Change victory conditions on round limit games.

[Phil Gates]

The purpose of round limits is to push the players into being more active, you only have so much time to win, so there are no stalemates.

This was a good thought but the victory conditions cause players (especially in the shorter games) to be unwilling to attack and use up their armies, which are the victory condition. If two people fight, that leads to the others not fighting to gain on players fighting, this rule for at least 20 and 30 round games have had the opposite effect then desired because it discourages fighting. Maybe someone can go out and bring down someone else while the 3rd party sits there and waits hoping to benefit. In the end many people just sit there after getting initially started and not doing anything hoping the other will.

I suggest that the victory be awarded to the person with the most terts and the tie breaker is then the most armies. There is nothing to be gained just sitting there and pilling up armies, you have to go out there and conquer territory, getting a good bonus and sitting on it does nothing for you. Victory goes to the person who can grab and hold the most territory. This will lead to much more hotly contested games.

Phil

[patrickaa317]

The purpose of round limits is to push the players into being more active, you only have so much time to win, so there are no stalemates.

This was a good thought but the victory conditions cause players (especially in the shorter games) to be unwilling to attack and use up their armies, which are the victory condition. If two people fight, that leads to the others not fighting to gain on players fighting, this rule for at least 20 and 30 round games have had the opposite effect then desired because it discourages fighting. Maybe someone can go out and bring down someone else while the 3rd party sits there and waits hoping to benefit. In the end many people just sit there after getting initially started and not doing anything hoping the other will.

I suggest that the victory be awarded to the person with the most terts and the tie breaker is then the most armies. There is nothing to be gained just sitting there and pilling up armies, you have to go out there and conquer territory, getting a good bonus and sitting on it does nothing for you. Victory goes to the person who can grab and hold the most territory. This will lead to much more hotly contested games.

Phil

I like this thought but then picture the player at the end busting around a stack and having 30 territs with 40 guys and beats a giant stack who only had 29 territories and 150 armies.

[stahrgazer]

The purpose of round limits is to push the players into being more active, you only have so much time to win, so there are no stalemates.

This was a good thought but the victory conditions cause players (especially in the shorter games) to be unwilling to attack and use up their armies, which are the victory condition. If two people fight, that leads to the others not fighting to gain on players fighting, this rule for at least 20 and 30 round games have had the opposite effect then desired because it discourages fighting. Maybe someone can go out and bring down someone else while the 3rd party sits there and waits hoping to benefit. In the end many people just sit there after getting initially started and not doing anything hoping the other will.

I suggest that the victory be awarded to the person with the most terts and the tie breaker is then the most armies. There is nothing to be gained just sitting there and pilling up armies, you have to go out there and conquer territory, getting a good bonus and sitting on it does nothing for you. Victory goes to the person who can grab and hold the most territory. This will lead to much more hotly contested games.

Phil

I like this thought but then picture the player at the end busting around a stack and having 30 territs with 40 guys and beats a giant stack who only had 29 territories and 150 armies.

Then I'd guess the guy with 150 armies should've assaulted instead of stacked, which is supposed to be the point of the round limit play and this proposed change to the victory condition would, indeed, encourage him to have assaulted first rather than stacking to 150 armies.

[DoomYoshi]

While this suggestion doesn't entirely fix the problem, I am glad you are aware of the problem. I think we could try to push this through with enough support.

I say it doesn't entirely fix the problem because in some game types, the player who sits and quietly stacks still has a good chance of winning (e.g. feudal) so territories isn't always an accurate barometer for who is going to win the game, but it is a decent proxy for number of troops that may cause the game to keep moving. I would be interested in a few month test run of this, as it is too tough to see until the update is live. However, there needs to be more community support and right now it seems to just be me and Phil (and metsfanmax, perhaps).

[patrickaa317]

The purpose of round limits is to push the players into being more active, you only have so much time to win, so there are no stalemates.

This was a good thought but the victory conditions cause players (especially in the shorter games) to be unwilling to attack and use up their armies, which are the victory condition. If two people fight, that leads to the others not fighting to gain on players fighting, this rule for at least 20 and 30 round games have had the opposite effect then desired because it discourages fighting. Maybe someone can go out and bring down someone else while the 3rd party sits there and waits hoping to benefit. In the end many people just sit there after getting initially started and not doing anything hoping the other will.

