So not sure if it is just me but I find that whoever moves first in 1-1 games clearly has an advantage on most maps.

I wonder if there is any way to statistically prove this from WeeWar server logs or through the API?

You can prove it analytically in many cases (i.e. identify an unstoppable strategy that leads to significant positional/resource advantage for Player 1).  In general, any symmetric map with a central objective will have this problem, since Player 1 can always get there first.  This is a known issue that needs to be addressed either by map design (avoid scenarios where one person can take and hold an important area without contest) or by map balancing (provide resource/unit advantage to later players).

It might also be worth investigating changes to the capture mechanic.  Presently, any infantry can initiate the capture process, and neither unit health nor enemy attack plays any role in the capture time.  As such, infantry rushes reward Player 1, since later players usually cannot bring sufficient resources to bear in time to stop the capture.  This could be modified such that weaker units or units under enemy attack take longer to complete a capture.

Some other options:

1) Make base captures immediate

2) Make base captures take even longer

3) Make capturing units not disappear

I think that making base capture take longer could really be an interesting option. Not sure if it just delays the inevitable though?

Making base capture immediate or making capturing units not disappear I think will make the problem worse not better.

It might improve things, because the enemy can just snatch it right away.  Who knows.

Immediate capture would be interesting - as you say it would mean that where there's a rush the first to arrive would have to either have backup very quick or have sufficient lead to make it through the opponents turn without losing the base. Although then it becomes a case of "who can get a second unit to the front line to defend first" instead of just "who can get a unit to the front line first"

Once you have 2 units there you could just capture then park the 2nd unit on top, in the early stages that would hold an opponent off long enough to hold the base into your next turn, at which point you can start using it

i like how the capture system works...right now it takes two turns to grab a base and the best part is that your base is vunerable to capture on its first turn. in many games a first player advantage is lost when the 2nd player captures the base on the next turn.

But there are still certain maps I won't play due to their design.

I said this on other threads about this topic that i don't feel the problem is in game mechanics, but map design. But I've noticed more recent maps coming out take into account the first turn advantage.

I'm thinking the delay can actually be a benefit to the capturing player - if your opponent just has a trooper on hand it gives you some time to bring up reinforcements before you capture and the base become re-capturable

Although obviously both sides can use the time for reinforcing 

Is there any way for symmetrical maps - seeing as there's the obvious "I can get there first." advantage for Player 1, to make them have a longer wait time by 1 turn on the first captured base?

That would remove any time advantage as well as spice things up, it then becomes a strategic move as to where you want to capture your first base. No longer can you do it and not worry that Player 2 could get there and take over the base afterwards - or worse, stop you altogether.

well, in the 4player map I created I made the geography and base layouts symmetrical, but I played around with where/how many starting troopers each side had to try and balance it.  IMO, symmetrical maps would actually be easier to balance since if you break the symmetry it's harder to prevent one player from having a better layout than the other player(s).  You just have to fiddle around with the way starting units are positioned and apportioned so as to balance out the first turn advantage.

I still think the easiest cure for first player advantage is simultaneous movement.

The game already performs collision detection. Stop movement when opposing units enter each other's ZoC.

can you expand on that?  i'm not following the concept, heh.  you....can't....have simultaneous movement in a turn based game...

^ you can if you have simultaneous turns

Simultaneous movement would be a HUGE change in the game mechanics.  I'm not against it (in fact, I've been musing about making a game with simultaneous but turn based action), but it may not be feasible to code in a reasonable amount of time [for Weewar].

There's a map called "three-way"(?) that's pretty poorly designed, in my opinion.  With three players, there's a huge first-player advantage.  It's a triangular map with three rings of bases... three clustered at the center, three half-way out and then three at the ends of peninsulas.  The first player can send soldiers left and right in the first move and capture two of the middle ring leaving the second player to capture the third in the center ring.  The last player is left running for the center ring which can't be reached on the first turn.

I had another idea about bases... what if you only receive 50% credit for bases you control on which some other player has parked a unit?  Unit parking is a great tool to prevent new purchases off that property and to hold the spot for a slower moving infantry on its way to steal-capture.  But it would sure make protecting your bsses more important if an enemy parking on it affected you monetarily.

I happen to agree, though I will also admit that my mind has not wrapped itself around some of the strategical parts of WeeWar yet. (I get a lot of what's said, but in practice I'm still working on it =/ )... That exact situation took place for me - which wasn't helped when the third player in the game left and then first player completely took over their area because they had a better position to do so at that point... (the player had taken too long and 1st player kicked). So now I'm faced with a near hopeless situation and there is no great way to approach it.

Heh, though 3 ways may seem awfully unbalanced at first glance it is actually very balanced and works very well with current game mechanics. Even the inclusion of hover crafts on that map goes well.

Hint: Capturing a base doesn't mean they can keep the base.

So I was just playing against two people who should have challenged me more?  The other guy was pretty good, but had never played the map before (nor had I).  Guess we both just didn't see the overall potential.  I took and held the mid (and eventually, outer) bases while they fought over the ones in the center.  I guess I'll take the word of more experienced players like yourself that there isn't anything wrong with the map.  Thanks for the insight!

@Pistos:

Actually code isn't that much different.

Record games as in but don't record collisions.  When the last player has ended his turn execute all moves incrementally in impulse order while testing for collision.  Collision equals entering hex occupied by opponent or entering opponent's ZoC.  Impulse unit is the smallest common multiple of unit movement values.

In broad strokes it might look something like this.

While not lastPlayerTurnEnded
    get PlayerTurnCommands
    wend

thisImpulse =1
While impulse ≤ maxImpulse
    For each player.unit.actionComplete ≠ true
        if this.unit.action.impulse = thisImpulse
            do player.unit.action
    fend

    for each player.unit.action = move
        If detectCollision(this.unit) set this.unit.collision
    fend
wend

    for each player.unit.collision = true
        undo this.unit.moveAction
    fend
inc(thisImpulse)

    do nextTurn

slugthog: It may not be an issue starting from scratch, but AFAICT, every single move is "committed" to the system with only one step worth of undo available.  No matter how easy it is, I don't expect the devs to change the game rules, either. 

Roger, dat!

I jest like writing pseudoCode.