Why games end so early

[Ry Vor]

I think all I want to add now, after a long day and with my thoughts not yet in final form, that as Cargus says, there will be some fundamental changes and my attention in on how to encourage less 3 v 1 type activity.

An idea in the works is "A Reckoning!" as a new king order. This is a very powerful and detailed order that is applied for a king that has no more than 1 declared ally and has either 3 kingdoms that have declared him enemy, OR the king can name groups of 3 un-allied kingdoms (eg, 1st AN, 2nd TR, 2nd BL) that are in the region of his capital.

Currently I have about 8 consequences of this order including improving the PC defense of all controlled PC's by 1000, improving RR in the capital region by 0.5, all issuing king groups in the region improved by 10%, gaining a kingdom brigade, gaining food and gold, promoting the top leader, -10% to morale of all declared enemies in the region, +20% defense in the capital.

Its a work in progress, but you should get the intent - I'm really working on reducing the tendency for 3 v 1 gang-ups.

[Lord Diamond]

I would say that the non-allied groups should be Army sized or bigger.

I can see ways to abuse this, or manipulate it with friends, but I like it since it is merely one more strategic consideration. I can think of ways to trick a kingdom into issuing this order. Hopefully, there will be some penalty or cost to it.

If the kingdom has a declared ally, this might actually be a 3:2 situation.

It should probably one a one-time deal.

[kevindusi]

I agree with Diamond, but would probably say division-sized since a 5 brigade RD or GI group can do some serious damage. Maybe something time-limiting like "can only be used if a previous has not been issued in the past 5 turns" or something like that. Not QUITE a one-off, but close.

[davekuyk]

Games end early because ganging up works well. Why does it work so well? Because defense has few advantages.

Examples:

*Denigrate has chance to fail
*Enamor has no chance to fail

*Status quo has no inherent advantage; it costs an order, just as much gold and the emissary has the same relative power as he would inciting or usurping. While a gov can stop a gov from inciting, that same gov may fail versus a baron. When you consider each kingdom is spending gold and an order I would much rather be on the side of the incite. Heck at times it is better to enter the order to usurp rather than to status quo, in order to take advantage of a cautious enemy using incite

*The defend order for groups gives only a modest bonus and removes the flexibility of late attacks and using diplomacy

*Raising defense at a population center is expensive and largely an inefficient use of gold; compare this to gold spent on raising military strength - this gold translates directly to attack ability (I do grant the raise defense spell is more worthwhile)

*The diplomacy spell is an very powerful (and IMHO an overpowered) offensive weapon, yet is widely available to many kingdoms very early

If the game is to be truly changed to allow kingdoms to survive attacks from multiple enemies then this is the area I believe should be looked at. Tone down the effectiveness of diplomacy. Create a denigrate option that impacts multiple kingdoms. Scale the cost of raising defense with the current defense. Make status quo cheaper and more effective.

Right now the game is built around attack and attack more. This is one reason the Dwarf is far and away the worst kingdom. His theme is defensive yet there are next to no defensive tools at his, or anyone's. disposal.

[Jumbie]

Dave is essentially correct in his analysis, but I think he may be approaching the solution wrong.

If it becomes so much easier to defend, then that guarantees that the only way to take out a kingdom is via alliance. You're going to get an even greater shift toward ganging up if the defensive option is more powerful since it will be almost required for successful attacks.

I think the game gets it right at the moment. Offense is the best defense. Forward movement or death. No middle ground. Seems a lot like real war.

To skip over to the realm of Real Time computer strategy games, we see this idea at work a lot. In the single player, human vs Computer game, it pays for the human to turtle and build up defenses until they can launch a big attack against the computer.

In human vs human play, however, it's all about getting in the first attacks, building up offense and striking at the resources and capabilities of the enemy early. Turtling is just not good strategy.

RTS games also don't have the same degree of ganging up problem because they seldom have more than 8 players (and most times its 4)

So my take on fixing the problem of games ending early (which is separate from the ganging up effect that makes some people uncomfortable)

1) It's not a problem if some kingdoms get taken out early. Another game is starting up somewhere...The original game continues with the same amount of resources in play so it should be just leave bigger kingdoms fighting each other, except...

