Victory Conditions

Ming · June 23, 2002, 11:20

In games that are played to their conclusion or games where a concession is made, there is a winner and losser(s).

However, this is not the case in many games.
I've seen a ton of games where everybody claims that they are winning, even when it seems that they are getting killed.

It's obvious that the powergraph isn't the best way to determine who is winning at any given time...

What's the best way to determine who is winning

atawa · June 23, 2002, 11:49

Play untill death off course

Certainly the most fun way (if you do the killing

)

Ming · June 23, 2002, 11:52

Quote:

Originally posted by atawa
Play untill death off course

But after reading some of the threads around here... being killed doesn't seem to imply a loss

atawa · June 23, 2002, 11:54

Y, your're right

You owe me a new keyboard btw as this one is full with Yoghurt.

markusf · June 23, 2002, 13:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
However, this is not the case in many games.
I've seen a ton of games where everybody claims that they are winning, even when it seems that they are getting killed.

well in anything other then 2x 2x the person who will eventually win is the person with the highest gold production, or massive shield production. Once railroads and cannons are discovered it just comes down to who can rush buy the most canons + engineers. Someone with 40 cities and 40 gold production has no chance against someone with 20 cities and 1500 gold production on 1x 1x. On 2x 1x they are also dead but it would take a bit longer..

War4ever · June 23, 2002, 18:06

Funny stuff....i have been in the position of the SSC, SOL, ASTF etc.....and my oppoonent has leos and STWA and both of us are claiming victory (sound familliar RAH/Ming)

of course the reverse happens alot tooo

we need to continue these games though, no one will really know how strong you are until you punish them with troops....

Rich the other game when i took a few of BB's cities.i was surprised to see only one warrior defending a gold two squares from my capital.....needless to say my vet pults made short work of that city and of the 12 legions he sent my way later

i have to agree with markus on the above statements, in x2 games its the guy with the most ciities who wins hands down.....

in x1 games it comes down to economic power in a different way

rah · June 24, 2002, 09:09

Most gold production and shield production is an advantage, but you have to be able to keep the cities till you start your roll.

The pg is not acurate but it does point at some basic generalities. Very rarely is the person last in the pg able to claim he was winning. (not including "legends in their own minds" types)

I would like us to come up with some type of scoring that would provide some type of victory conditions/objectives that might add some spice to one night sessions. I'm sure we could argue them for a few years

RAH

War4ever · June 24, 2002, 09:38

Quote:

Originally posted by rah

I would like us to come up with some type of scoring that would provide some type of victory conditions/objectives that might add some spice to one night sessions. I'm sure we could argue them for a few years

RAH

those are called scenarios...some were even shipped with the game

rah · June 24, 2002, 09:47

I was thinking something more generic silly. And scenarios with preset maps are still that, preset maps. I enjoy the exploring aspect of the game too much to give that up.

Maybe points for capturing the enemy capital, etc.

RAH

War4ever · June 24, 2002, 10:05

this opens up a whole can of worms.....we can hardly agree on settings much less victory conditions

but i do agree in theory

rah · June 24, 2002, 10:10

Toss out some Ideas like.
5 points for every tech.
20 points for every wonder.
50 points for taking an enemy capital
20 points for taking an enemy city.
5 point for every 100 gold
1 point for every pop point.
1 point for every military unit.

By next year, I'm sure we'll come up with something.

War4ever · June 24, 2002, 10:15

i can see it now, all of us under the heavy influence of god knows what......tallying up the scores like yahtzee...

everyone screaming out how many points they have....the game ends up like an aussie bruhahaha

sounds great to me..when can we implement this

Ming · June 24, 2002, 10:21

Quote:

Originally posted by War4ever
i can see it now, all of us under the heavy influence of god knows what......tallying up the scores like yahtzee...

After our last match war... I couldn't even see straight let alone count anything

While I agree a better point system is needed (that's why I started the thread)... I think people need to come to agreement on what things are the best for determing victory...

What rah suggests is a decent start... but I can just see people selling improvements on the last turn just to increase points...

rah · June 24, 2002, 10:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
What rah suggests is a decent start... but I can just see people selling improvements on the last turn just to increase points...

Just make improvements count for a point.
But you're thinking in the right direction. Make sure the scoring doesn't promote screwy things. The old saying, "be careful what you incent. You may end up with something you didn't really want"

RAH

rah · June 24, 2002, 10:28

And for you fall down drunks, etc. You could always wait for the next day to load the game and tally up the points.

Then post them for arguements/bragging rights.

the yahtzee line was pretty good though.

RAH

markusf · June 24, 2002, 15:13

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Toss out some Ideas like.
5 points for every tech.
20 points for every wonder.
50 points for taking an enemy capital
20 points for taking an enemy city.
5 point for every 100 gold
1 point for every pop point.
1 point for every military unit.

