Concepts of Creation: Ironhawk Suddenly Wins!

Sheap · #1 February 1st, 2007, 08:08 AM

If you want to play so that the militarily/economically dominant nation is guaranteed the win, then the best thing to do is to just have no victory condition at all, and simply play until all the players agree that someone is the winner.

I find that these sorts of games often turn into a late game chore and in a big game can go 100+ turns. NewbieNuzzling just shut down after 77 turns without a genuine clear winner because no one wanted to play any more - and this was on a map that in the beginning was commonly derided as being too small. That is why I put VPs in this game: To give people something concrete to fight over. Encourage combat and make a real military route to victory something other than a long, drawn out reduction of all the other nations to rubble. I didn't expect both 3VP provinces and most of the 2VP provinces would still be almost totally undefended 40 turns into the game. But, that's just the way the game worked out.

Ironhawk did this with the cooperation of all the other players in the game, who left the second strongest nation (who was not far behind the strongest) in complete peace for the entire game to prepare for this. Obviously this could have been prevented. Castling the VP provinces is one way, but people, as a group, realizing that the possibility existed and arranging for some way of keeping Ironhawk from building up the strength. Or a community fund to castle the two 3VP provinces, making a raid impractical (arranging THAT is left as an exercise for the players...)

I do feel that it is the responsibility of the players to keep an eye out for what other players might be doing to try to win the game, and to use diplomacy or strength to prevent them from doing that. Calmon is the only player to admit to having even considered the possibility, but obviously he didn't really believe it (or at least, believe it was about to happen) or he would have been raising the alarm rather than sending quiet PMs to one other nation. But, beating an enemy with raids is hardly a new idea. The Germans almost won both world wars that way, and I used it to great effect vs. Ironhawk in a game of Starz!@# once...

Warnings from the host aren't needed. If we played this game over, exactly the same setup, I guarantee the ending would not be the same. Nobody is going to let this happen again. When research is at a level that makes this sort of thing possible, people have to be prepared, and next time they will be.

The specific way this game ended might have been unsatisfying. But I don't think it is a flaw in the game design. If we just wanted to build forces until they become unstoppable and have enemies do the same, we might as well play against the CPU. IMO, what happened in this game is one of the best parts of playing against other humans. I don't like games that devolve into "who can horde clams the most efficiently" or "who can pack the best bless into the fewest points" or whatever other minmax approach is most optimal. Multiple paths to victory is good!

Xox · #2 February 1st, 2007, 08:24 PM

I like Micah's idea of changing the victory conditions to % of provinces rather than % of vp provinces. that sounds like it might work well.

Sheap I was in the newbienuzzling game and you are incorrect in saying it ended with no clear winner. Whollaberg clearly won as Vanheim. All players agreed with no dissension.

We could have gone on, but we decided to call it at that point.

I actually like the late game and am happy to play in those games if others wish to. But you are right in that some people do not like the massive army and complicated magics of the late game. But again, some of us , me included, do like the late game.

I think actually most people like the late game its just it will take an increasing chunk of time and if you are in several games and as pesky real life intrudes, inevitably it becomes to much for some people.

It comes from the game taking about 5 minutes to do a turn to 2 hours a turn as time goes on. Hosts need to properly scale the time limits for the turn as the game progresses. That newbienuzzling game never left a 24 hour host and that just became too much to keep up a still interesting game when it become obvious Whollaberg was probably going to win anyways. Two hours a day is too much for one game, every day. At that point it should have been on a 3 or even 4 day timer.

Just scale out the time limits as each game ages and that particular late game fatigue problem will be solved.

Lets hope we see a few province % victory condition games hosted and see how that works.

Tyrant · #3 February 2nd, 2007, 12:49 AM

I've nothing to do with this game, but decided to chime in on the interesting VP discusion.

Anyone tried the cumulative VP option? That sounds promising to me.

One issue that comes up for me sometimes on the regular VP thing is that i hate it when someone who is far away from me wins the game by taking VPs. It's a very unsatisfying game exeperience to suddenly lose a game without being beaten. Sounds like that is what happened here.

One thing i did in DomII that seemed to work was regular VP victory with crap tons of VPs such that one had to control a big chunk of territory to win. It worked well, but i only did it in 3 and 4 player games, and now in Dom3 VP provences have an extra dominion spreading effect that might complicate things.

Morkilus · #4 February 2nd, 2007, 06:21 PM

Congrats, Ironhawk. You've become quite the condender: you've won both of the large-scale games that I've played (you did win Artifacts, right?)

I'm up for a new one, if you'll let a hopeless scrub try again. I'm all for VP victory. Know what's important in the game, for it is just a game!

Ironhawk · #5 February 2nd, 2007, 08:54 PM

Thanks Morkilus

Technically, no, I did not win Artifacts since the game just kind of went into limbo after Arch quit. But given the direction the game was headed I do think it is safe to say that I would have eventually won.

Xox · #6 February 3rd, 2007, 01:41 AM

I would love cumulative vps if the threshold was a total percent. I know that sounds strange, but as an example:

Soneone could win if they got to 40% total cumulative vps.

I am kind of leery of total vps as a flat number winning, unless it was a big number. Maybe 40% of total vps after 100 turns. That might be worth a try.

Teraswaerto · #7 February 3rd, 2007, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Tyrant said:
I've nothing to do with this game, but decided to chime in on the interesting VP discusion.

Anyone tried the cumulative VP option? That sounds promising to me.

We had cumulative VPs in the Dawnstrike game, which Caelum played by Jurri won. Not a fan myself, the problem with someone far away winning with little you can do about it is still there.

Something to consider is also that VPs favor nations with Air or Astral magic. Magical travel is already extremely powerful, and made more so by the use VPs. Without it striking at VPs half the world away is much more difficult.

Xox · #8 February 3rd, 2007, 05:45 AM

Valid points about air and astral having an advantage over vp province games Tera,

But I think that may not be true in CUMULATIVE vp games. The raiding will not work. And if you can go across the world to take and HOLD vp provinces from the nations in that area for a considerable amount of time..... well then that is a win that makes sense.

Teraswaerto · #9 February 3rd, 2007, 06:03 AM

I don't think there's that big a difference. Timing the attack close to when the VPs as calculated is possible, and if there is castle there you'll have to siege it either way.

If VPs provinces are not fortified it really is no surprise when they are taken by a "surprise" attack.

Sir_Dr_D · #10 February 3rd, 2007, 06:48 PM

All we would need ot do is increase the number of VPs, and their wouldn't be a raid problem. If there was double the maount of VPs in the game (but still a 40% victory conditoin( Iron Hawk woudn't have been able to pull it off.

I am up for a new game, that uses the balance mod, preferably late age. Sheap are you up for hosting another one?