Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
 

I'm for the turn limit.

Reason? The number 4. Instead of a big game stopping with a whimper (everyone just quits), it goes off with a bang (everyone's bidding their hand for top position). At least in ideal universe.

I just played a game of Risk 2210 AD with my friends. The largest change to normal Risk was a turn limit. After 5 turns, the game ends and winner is declared. Sounds like madness, but it actually worked really well.

BTW, turn limit of 120 turns or so is a lot. Perp is in turn 66 and has only third or so of the original cast left.

Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
 

And arguably is not terribly far from coming to a head in terms of critical mass of a couple of nations. I'll be kinda surprised if it goes another 20 turns without it being overwhelmingly obvious who the winner is going to be.

Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
 

Why has the game to end at a fixed turn?
If you want to make it shorter, then there are enough other possibilities for victory, like the first to reach 250 provinces and hold them for 3 turns wins. So there is a game where noone will have to manage 400 province empires and it will not end apruptly. (as the empire that has 250 provinces needs to be strong enough to hold his provinces for 3 turns [i think using the normal province victory of dom3 would make the game too suspectible to air drop blunders])

I personally think that a turn limit is a pretty boring end to a megagame. Also, how would it be for the nation that has just 1 province less than the victor and now just lost the game (maybe this secon nation gained already defeated the 'winning' nation at war, but just needs some more time).

If you want to end the game, just wish for armageddon ten times, and most players will leave out of frustration.

Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
 

In radiance the game went to turn 105+ or so with 5 or so viable contenders. That wasn't even a mega game.

Jazzepi

Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
 

Yea - and the game ended without a real winner because people were simply too tired to keep playing. Radiance is an excellent example of why I support some sort of end.

Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
 

I could agree to something like that. 250-400 seems somewhat reasonable.

Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
 

So, basically what you're saying is that propping up a victor, through an artificial metric, who didn't really win is better than no winner at all. I completely disagree.

Jazzepi

Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
 

Velusion, there was quite a bit of discussion on why turn limits are bad. So i very much disagree with your statement that noone seriously addressed the issue.

The biggets reason is that it causes all strategies to warp and culminate at that end of the world turn limit.

I, along with others who have said so, will not play in any turn limit game also. But at least you tell us in advance, so we can choose whether to play or not. Unlike the last game I played with another host.


And, having said that, you host, you get to choose the rules. So we all can choose.

Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
 

well, hmm, ok, just read your last post,

I have to agree your upper turn limits sound way more than reasonable. 250-400. I think we can all agree on something there so Velusion does not have nightmares about hosting some game forever.

Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
 

That was a number or provinces, not a turn limit.

Jazzepi