Potential New Standard Victory Condition

[Wynterbreeze]

But why wouldn't the same apply for someone trying to take four regions? Realistically, people start getting targets on their heads as soon as they take a SECOND region, much less a third.

I think four regions is as insurmountable a goal for standard victory as five regions. Anyone who has a SVC of substantial in four will take their SVC before someone can control four regions.

Well, we could ask the question has any one gotten 4 regions since the new games has started. As the Westmen in a game number I can't remember I won with standard victory as I took 2 regions in one turn due to my tremendous influenced and massive number of emissaries.

Taking 3 and holding for 3 is a much different animal then taking 4. Everyone knows the game will be over in three turns, they MUST act.

The question was which do you think is better, And since eliminate standard victory conditions was not an option I went with 4 :)

[HeadHoncho]

I'm not aware of anyone having taken four regions on the relaunch.

The "hold three regions for three turns" is a new concept, Rick suggested hold three regions for two turns as an opening position.

Looks like my position is losing solidly on the vote and that's fine, but to someone else's point earlier, I suspect we'll just be back here in a year, with no one having achieved standard victory, if we go with taking four regions.

[Cipher]

But why wouldn't the same apply for someone trying to take four regions? Realistically, people start getting targets on their heads as soon as they take a SECOND region, much less a third.

I think four regions is as insurmountable a goal for standard victory as five regions. Anyone who has a SVC of substantial in four will take their SVC before someone can control four regions.

Assuming the regions are gained sequentially, yes.
But holding a 'starting' region and then getting close in 2 others before a quick grab of both those might not allow that targeting or even knowledge of the gains/closeness to victory at 3 regions.

[HeadHoncho]

That's a fair point, but it's still pretty hard to keep success on that level under-the-radar completely.

With 15 Kingdoms, each Kingdom is estimated to occupy 2/3 of a region. Taking three regions successfully means that you're doing over 4x as well as the average, and 1/15 of the Kingdoms (6.67%) ends up holding 30% of the board. That's already pretty huge, IMO.

[Hawk_]

That's a fair point, but it's still pretty hard to keep success on that level under-the-radar completely.

With 15 Kingdoms, each Kingdom is estimated to occupy 2/3 of a region. Taking three regions successfully means that you're doing over 4x as well as the average, and 1/15 of the Kingdoms (6.67%) ends up holding 30% of the board. That's already pretty huge, IMO.

I wonder what the best accomplished in the anonymous game has been where region control can't be negotiated.

[Ry Vor]

But why wouldn't the same apply for someone trying to take four regions? Realistically, people start getting targets on their heads as soon as they take a SECOND region, much less a third.

I think four regions is as insurmountable a goal for standard victory as five regions. Anyone who has a SVC of substantial in four will take their SVC before someone can control four regions.

I have to pipe in with HeadHoncho here. I'm not getting that 3 regions is too easy and 4 is just right. Someone who has controlled 4 regions might convince me. Please post.

I should tell people in Fall of Rome the community did not like the secret victory, because they thought it cheated them from their strategy of standard. Here, in Alamaze, such a discussion would never come up as the current differences are so extreme.

I just have to say, another ambiguity to me, is how old time Alamaze players are so resistant to change, where you would think they would be most open to open new avenues, and as after all, for new players, its all new.

[Wynterbreeze]

But why wouldn't the same apply for someone trying to take four regions? Realistically, people start getting targets on their heads as soon as they take a SECOND region, much less a third.

I think four regions is as insurmountable a goal for standard victory as five regions. Anyone who has a SVC of substantial in four will take their SVC before someone can control four regions.

I have to pipe in with HeadHoncho here. I'm not getting that 3 regions is too easy and 4 is just right. Someone who has controlled 4 regions might convince me. Please post.

I should tell people in Fall of Rome the community did not like the secret victory, because they thought it cheated them from their strategy of standard. Here, in Alamaze, such a discussion would never come up as the current differences are so extreme.

I just have to say, another ambiguity to me, is how old time Alamaze players are so resistant to change, where you would think they would be most open to open new avenues, and as after all, for new players, its all new.

