webdiplomacy.net

....it would be more elegant if draws were renamed "Armistice " or "Agree Treaty" or suchlike.....

Perhaps it would be, but solos also end in an Armistice or Treaty of some sort. Or at least they would in a real life situation.

I think ending war should depend on winner. I mean after 18 SC, winner can continue to conquer.
At least there would be a mode for this.

yavuzovic wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:01 pm

I think ending war should depend on winner. I mean after 18 SC, winner can continue to conquer.
At least there would be a mode for this.

And the poor opponents, after already beaten according to the standard rules, would have to enter pointless moves to avoid lowering their reliability rating until the winner finally has quenched his or her thirst for conquering?

I cannot see this mode becoming very popular...

Octavious wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:42 pm

Perhaps it would be, but solos also end in an Armistice or Treaty of some sort. Or at least they would in a real life situation.

Pretty sure the soloist is just assumed to have gone on to conquer all of Europe since he has more units than everyone else combined.

It should be called PPSC.

If you wanted to make a mode where the game continues after 18 centers I think the best means to do so would be to give the leading player the option at 18 centers to continue or end the game. If they end the game normal win conditions apply. But if they choose continue they have to control the entire board in 3 years. If the leader fails then the game reverts to the initial end game and any players alive at the 18 center end game, are given equal share in a draw.

Perhaps allow those making the draw to name it something else. No draw can happen until a consensus has been reached by those still alive. This would allow both reminiscence on the game's events and end-game gloating by the winners.

After a power conquers absolut majority, it naturally ends up conquering the board. If there are no mini stalemate lines, then this is true, so it makes no sense continuing, and this is why a solo is "winner takes all".

This is Alan Calhamer's spirit of the rules!

CCR wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:51 pm

After a power conquers absolut majority, it naturally ends up conquering the board. If there are no mini stalemate lines, then this is true, so it makes no sense continuing, and this is why a solo is "winner takes all".

This is Alan Calhamer's spirit of the rules!

Of course, there ARE some mini stalemate lines...

Then it becomes a game of endurance. Whose empire will crumble first? Maybe Alan Calhamer's thought was that the country with 18 SC has proven they have the most willpower. But then again, even Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan's troops got tired of fighting, so you must be able to win a nuclear arms race in order to completely dominate.

`ZaZaMaRaNDaBo` wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:01 pm

Maybe Alan Calhamer's thought was that the country with 18 SC has proven they have the most willpower.

He has said pretty much this in interviews IIRC.

Even with mini-stalemate lines, the 50%+1 power can just bide their time and develop ICBMs to nuke the smaller nations until they glow.

Diplomacy is a game, not a simulation. Games are won, lost or drawn.