Reinforcement time is mainly affected by map size; however, it can also be influenced by terrain choice and chokepoints, and is often done so as extending the delay for reinforcements can help to reduce the effect of FTA.
Let's say we have a map with just a single base where both players build Infantry every single turn. On day 1, Player 1 will have an advantage of two Infantry to one which is a 200% advantage. Then it is 3 to 2 which is 150%, then it is 4 to 3 which is 133%. From that point it proceeds as follows: 125%, 120%, 116%, 114%, 112%, 111%, 110%, 109%. No matter how long the game progresses, this production advantage will always exist, but the more days pass, the smaller and less noticeable this advantage becomes. This is why it can be said that FTA or STA affects every single map to some extent, even if it is just a 1% advantage, but with a sufficiently large map to increase the time between two players coming into contact, this advantage can be minimised through use of the distance factor, and with the proper FTA counters even small maps can be made to be balanced enough for competitive play.
As an example, checkers and four-in-a-row are both examples of symmetrical games that are turn based. A computer program can use a 1.01:1 or 1% advantage so effectively that it can play every game of Four in a Row or Checkers to a win if it has the first turn advantage, but human players can play either game without even noticing that the first player has an advantage in most cases except for at an expert level.
Proposed Proof of Distance Factor[]
In a 2x2 map there is either FTA or STA, either of which will be decisive. The player with the advantage automatically wins simply because the player with the advantage can automatically use it to its full effect by trading down material to easily win the game because there is zero day reinforcement time. Here is an example of both cases that might occur in a 2x2 map.
In this example, OS will build an Infantry on their first turn, followed by an Infantry from BM on theirs. On their second turn, OS will proceed to capture BM's HQ and build another infantry. From there BM must try to stop the capture or he loses right away and after that OS can either continue to capture and join or just use his two Infantry to kill the BM Infantry. There is no sequence of events in which BM can win or even draw unless OS throws the game.
In the inverse case as shown here, however, where an FTA counter has been attempted, now that BM has a predeployed Infantry they are in a similar situation to the one OS had in the first example; this is clear STA. In a similar fashion to how FTA occurs, it is now impossible for OS to prevent their eventual HQ capture no matter what combination of moves is used.
Since it is clearly not possible to balance a 2x2 map, it follows that there is a lower limit to how small a map can be made while still remaining reasonably balanced. It is generally considered that 8x8 is the smallest a 1v1 map can be even with FTA counters involved for a balanced experience, with 12x12 for three player games and 16x16 for four player games. Even then, maps that are this small are extremely challenging to balance due to their limited options and the enormous impact the distance factor has for these maps, so almost all maps are made much larger than this. The average modern competitive AWBW map will be around 20x20 for a 1v1 game. Most maps will place production facilities at least one day away from any expected zones of fighting, and many may go to 2 or 3, particularly for Fog of War maps.
For example, this map clearly has FTA, as it is perfectly symmetrical with no predeployed units, but the map size is significantly larger than the minimum safe dimensions outlined above. As a result, despite containing no FTA counter whatsoever, over a large number of games this map has produced only a very slight difference in winrates between the two factions, around 2% in favour of YC.
This shows that a sufficiently large map can run with a slightly less efficient FTA counter than a smaller map that otherwise plays very similarly while remaining fairly balanced for competitive play, although a proper attempt at balancing will still always be preferred.
Contested Properties[]
Contested properties are the properties on a map that are considered to be feasible for either player to capture depending on the advantage and disadvantage of either player, usually determined by the property's distance from the player's production facilities. A lack of contested properties on a map can lead to frequent stalemates where pushing becomes a liability for both players, so more central properties can be a great way to promote and reward aggressive gameplay. However, if implemented poorly they can also greatly exacerbate FTA.
The negative effects of central properties on FTA are most obvious with contested neutral Bases; the first player to capture them can extremely easily snowball any lead by producing units directly on the frontlines, bypassing the balancing effect of extended reinforcement times and effectively deciding the game the moment it is captured. To a lesser extent, central Airports and Ports can also have a major impact on FTA for the same reason. Because of this, contested neutral production facilities are always avoided in competitive maps.
Missile Silos, when placed in the center, can also greatly imbalance a map due to their potential to deal enormous amounts of unavoidable damage, and this is worsened by the fact that they are single-use and do not need to be captured, so this advantage can never be regained. As Missile Silos pose problems for general gameplay on top of their effect on FTA, Missile Silos are rarely used and always placed far from the center of a map when they are.
Communication Towers do not necessarily provide a decisive advantage and can be recaptured, so these properties can be made more contested in general than Bases and Missile Silos. They are often used to produce points of interest for opposing armies - however, their significant effect on combat as well as their impact on the gameplay of Javier specifically (who depends upon Comm Towers almost exclusively) means that it is usually ill-advised to make them perfectly central. Many maps will place these properties with a slight bias to one side to provide an equal boost to both sides early on, but that can be feasibly contested later in the game when more resources are available.
