Advanced Game 71

[EternusIV]

Im not too worried....hell...I imagine on turn 72 we'll put it up to a vote. We can hope anyway

[Rasputin]

I would imagine turn 72 will provide for quite a differnce in voting players as well. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

I plan on being one of those voting players!!!

[Vavoom]

Lowlands here

 

 

I voted yes for the open ended game

[SupremeSultan]

I had a yes vote as well.

[ShadowKitsune]

Does RTG ever tell us how many organic players are remaining in a game? Something to the effect of --

 

PC Nations: 25

CC Nations: 15

 

where

PC means Player Controlled

and

CC means Computer Controlled/Conquered

 

Since Vic71 is my first game, I was wondering if any of you vets knew?

 

Thanks,

-SK

[Marklen X]

no Shadow, they leave it for you to figure out. I would guess right now we are at about half. I do think if we are going to vote again, it needs to be around turn 50. The problem we will have, is that some people will think they are not doing well, and will make it to 73 but not survive an open ended game. That will be where the no vote comes from, though from my perspective, that shows a combination of lack of competitiveness and lack of backbone, plus a complete disregard for what is obviously the will of the majority.

[Rasputin]

Marklen X - Understand your thoughts, but there is the possibility of it being a time issue. Some people just don't want to devote the amount of time it may take for an open ended game. Since this game didn't start open ended that person may not feel they want to play it that long and that should be just fine with everyone.

 

I don't like open ended games without definite winning conditions. And at this point I'm still unclear as to what the winning conditions are for this open ended game proposal. Neither would I have gotten into this game as an open ended game without knowing exactly what the winning conditions would be.

 

So, in a nutshell. I don't think it's fair, right, or even considerate to say someone doesn't have a backbone when you don't even know that persons reasons. Changing the rules of a game after the start isn't something to blame someone for not wanting, even if it is the obvious will of the majority.

 

Guess it's either your way or they don't have a backbone. What a sport!

[EternusIV]

I would vote yes even if I was down to one measly province.

 

I mean - just because I'm losing doesn't mean the others shouldn't have a chance to be king of the hill, right?

 

Ahhhh - but I guess losing creates the bitter taste -- it makes the community cup of coffee colder -- its the wet cigarette of the pack -- its the watermelon with the higher ratio of seeds -- its the sock that doesnt match the 1000s of others that you own -- its the lipstick on your WIFE's collar and it doesn't look like hers --- its....aw hell you get the point

[Rasputin]

EternusIV - :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Marklen X]

Of course Rasputin, hehe. My point is simple, I have played in many a game of victory! and at the end of the games, there is rarely a clear winner, but rather 2 or more very competitive alliances. I believe in competition, it is the reason I play. In competition, there must be a winner, and the points system devised by RTG, while all we have, is woefully poor at choosing who would actually win if played to a conclusion. I find it hard to believe that you would commit to doing a turn every 2 weeks for almost two years, and complain that you do not have enough time to play another 6months or whatever to determine an actual winner. As for the victory conditions, those are simple, when all but one are done, the one wins. You will have to come up with a better argument then that, because if you have time to play now, why won't you have time to play in a year and a half?

[Rasputin]

Marklen X - I wasn't complaining, only stating that there are other views then the ones you expressed. Personally, I've played in numerous open ended games. Although you may be able to predict the future of where your life will be in 12 to 18 months not everyone can.

 

Whoever it was that voted no can be assured I'll support the decision. After all, bottom line is this game wasn't started as an open ended game and that person may not have wanted in an open ended game.

 

By the way, define "all but one are done." I've played games where you had to capture every opponents capital city. Is that your definition of "all but one are done?" You see, "all but one are done" still isn't a definite winning condition where the condition is clear.

 

Yes, I have been called Anal a few times and will probably be called it a few more..... :lol:

[Beltira]

Marklen:

 

And if there are two teams that due to position or other issues are unable to stomp the other, then who is the clear winner? Should it be that they both grind themselves down for 6 months or a year, or possibly even more, until they both are nullified? Then who is the clear winner?

[EternusIV]

Ah....this reminds me of the countless Axis&Allies or Risk games where after hours of play, you look across the table and say: lets cut the damn board in half...or...you win, pal...getting tired of playing.

[Marklen X]

Rasputin, that is easy, when only one total alliance, or player, is still active, the game is over. Beltira, I have been in more then one game where at turn 73, there was a knock down drag out fight going between my alliance and another. It was very unfortunate that we were not able to settle it in the game instead of by an arbitrary point system. In one of those games, over 90 percent of the cities were controlled by the two principal combatants, but a third party, with fewer then 5 of his own cities remaining, voted not to make it an openended game after the two principal combatants both asked Russ to continue. I can tell you, it was a very unsatisfactory ending, even though my side won the game. The point is, yes, I would enjoy fighting it out to a finish in the scenario you describe. Play until only one side is left turning in turns.

[cd_ernst]

Marklen X,

 

I think part of the fun in playing Victory lies in the fact that you have a challenge fighting others. That challenge is greatly reduced at the end of the game, turn 60 up. What usually happens is that two great moloch's of alliances fight eachother with no definite winner. Extending the time until only one (individual?) player is left is just waiting until one or the other makes a tactical error; and since they have survived until turn 72... That may take a while!

 

I have to agree with Rasputin: Difinite victory conditions are a must.

 

I'm not playing in Vic71, but this question might come up in any other victory game so I just give my 50 cents worth.

 

Donald

Ireland, vic70