I believe you do not get anything extra for any center over 18 to prevent bad sportsmanship.

So, if 19 would get 90 (18*5), then do 14 and 1 split the extra 5 proportionately or do they disappear?

@fk, I think you're wrong about that. Check out gameID=31150

and for draws- says the pot is 75, and 4 draw...each get 19- adding to 76... what happens there?

I believe Kestas had claimed that you don't get extra for going over 18, but I've tried doing the math and had a hard time working it out. Especially when you've got CD countries.

I do know that you get the entire pot if every other player CDs.

And as shown above, you do get the entire pot if you get every center. Shame that example looks like a bogus game. There was a valid PPSC game that ended with the winner having 34 centers, but I don't have a link to it. He took over the home centers of his vassals while they helped clear out the others, and then stabbed them, force disbanding their units one by one until only his units were left, and then positioned himself to take the remaining 17 centers in one year.

@Syndney, it isn't too picky about an extra point being created or lost due to rounding on draws and PPSC win/survives.

@ghug - that games is from August 2010. I'm sure in the last 18+ months, Kestas has revisited the code.

gameID=84017

This one doesn't prove the point as obviously, but it still proves it.

35/31 (3 extras don't get computed) = 1.13 PPSC
18*1.13 = 20.34 always rounded up = 21
11*1.13 = 12.43 always rounded up = 13
1 = 2
1 = 2

It works out perfectly. you have to remember to reduce the total SC count by any extra abocve 18 for the winner and by any CDs or unowned ones. They don't count into the equation. and the code always rounds up in favor of the player.

Oh, you ignore the extra ones entirely, alright. You still get more points by taking more centers though, so it doesn't really dissuade people from taking as many as possible.

Yeah, because 18/31th is more than 18/34th, you still get more.

On the one hand you could make the logic smarter so that the winner gets 18/34ths at the most, and then the survivors split the remaining pot proportional to their centers.

On the other hand it is PPSC so does it really matter that much?

Or let the house get anyvextra points and always divide by 34 to get PPSC multiplying wiener by 18 and the rest by whatvthey had.

Would the code break if you got to 18 with neutral supply centres still on the board?

I don't think so, they probably behave like CD centers.

That said, if you'd like to round up five others to let me win with neutrals still on the board, be my guest.

"On the one hand you could make the logic smarter so that the winner gets 18/34ths at the most, and then the survivors split the remaining pot proportional to their centers."

When the code for this was revised, I thought that what you're suggesting was what it was changed to. It's odd that it would work out the way it does.

Yonni: No, the code works fine. Or are you talking about hypothetical games that end with a player winning by more than 18 SC's while there are still neutral SC's on the board?

JECE, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Obviously would never happen - just a thought.

The real solution is to count the number of survivors SCs. Add 1 to that for the winners count. Then add the two together to get total SCs and compute like normal from there.

Why add one, a standard 18 center win would add two. Are you suggesting that we give winners even fewer points?

You are suggesting we give the winners more then, if there are fewer than 34 available centers. If the losers had say 14 centers, then you would give the winner 16/30 instead of 15/29. 16/30 (53.33%) is more than 18/34 (52.9%) just as 15/29 (51.7%) is less. And why not punish the greedy winner by costing him a couple of points? That is what we are doing when we don't give him his full 19 or 20 centers worth anyhow. As long as he gets at least half the points, then he got the most for the win. The whole reason Kestas changed it was to discourage excessive and abusive wins. Punishing them even more by making a more than 81 center win only pay 1 center more than the losers will discourage the abuses.

Frankly, I don't see the harm in punishing "abusive" wins at all. If you're going to play a variant, the goal of which being to finish with as many supply centers as possible, what's the harm in taking as many supply centers as you can?