I can try and give a scenario that would become standard strategy for the Ancients Ones and or Demon Princes if 3 regions was an automatic win. I'll use my win as the Westman (standard victory) from the old days as reference of what did happen and could easily happen again with only a three region instant win.

If the AN or DE take a region quickly, they can easily consolidate, build influence faster then most kingdoms, hire emissaries quickly, and easily use their special orders to enamor regions, simply move into two region towns and villages on one turn and win the next. It really is that simple for those two kingdoms in the hands of a good player and lets face it, This game has no shortage of great players.

I could go into detail on how you can do this but you i'm sure you all know what i'm getting at here. Those two kingdoms would have a clear path to quick and early victory. So much I would dare say all strategy would be changed to make sure they never survived to be able to get this fast and easy win. This alone would drastically change the entire strategy of all of Alamaze from the start.

It was extremely easy to flood two regions and win the next turn. The fact they left me alone at three to build helped, and if i was playing with the best of the best, I never would have gotten standard because three kingdoms is a call to immediate action. However one region is not a call to action and flooding and taking two (regions) very quickly is very probable giving those two kingdoms (AN DE) special orders.

Right now no one would flood and take two regions at a time, because they could never hope to hold it for more then 2 turns and would paint the largest target in the universe on them. However if you simply won at three, then...

Just food for thought.

[HeadHoncho]

My opinion is that it's a lot harder to take a region in the relaunch, simply because of two factors:

1) The service level system (which I really like) makes drops fewer and further between.

2) The existing knowledge base available in the forums and on the web makes total novice mistakes more rare, and people putting up stronger defense more common.

IIRC, I only had one standard victory in the old days (might have been two, but pretty sure it was just one, plus a few SVC wins). I was playing the Urik in 1st Cycle, and was playing with RSI, having played previously with Pegasus. I ended up fighting people who either didn't know what they were doing, or got discouraged and dropped somewhat quickly, and the result was a pretty fast blitz to five regions.

I really don't see that happening as easily here, even with AN/DE. The two Kingdoms under attack could sound the alarm on the first turn of attack, and Kingdoms who are so inclined could start helping out the very next turn. Even if we assume that AN/DE successfully take both regions on their second turn of attack (not a given by any means), the counterattack would also be underway. And on the third turn (the second turn needed for victory), some pushback could occur, causing at least one region to go uncontrolled.

I think the fundamental question is whether we want to make standard victory exceedingly difficult (nigh-impossible, IMO), or merely very difficult. I still think three regions for two turns would be very difficult. But obviously, opinions here may differ.

[Ry Vor]

RE - Wynter: Hmm, not too concerned. Valhalla reflects DE and AN combined are exact average. DE a bit easier to play, and if left alone (like any kingdom) can win. The most lopsided win (Turn 15 win) was the Giants and they have done not much in other games. I think the great thing about Alamaze is the vast differences in kingdoms, as well as players, and consequently, their approach to the game. No kingdom has ever been prominent (going back to 1987), as perhaps a persona has been for some period of history, and my guess that glory was short-lived as well.

[unclemike]

I voted to keep Standard Victory the same with 5 regions.

I think some people are missing the point of the Standard Victory condition being a grand achievement in the game. Only a few leaders in the real world tried to achieve such a feat: Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, ...etc. Many have tried to conquer the world (in this case a decent number of regions in Alamaze) but many failed to do so because it is a grand achievement to accomplish.

So I don't feel that achieving Standard Victory is for the faint of heart or for posers in the game. Only a very few should be able to achieve such a grand victory. That's why I feel that Standard Victory should remain as 5 regions and no less or just about anyone could become Rex (i.e. King of Alamaze).

That being said, if I were the game designer and wanted to see more Standard Victory conditions then simply create a new variation of the game with the rule that the game may only end after someone controls 5 regions. I remember Phil ran a game like this years ago (forgot what he called it) but I believe Leo Mortimer won that game.

Anyway, that's how I feel about this subject.