Evermore - MegaGame - Winner: AdmiralZhao!

[Velusion]

Thats an easy answer - since the turn limit is known (and it will be an average of the last 15 or so turns probably - so it probably won't be crystal clear) the nations SHOULD have ganged up on LA R'lyeh earlier in your example. Not doing so was a strategic blunder and they deserved to lose.

If it's obvious that someone has locked in the game 20 or so turns early well then perhaps people should have gotten off thier *** and attacked him a long time ago?

It's not different from a normal game really.
1. Nations put off attacking big power
2. Nations suddenly realize they need to do something about big power
3. Nations come to realize that even all their combined might won't bring that nation down.
4. Nations resign and the big power wins.

The game is the same - you just need to make a judgment call of when "too late" is.

[Jazzepi]

My problem is that this...

4. Nations resign and the big power wins.

Does not happen in turn limit games. I don't need some artificial metric to tell me when to give up. I'm perfectly fine at making that decision on my own.

Jazzepi

[atul]

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.

[Baalz]

atul said:
Perp is in turn 66 and has only third or so of the original cast left.

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.

[Hadrian_II]

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.

[Velusion]

Hadrian_II said:
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 could agree to something like that. 250-400 seems somewhat reasonable.

[Jazzepi]

Baalz said:

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.

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

Jazzepi

[Velusion]

Jazzepi said:

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

Jazzepi

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.

[Jazzepi]

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