Cities are the safest property to have contested and are by far the most common one used as the advantage they give is relatively minor but can build over the course of a game. Even for cities, however, an overabundance of them can still produce a snowball effect from certain COs such as Sami, so care must be taken to maintain a healthy advantage for holding these key cities without making this advantage decisive, usually by spreading contested cities out across the expected frontline or staggering them to require additional pushes.
Linearity[]
A linear map is one such that there only exists one real path for units to go, or one single frontline where units will meet. On excessively linear maps, there are far fewer tactical options for units to use and since there is only one area of conflict to fight over, a successful confrontation in that area will be decisive. Most competitive maps will be designed to produce wide or multiple fronts that encourage dynamic gameplay and reduces the influence of FTA through this method.
FTA Counters[]
FTA counters for 1v1 maps, as a rule of thumb, involve giving Player 2 half the advantage Player 1 has on their first turn. The reason for balancing for half is simple; Imagine dividing the existing game into two games giving each player a single sub-game where they have FTA, under these conditions the two advantages will effectively cancel each other out. This is called the 50% balance system. All of the best FTA counters meet this system's conditions.
This 50% advantage grant applies for both the positional and financial advantage components of FTA. Notably, the positional advantage can only be dealt with using an arrangement of predeployed units, while the financial advantage may be dealt with using this or through additional methods. When balancing FTA there are many variables to consider like linearity, heaviness of terrain, centralisation, and more. You should adapt your counters based on these variables.
The methods used to give Player 2 a 50% advantage can be seen in a few ways in AW mapping.
Methods to Tune FTA[]
The Infantry Counter[]
The Infantry counter involves giving Player 2 an advantage with a predeployed Infantry unit, usually by placing one on that player's strongest preowned factory.
This is a technique used to equalize the rate of production of Infantry on a map, and is based on the prediction that in a low funding environment such as the opening turns of a game, a player will build an Infantry on their base, so this method will effectively move the base ahead one turn. It's most common form is to add one predeployed Infantry for every two bases, also known as the Two Base Infantry Counter. This is effective because it will move Player 2 half a turn ahead at the start of the game, producing a 50% balance for both sides.
Maps with an odd number of bases per side, however, cannot be balanced using the Infantry counter alone, as the production advantage from an odd number of bases cannot be sufficiently compensated for using only multiples of Infantry. Such maps require more specific FTA counters to be considered balanced.
The Infantry counter is also not very effective on maps that have high starting funds as it relies on the prediction that a player will always generate an Infantry on their first turn, which may not always apply with high starting funds. As such, for maps with more than 3 starting properties or maps intended for play using a High Funds ruleset, the Infantry counter may be modified, with Player 2's predeployed Infantry instead one turn ahead of the corresponding Infantry of Player 1 in reaching an important strategic property such as a neutral factory.
The City Counter[]
The City counter involves an additional preowned property given to Player 2, usually by giving a preowned city in close proximity to an opposing base with the intention that this city be captured in the opening turns for a small funding boost in the early game. Although this counter may appear to affect only the financial aspect of FTA, it can be used to influence the positional aspect later in the game as well by allowing Player 2 to purchase crucial mid-game units earlier than Player 1, most notably Tanks.
It is less common than the Infantry Counter as it is harder to understand and use, it isn't very conditional, but it is nevertheless still useful in conjunction with the Infantry counter to balance a map. The City counter should be used to provide half the funds that are not already economically covered with another counter such as the Infantry counter. This can be tuned using its distance from the opposing base and whether Player 1 is given a predeployed Infantry or not, with the total funds received typically being 1k-4k depending on what amount of tuning is needed.
The Lab Counter[]
In AWBW, in the absence of HQs, Labs can be used as a substitute, representing a property that can be captured to immediately end the game. Among other gameplay differences from normal HQs, however, for the purposes of FTA counter the important distinction is that Labs do not provide any funding income, unlike HQs. This can be used to reduce income for both sides and effectively reduces the FT economic advantage without affecting bases, and can help to fine-tune a map's FTA counter if only a small change is needed. This is often used on maps with 1 extra starting property, such as maps with an extra Factory, starting Airport or Port.
Non-Infantry Predeployed Units[]
Many maps in AWBW feature predeployed units beyond the basic Infantry. In some cases, this may be done to produce a certain specific effect, with the unit in question being tightly restricted in its ability to affect the game beyond the intended use. but in the most general case, particularly with highly mobile predeployed combat units such as Tanks and B-Copters, much less is known about balancing them due the borderline impossibility in balancing for the FTA they provide; maps that feature excessive numbers of predeployed units are not considered competitively viable for this reason.
To balance maps with predeployed units you should calculate the movement points for each unit and take into account the terrain they are expected to use. Finally you move those units based on their movement points after taking into account terrain traversability, as a guideline you should move each unit half of their given movement points and if you encounter a odd value make it up by balancing it with other units. Then if any rounding has to be done, round up because it will generally be more effective.
Team Balancing[]
Team-based games can have an effective FTA counter without needing predeployed units - by allocating the teams in a certain move order appropriately, half of the team may have FTA and half of the team will oppose FTA, producing an even game overall. If the amount of players is a multiple of two then there can be an even number of players on both sides. If it is a multiple of four then half of them can easily have FTA and half of them can oppose FTA just based on the turn order. If it is a multiple of two and not four then you will probably have to use some of the previously disscussed FTA counters to balance the map.