2) The special victory conditions too often boil down to take 4 cities or take 2.5 regions because the other stuff about artifacts and influence and having 3 warlords etc is redundant.

[Wynand]

Interesting and enjoyable analysis.

I have one observation, similar to Jumbie's. And I also have a (potentially) interesting suggestion.

1) The game is perfect in its imperfection. Yes, there are gang ups. But this is a political game as much as it is a strategic or tactical contest. If the political element is distasteful, the anonymous variant might suit you better. However, that begs the question - if so many find this aspect of Alamaze frustrating, why has it been comparitively harder to get the anonymous games filled and "kicked-off"?

2) Try introducing "Cycle of Magic" alliances on turn 6 or turn 12. Allow the game to start as a regular individual contest, and then insert random alliances to force cooperation or potentially induce players to re-examine their NAPs and/or expansion strategies. This forces some degree of cooperation across several kingdoms.

Game 107 had many problems, but the gang up issue was a bit less of a factor....and when gang ups did occur, it was 6-3 instead 4/5 versus 1.

Introducing the alliances mid-game forces players to cautiously form their own treaties at the start for fear of being inadvertently pitted against someone they're working with. Making a randomized team SVC (instead of the standard 7 regions) also would encourage greater cooperation.

We would have to flush this concept out a bit more but this may be the perfect alternative to the anonymous game, where working together is simply not an option.

[Cargus10]

Well, I'll toss in my 2 cents. The game does have balance issues between offense and defense. If I am understanding things, the desire is to make it so that a 1-on-1 fight is something that, given similar skill levels, isn't over except for the crying in 3-4 turns. Gang-ups are going to happen, it's the nature of how diplomacy works. Butif the attacker can have friends, so can the defender - problem is, by the time the defender can get his friends notified and mustered, his position is in ruins.

I can think of two things that would greatly enhance defense:

1. Passive Status Quo. If an emissary is A) in a player owned pop center and B) has no other orders for the turn, allow them to do a free (no cost, no order) 310 at half their normal value. So a Baron would give 25% +/- 5%.

2. Allow defending groups to go behind walls. This would add the group and the pop center's defense together. As a penalty, the chance of promotion for any of the defender's leaders would be very small, and of course therer would be no withdrawal chance at all. This would tend to promote more sieges probably.

Would either of the above be desirable? That's a philosophy issue as to how one wants the game to play out.

[Lord Diamond]

Well, I'll toss in my 2 cents. The game does have balance issues between offense and defense. If I am understanding things, the desire is to make it so that a 1-on-1 fight is something that, given similar skill levels, isn't over except for the crying in 3-4 turns. Gang-ups are going to happen, it's the nature of how diplomacy works. Butif the attacker can have friends, so can the defender - problem is, by the time the defender can get his friends notified and mustered, his position is in ruins.

I can think of two things that would greatly enhance defense:

1. Passive Status Quo. If an emissary is A) in a player owned pop center and B) has no other orders for the turn, allow them to do a free (no cost, no order) 310 at half their normal value. So a Baron would give 25% +/- 5%.

2. Allow defending groups to go behind walls. This would add the group and the pop center's defense together. As a penalty, the chance of promotion for any of the defender's leaders would be very small, and of course therer would be no withdrawal chance at all. This would tend to promote more sieges probably.

Would either of the above be desirable? That's a philosophy issue as to how one wants the game to play out.

I like both options. The 'garrison' option works well in Fall of Rome.

Also in FoR, you can't attack a pc that has a group (of the defending kingdom) outside without first making that group retreat.

[Wynterbreeze]

If an easier way to win has been created for each Kingdom, how can any one be surprised thats how all games end? It just a race to win first as easy as possible.

If any of you have every played WOW and every PvP'd, Then Alterac Valley is the best analogy for what is happening now.

People are racing to the end to win, and passing up what really makes the game fun, boiling it down to cookie cutter strategies to win ASAP. With the wild card of email diplomacy.

[Lord Diamond]

I wouldn't mind some games with no SVC at all.