Victory Conditions

[rah]

That's another problem. Even if we agree prior for a two night game, If you have problems the first night. (which has happened way to frequently) now the game is hosed for two nights.

Another reason to come up with some type of alternate scoring.

Rich

[War4ever]

there will always be connection problems with games....differnt lines/countries/??? etc...

it sucks when people drop....i always feel like haning it up for awhile when i go through a bad connection/computer spell like that ...

it always rights it self though

[rah]

Yep, you've had a bad last couple of weeks, when in games with me.

[Frank Johnson]

If you made a system like this you'd need a relatively large window of "its too close to tell".

If we created a player concensus on when a player has lost their "reasonable chance at victory" we could force a player to concede on the basis of this consensus.

But I'd say most of the time the actual playing of the game, and not the numbers would have to determine the winner.


Most games would fall under the "possible stalemate" or "slow death" catigories where its obivous the other player wont ever get the upper hand again, but might continue on playing in a meaningful way for quite sometime.....

[rah]

That's why I would prefer victory condition over scoring.
By simple victory condition, "too close to tell" isn't an issue. You either attain them or you don't. I have no problem with half my games ending in "did not attain victory conditions". That would be no different then current games. But since creative victory condition would be hard to agree too. (especially after reading through here) a scoring theme might be our best opportunity.

[War4ever]

no the better way to play, is to seek and destroy....instead of falling one city...take a few more....many people back off after taking that initial city or two....

we often allow the weaker civs to live until cannons b/c were too busy trying to keep our lead on our closest rival.... so alot of games turn into duels......