I suggest that the victory be awarded to the person with the most terts and the tie breaker is then the most armies. There is nothing to be gained just sitting there and pilling up armies, you have to go out there and conquer territory, getting a good bonus and sitting on it does nothing for you. Victory goes to the person who can grab and hold the most territory. This will lead to much more hotly contested games.

Phil

I like this thought but then picture the player at the end busting around a stack and having 30 territs with 40 guys and beats a giant stack who only had 29 territories and 150 armies.

Then I'd guess the guy with 150 armies should've assaulted instead of stacked, which is supposed to be the point of the round limit play and this proposed change to the victory condition would, indeed, encourage him to have assaulted first rather than stacking to 150 armies.

I'd buy that argument. There is no perfect system and this does ensure the game keeps moving. I'm with DoomYoshi and would like to see this in a live test run to really form an opinion.

[jimboy]

If this suggestion is pushed through then the next problem will be that the person who gets the last turn will have an unfair advantage. My reasoning here being that the guy that knows he has the last turn can just sit and wait and then when its the last turn of the last round he can attack as many meaningless territories as possible and win the game as soon as the next guy starts his turn. Its a good idea in theory but in my opinion it is flawed because of an unfair advantage it will create

[codierose]

If this suggestion is pushed through then the next problem will be that the person who gets the last turn will have an unfair advantage. My reasoning here being that the guy that knows he has the last turn can just sit and wait and then when its the last turn of the last round he can attack as many meaningless territories as possible and win the game as soon as the next guy starts his turn. Its a good idea in theory but in my opinion it is flawed because of an unfair advantage it will create

Agree. no change for me

[TheForgivenOne]

If this suggestion is pushed through then the next problem will be that the person who gets the last turn will have an unfair advantage. My reasoning here being that the guy that knows he has the last turn can just sit and wait and then when its the last turn of the last round he can attack as many meaningless territories as possible and win the game as soon as the next guy starts his turn. Its a good idea in theory but in my opinion it is flawed because of an unfair advantage it will create

Agree. no change for me

Exactly. This goes from 1 problem, to a different one.

[Phil Gates]

yeah I didn't think of that, but yes waiting to the end to try and take as many cheap terts as possible causes more problems, but these should bring more interesting approaches to the game to prevent this.

another possibility is score both men and terts and adding the scores together. Say you have 100 men and 20 terts, the total men at the end of the game is 500 the total terts are 60. So you have 20% of the men and 33.3% of the terts so your score would be 20 + 33.3 for 53.3. The highest combined score wins? The total scores add to 200, This would allow for more strategic approach to this game.

[Metsfanmax]

yeah I didn't think of that, but yes waiting to the end to try and take as many cheap terts as possible causes more problems, but these should bring more interesting approaches to the game to prevent this.

another possibility is score both men and terts and adding the scores together. Say you have 100 men and 20 terts, the total men at the end of the game is 500 the total terts are 60. So you have 20% of the men and 33.3% of the terts so your score would be 20 + 33.3 for 53.3. The highest combined score wins? The total scores add to 200, This would allow for more strategic approach to this game.

None of this changes the fundamental problem. As it stands, in any of these proposed implementations (including the current one), it is beneficial for you to wait until the last round, and then do a bit of attacking to whittle down the other player's troops (since you have the attacker's advantage). Whether that attacking is to conquer territories or to lower the opponent's troop count is irrelevant, to the extent that it doesn't change your gameplay strategy for the first 19 rounds.

[Donelladan]

It does help. At least people have to attack a bit to have some territory. I think the proposition to combine troops and territory is better than what we have now.
I played a lot of round limit games, and won a bunch of them having less territory than the 2 or 3 other opponents remaining because they fight too much. Some game I only won by 1 troops. If territory had been added into the equation if would have definitely changed my game play.

I agree that some things need to be change, and this idea might not solve completely the pb, but it helps, and it force to attack.

Furthermore, think to trench, here people wont be able to wait until last turn. Great improvement !

