Re: Victory Condition
 

You have to take over the fort to get the VP. Thus, it is important for wise players to build forts on their VP provinces.

Re: Victory Condition
 

I'm with Pasha, counting turns is a hassle. The original proposal sounds plenty challenging to me, and I don't see a problem in players snatching wins with teleporters or whatnot. In fact, I like the additional logistical challenge where you don't have anything for granted and need to seriously weigh whether to invest in defense or in offense: with capital VPs, you already have lots of mages and a strong fort to defend your VP.

Cumulative VPs would be fun, but it would be quite the hassle to switch to that at this point given that I understand a lot of players don't like them and might jump ship.

In general, I prefer games that have clearly defined and moderately easy to achieve victory conditions. That way they won't drag too long into the boring and time-intensive endgame.

Re: Victory Condition
 

Ok, if we stay with only 12 VP i'll pass in joining this.

I mean this is just too fast for most of nations and so its nothing more than a gamble for a super fast nation.

Re: Victory Condition
 

How many turns' length game do you consider "too fast"?

Re: Victory Condition
 

I don't think it last till turn 50 and there is a good chance for not seeing the imprisoned pretenders (~36 turns).

Re: Victory Condition
 

Obviously, this is a matter of taste, Calmon, and it would be great if you played. What if the setting was 14 VP provs? Would that still be too fast? After all, even 33% would mean that a player would essentially need to control 1/3 of the map in order to win.

Re: Victory Condition
 

You don't need to control 33% of the map to get 33% of the VPs and thats the main problem i have. For example nations like caelum (fly) the midgard (stealth) can easily jump deep in enemy lands and surpise attack the VP provinces (Sure you still need a good early game).

And like i said before you don't get any special bonus to fortify your low pop VP provinces and even i do it i'm sure many other don't. I've my experiences with this: http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...art=1&vc=1
At the end only a few provinces were protected by fortresses and the winner got ~60% VPs at the end (40% was needed) and all this in 1 single turn. He had only a fraction (2 or 3 VPs) of this a turn before. He won with a massive angel teleport attack. Without some special nation features you're more an oberserver in such a game.

Thats why i dislike non-capital-VP games and maybe i should have think about before joining but to my defence i asked to change the victory condition http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif.

What do you think about 40% province ownership as win condition?

Re: Victory Condition
 

I read the end of that thread, very interesting. (Side note: I like reading about people's tactics after the end of games, since I rarely survive to the end game myself.)

I would be happy to play with either the original VP condition or some % of provinces (30-40% range). If we stick with VPs, though, everyone should be aware that the surprise win has to be defended against.

Re: Victory Condition
 

Ok. I think 40% is fine. That would be 15 VP provinces to win. Unless a player has strong concerns with that, let's use that victory condition.

Re: Victory Condition
 

I have updated the scenario file to add the VP's. It is attached to the first post in this thread. While I think the VP placement is satisfactory, if anyone thinks any are wildly unfair, please let me know.

Pasha