- 2v2 balance
OS + YC vs BM + GE
This is the most common type of team game and it is balanced simply because it meets the 50% balance system. This was the first team game balance method that was accepted by the community.
- 3v3 balance
OS + YC + BH versus BM + GE + RF (with FTA counter).
- 4v4 balance
OS + YC + BH + BD versus BM + GE + RF + GS.
- 5v5 balance
OS + YC + BH + BD + AB versus BM + GE + RF + GS + JS (with FTA counter).
- 6v6 balance
OS + YC + BH + BD + AB + PC versus BM + GE + RF + GS + JS + CI.
- 7v7 balance
OS + YC + BH + BD + AB + PC + TG versus BM + GE + RF + GS + JS + CI + PL (with FTA counter).
- Imbalanced Player Counts
This refers to the balance of 2v1 games, 3v1 games, 2v4 games and so forth. In these type of games you should simply give the teams with less players the same amount of starting properties and units as their opposing teams in an evenly distributed fashion, then remove some of those given properties so that the teams with more players aren't singled out and lose to a divide and conquer strategy.
Most balanced maps of uneven team sizes will give the team with less players approximately 80% of the income of the opposing team.
- FFA/More Than 2 Teams
In these types of maps, you surround the players with FTA with opposing players that have an FTA counter. A player with an FTA counter should never have FTA over another player in FFA games.
Common Implementations[]
No Base Infantry Counter[]
This type of counter gives both players an Infantry, but places the Infantry of Player 2 one day of movement closer to a neutral base than Player 1.
It is particularly common on many maps built for High Funds rulesets, where the production of Infantry on the first day cannot be assumed, or it can be used in Standard battles to restrict and delay the rate of expansion from particular bases while still applying an FTA counter. As not having a preowned base will affect funding, it may be necessary to add extra funding for both players to ensure excessive STA from Player 2 being able to capture one day earlier is avoided.
One Base Infantry Counter[]
On maps with only a single starting base, giving an extra Infantry puts Player 2 a turn ahead from the start. This counter immediately causes noticeable STA, with the second player now being ahead on production and likely funding as well over Player 1. This generally makes it extremely difficult to balance maps that have only one starting factory without very map-specific layout and FTA counter implementation.
If your map has this form of STA, then give every player another base and it will probably be balanced because it will equalize the rate of Infantry production for all players.
Two Base, Single Infantry Counter[]
This is definitely the most commonly used starting setup in modern 1v1 maps, simply because it is the most accepted counter that we have. Most modern A-rank and S-rank AWBW maps employ this method, and it first gained acceptance with maps like Whirly because of their map analysis.
Whirly was first made on 02/12/2006 and was one of the most notable maps of its era, and provides an early example of the demonstration of the principles of an FTA counter; it uses the two base infantry counter, it has almost no centralization and has a lengthy path to take to reach the expected area of conflict, which extends reinforcement time.
It has since been removed from the League pool of maps and reclassified for Casual Play-only due to other imbalances and design problems realised after years of advancements in AW mapping, but it played a critical role in popularizing the use of this counter.
Two Base, Double Infantry Counter[]
This type of counter is stronger and more complex than the default single Infantry start, and gives Player 2 roughly 66% of the advantage of Player 1, rather than 50%.
It is primarily seen on maps with very specific funding curves and is balanced around Tank timings rather than Infantry production, which is an important consideration for slightly larger maps where early combat is conducted by vehicles rather than Infantry. More precisely, it is used to give Player 2 a small capture rate boost that allows them to produce two initial Tanks for Player 1's single Tank, which offsets the FTA of being able to take early ground uncontested.
Although very useful, this type of counter should not be used unless you are trying to refine a map's balance and know what you are doing!
Three Base, Single Infantry Counter with City[]
Commonly seen in many Mixed Base maps, a single Infantry does not sufficiently compensate for FTA for maps with three starting bases, but two Infantry places Player 2 too far ahead on production. A compromise is to use a preowned city to give Player 2 a boost of 2000 funds early on, which can accelerate their funding curve sufficiently that they can still compete in the mid-game with Tanks instead of trying to balance Infantry production.
Three Base, Double Infantry Counter[]
Also seen on Mixed Base maps but substantially less common as it generally produces noticeable STA, but may still be used on maps with very slow capture games or maps with very lopsided capture phases for each base.
Three Base, Double Infantry Counter with City[]
Similar to the two base double Infantry counter, this type is stronger than the usual 3-base 1 Infantry counter and is used to refine a map's funding curve to provide players with important mid-game units at an appropriate rate to be balanced.
Advantage Distribution[]
When using FTA counters, they ideally should distribute advantages evenly to both players to make a balanced map; however, when you distribute these advantages they will not be even if one is more desirable than another and this will imbalance your map. If this problem occurs you may need to either change counters or completely transform the layout of your map.
- Multiple Fronts
If multiple fronts are used in a map then the advantage distribution between the two fronts is critical in effectively balancing your map. If the two fronts are very asymmetrical then the balance between the two areas should be treated seperately. Any differences should be considered.