[DoomYoshi]

FTR, my suggestion was to have a whole list of victory conditions and then randomly pick from them at the end. If nobody knows what the goal is, then people will just play normally.

[rishaed]

^ That might work. Of course some people might gamble depending on how many conditions there are on what they do the last round.

[DoomYoshi]

It's a case of the perfect solution not being elegant.

[JamesKer1]

Maybe some formula to mix in all of the possible conditions?

IE Successful Bombardments (x1) + Successful Attacks (x2) + Troops Due + 1/2 Armies + 1/3 Territories - Turn Order (x5)

That would be an awful formula, but I'm sure there is something better that could be made. Could also implement something for attacks in different rounds being worth so much.

BoB should also be able to do the math on this quick and tell you at that moment who the win would go to

[Metsfanmax]

Maybe some formula to mix in all of the possible conditions?

IE Successful Bombardments (x1) + Successful Attacks (x2) + Troops Due + 1/2 Armies + 1/3 Territories - Turn Order (x5)

That would be an awful formula, but I'm sure there is something better that could be made. Could also implement something for attacks in different rounds being worth so much.

BoB should also be able to do the math on this quick and tell you at that moment who the win would go to

The important thing is not to know who is currently winning -- it is to know what you need to do to maintain or take the lead from someone else. If the formula gets very complicated, it becomes harder to strategize.

[Dukasaur]

I'll add my voice to the chorus.

It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than what we have. Most of the round limit games that I've been in, the fighting stops about halfway through, and the second half of the game is all stacking, except for the occasional outbreak of violence by someone destined to lose.

[Seulessliathan]

Suggestion is worse than the actual rule, reasons were already mentioned.

If you like diplomacy games, make it 100 rounds. Then you should have 80+ rounds of normal play, should be sufficient. If you want longer games, switch it off. Or play the board game diplomacy.

No change for me.

[Beko the Great]

Suggestion is worse than the actual rule, reasons were already mentioned.

If you like diplomacy games, make it 100 rounds. Then you should have 80+ rounds of normal play, should be sufficient. If you want longer games, switch it off. Or play the board game diplomacy.

No change for me.

I agree.

[DoomYoshi]

Suggestion is worse than the actual rule, reasons were already mentioned.

If you like diplomacy games, make it 100 rounds. Then you should have 80+ rounds of normal play, should be sufficient. If you want longer games, switch it off. Or play the board game diplomacy.

No change for me.

I think you are missing the point. Let's say we are playing a non-round limit game and it would normally take 214 rounds to finish (like Conquer Rome, even on Escalating). By setting the round limit at 50, we should just play as if that 214 rounder is in progress, except it takes a snapshot at round 50. The problem is that after round 20, players start stacking... which let's say they didn't do in the 214 rounder. They are 2 entirely different games.

My point is that if you were to take the round limit game and the normal game and view their logs - the turn 50 log should be identical. This isn't what happens.

Round limits were supposed to make games shorter. Instead, they made them drag on.

[blakebowling]

I agree that the round limit victory condition could be improved, however I don't think that changing the priority (amount of regions first, amount of troops second) is balanced.

I am interested in seeing some community developed alternatives for this though. One I thought of was to somehow have it based off of success in battle (maybe most enemy troops killed, maybe effectiveness (enemy troops killed / friendly troops lost), or maybe even a combination of the both.

[Dukasaur]

I agree that the round limit victory condition could be improved, however I don't think that changing the priority (amount of regions first, amount of troops second) is balanced.

I am interested in seeing some community developed alternatives for this though. One I thought of was to somehow have it based off of success in battle (maybe most enemy troops killed, maybe effectiveness (enemy troops killed / friendly troops lost), or maybe even a combination of the both.

Those would be good choices.

Before round limits were instituted, if I had a deadlocked game in a tournament, I would set a manual round limit and the condition was the deploy on that turn. I think being able to hold a bonus despite the efforts of others to break it demonstrates dominance in the game and is a reasonable winning condition.

[Seulessliathan]

Suggestion is worse than the actual rule, reasons were already mentioned.

If you like diplomacy games, make it 100 rounds. Then you should have 80+ rounds of normal play, should be sufficient. If you want longer games, switch it off. Or play the board game diplomacy.