By next year, I'm sure we'll come up with something.

I got a better idea, how about actually playing a second session to see who wins

rah · June 24, 2002, 15:25

Yea yea yea, stating the obvious again.

Try being a little more useful smartass.

What things do you think should be counted for points towards a victory. It would be fun to have more sense of closure after a one seesion game.

markusf · June 24, 2002, 15:47

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Yea yea yea, stating the obvious again.

Try being a little more useful smartass.

What things do you think should be counted for points towards a victory. It would be fun to have more sense of closure after a one seesion game.

If me and you are ahead in a game when it ends chances are we would win. If someone like barono is ahead in session one chances are they wouldn't be in the second session. Session 1 is heavilly based on luck and starting position where as session 2+ is mostly about skill. In my experience the person with the most infustructure wins in the long run.

rah · June 24, 2002, 15:50

As long as you can keep it. That's the one thing that might not be recognized when a session ends. Your forces may be just ready to move out. While infrastructure will help you respond quickly, it doesn't always allow you to stop something if enough is coming at you.

RAH

markusf · June 24, 2002, 16:03

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
As long as you can keep it. That's the one thing that might not be recognized when a session ends. Your forces may be just ready to move out. While infrastructure will help you respond quickly, it doesn't always allow you to stop something if enough is coming at you.

RAH

Early 2x is a defensive game, your virtually unattackable. I don't care if you send 50 crusaders at me you won't get a single city (unless you use ships) If you have units that move 2 squares inside the city you can just move them out and kill any attackers.

Once railroads are discovered the only defence is offence. And if you don't pay attention you could lose 15-20 cities a turn to a well planed attack.

rah · June 24, 2002, 16:50

The moving fortress up the river/road can be very useful early in 2x games.

Or that mountain square that's two squares away from the city can also be a great attack point. Having a horse or chariot in a city can't defend against that.

markusf · June 24, 2002, 17:27

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
The moving fortress up the river/road can be very useful early in 2x games.

Or that mountain square that's two squares away from the city can also be a great attack point. Having a horse or chariot in a city can't defend against that.

saying it and doing it are 2 different things

Hydey · June 24, 2002, 18:18

In alot of games someone gets the dream start and the winner is clear enough, other games are closer and should be saved and continued if you want a winner, if winning or losing is that important to find out.

It would be very hard to find a system of scoring that doesn't involve changing your gamestyle . eg build 200 warriors to get points for military units, I would hate to play a game where for the last 10 turns someone does that and is declared the winner.

Deity Dude · June 24, 2002, 19:23

Another problem with the point system is what about teh person who is one turn away from building the wonder or getting the key tech that allows the window for an attack.

I'm with Markus on this one - play a second session. I know that isn,t always possible but it never even seems to be discussed in the RAH games I've played.

Flatlander Fox · June 24, 2002, 19:37

I'm up for continuing games, but how much fun is it to continue a game (Second session) when you are losing?

The obvious answer is none, but you would be suprised at how comebacks are possible.

The problem is (I've this stated before) is that the really good players won't let a guy up after he is down.

If you continue games, you would have to change the rules that many play by now. Makeshift alliances, tech trading after a certain date, and other measures can be taken to increase the fun for the "losers" who seem to tag along in the evening games.

I would like to get a continuing game going, because no one has seen me in my full glory as a mid-game manager!

As markus said (I'm agreeing with Markus

) it's all about the luck of the start with good players. Some players, myself included, can f**k up a good thing quite quickly

, but a better player won't. And if that better player doesn't blow it, he is in the driver's seat for the game.

Now to contradict myself entirely, I really don't care if there is a "winner". I like the game, the challenge of playing good MP players, and the little squares surrounded by darkness at the beginning of the game. As long as I am competitive, and stay away from the big boys who like to pick on me, I'll keep playing.

War4ever · June 24, 2002, 19:52

well often it becomes a duel with what feels like a bothersome ai in the game.....

you need three of the four playrs to be somewhat close....when the advantage is huge there can feel like little point..

also with the ever revolving door of playrs....its hard to get the same group all the time

rah · June 25, 2002, 08:41

That's probably the biggest problem. When you have 7-8 regulars, the odds of the exact same 4 being around are not good. It's always tough to exclude someone that was looking forward to playing.

RAH

War4ever · June 25, 2002, 09:52

its almost impossible to get back to backers...ie fri/sat...and when we do, two of us are in the lead ...with cannon fodder pulling up the rear

rah · July 1, 2002, 10:57

The trick is to schedule both nights at the same time and hope no one has mysterious connection problems.

RAH

War4ever · July 1, 2002, 12:29

speaking of mysterious connection problems..my connection was lousy all night ....seeemed slow, i dropped once, you dropped, and caused me a huge problem...sigh...