[Jack Simth]

Just a thought: chess is pretty much exclusively a one-on-one game, while SEIV isn't. The chess scoring model will either need some adaptation to deal with multiplayer games, or forbid multiplayer games. Should alliance victories reduce the amount of points recived by the victors, as they didn't eliminate all competition (perhaps divide the "spoils" between the winners; if so, should the "spoils" be divided evenly? How to determine the divinsion if not?), should rated games be exclusively the Last-man-standing variety, or should all victories be figured equally, regardless of the number of winners? What about multiple losers? Should all losers take the standard hit computed as a one-on-one loss to the winner, or should it be divided somehow? Should the first to fall get a more extreme score loss than the Last to fall, or should it be even across the board? Or should the chess model be left as-is by keeping track of who falls to whom and treating those as one-on-one matches (more paperwork, and leaves the chess rating system intact, but allows someone to lose the game overall yet gain in rating - in some circumstances, more than the actual winner. Moreover, it can't exactly deal with the situation of empire A weakens B to the point where C plucks B out with little effort - who should be considered the victor over B?)?

Just some things to think about, as they have the potential to cause arguments if not addressed up front. As long as the rules are consistant, clear, and not slanted, a game is fair.