No change for me.

I think you are missing the point. Let's say we are playing a non-round limit game and it would normally take 214 rounds to finish (like Conquer Rome, even on Escalating). By setting the round limit at 50, we should just play as if that 214 rounder is in progress, except it takes a snapshot at round 50. The problem is that after round 20, players start stacking... which let's say they didn't do in the 214 rounder. They are 2 entirely different games.

My point is that if you were to take the round limit game and the normal game and view their logs - the turn 50 log should be identical. This isn't what happens.

Round limits were supposed to make games shorter. Instead, they made them drag on.

And you seem to ignore the fact that round limit is not only for standard games.

Once i played a team game against Kaskavel and mc05025 Game 11328764

These guys noticed the flaw in round limit rule, which was that player with most units win, not team with most units. So one of them missed his turns on purpose, planing to deadbeat, so his teammate would get all the units and his team wins. If a player who misses turn 18 on a round limit 20 game takes his turns in other games and posts in forum, that looks suspicious of course, and so we reported him. Mods forced him to play his turns then.

I don´t want to get back to such situations again, and it would be similar with the suggested change. A team could stack the player who plays last, having a great advantage.
And no, i like trench, but i don´t want to be forced to play trench just because the round limit rule is unfair without trench.

Maybe in a Conquer Rome standard game your suggestion works better. But i am pretty sure that for more than 70% of all games your suggestion isn´t any better, often worse. There are always some situations where another rule might work better. But we probably won´t have several different round limit rules. If you want to keep the old rule AND want to add the new one, that´s fine with me. But, if we only have one rule, then it should work well for the majority of games. And for team games, it´s definetly worse in most games.

[maasman]

What if, just to be radical here, what if no one has won the game by the round limit the game just ends with no points awarded? This would technically solve all the victory condition debates since someone actually has to win the game, and it would theoretically solve stalls and such.

Do I think this is a good idea? No, but it would be interesting to test and I doubt anyone here would agree that this is the best decision.

[DoomYoshi]

Suggestion is worse than the actual rule, reasons were already mentioned.

If you like diplomacy games, make it 100 rounds. Then you should have 80+ rounds of normal play, should be sufficient. If you want longer games, switch it off. Or play the board game diplomacy.

No change for me.

I think you are missing the point. Let's say we are playing a non-round limit game and it would normally take 214 rounds to finish (like Conquer Rome, even on Escalating). By setting the round limit at 50, we should just play as if that 214 rounder is in progress, except it takes a snapshot at round 50. The problem is that after round 20, players start stacking... which let's say they didn't do in the 214 rounder. They are 2 entirely different games.

My point is that if you were to take the round limit game and the normal game and view their logs - the turn 50 log should be identical. This isn't what happens.

Round limits were supposed to make games shorter. Instead, they made them drag on.

And you seem to ignore the fact that round limit is not only for standard games.

Once i played a team game against Kaskavel and mc05025 Game 11328764

These guys noticed the flaw in round limit rule, which was that player with most units win, not team with most units. So one of them missed his turns on purpose, planing to deadbeat, so his teammate would get all the units and his team wins. If a player who misses turn 18 on a round limit 20 game takes his turns in other games and posts in forum, that looks suspicious of course, and so we reported him. Mods forced him to play his turns then.

I don´t want to get back to such situations again, and it would be similar with the suggested change. A team could stack the player who plays last, having a great advantage.
And no, i like trench, but i don´t want to be forced to play trench just because the round limit rule is unfair without trench.

Maybe in a Conquer Rome standard game your suggestion works better. But i am pretty sure that for more than 70% of all games your suggestion isn´t any better, often worse. There are always some situations where another rule might work better. But we probably won´t have several different round limit rules. If you want to keep the old rule AND want to add the new one, that´s fine with me. But, if we only have one rule, then it should work well for the majority of games. And for team games, it´s definetly worse in most games.

I wouldn't say I am ignoring the issue. You agree that there is a problem with doubles. I still think that turns 18-20 should be identically played regardless of whether there is a round limit. In the current situation, it is advantageous to play a different way in the round limit games, so the round limit rules need to be changed.