Valhalla - Kingdoms of Alamaze

[Airborne Ranger]

The General Rules, Section 30 explains the Victory Conditions and possibilities.  Here is part of it:

The Lion’s Share. In any game in which no player, team, or epic side has achieved the victory conditions by the end of turn 40, the campaign's winner will be the player, or epic side with the greatest Status Point accumulation.

I was under the impression everyone knew the game was ending this turn (40) as it has been discussed on the forum.  Therefore, unless someone got four regions, it would be determined by Status Points, and it looks like the Underworld was leading in status points most of the game.

How status points are awarded is described elsewhere. 

RyVor, that is understood we all knew it was the last turn, but what is not is that if UN has no pc's how can he possibly win? I am not trying to argue with you just trying to understand, maybe the status points need to be looked at or..... the final turn status of a kingdom needs to be looked at with a higher degree of awarded points. What is the purpose of the game if like Jumping Fist pointed out, that a Kingdom (WI) can just sit back and collect artifacts and do nothing else and win? You should be awarded points for artifacts etc.... but this is supposed to be a game of conquest is it not?
I think the UN position is favored too highly by status points, I think this is borne out in this game.
Would say the GI get same value if he conquered 3 plus regions by turn 25 but loses all his pc's on turn 39? Does he still get credit for conquering those regions on turn 25 at end of game?

[Lord Thanatos]

The General Rules, Section 30 explains the Victory Conditions and possibilities.  Here is part of it:

The Lion’s Share. In any game in which no player, team, or epic side has achieved the victory conditions by the end of turn 40, the campaign's winner will be the player, or epic side with the greatest Status Point accumulation.

I was under the impression everyone knew the game was ending this turn (40) as it has been discussed on the forum.  Therefore, unless someone got four regions, it would be determined by Status Points, and it looks like the Underworld was leading in status points most of the game.

How status points are awarded is described elsewhere. 

RyVor, that is understood we all knew it was the last turn, but what is not is that if UN has no pc's how can he possibly win? I am not trying to argue with you just trying to understand, maybe the status points need to be looked at or..... the final turn status of a kingdom needs to be looked at with a higher degree of awarded points. What is the purpose of the game if like Jumping Fist pointed out, that a Kingdom (WI) can just sit back and collect artifacts and do nothing else and win? You should be awarded points for artifacts etc.... but this is supposed to be a game of conquest is it not?
I think the UN position is favored too highly by status points, I think this is borne out in this game.
Would say the GI get same value if he conquered 3 plus regions by turn 25 but loses all his pc's on turn 39? Does he still get credit for conquering those regions on turn 25 at end of game?

I have said for years, ad nauseum, that not only are artifacts worth too many status points [in both Alamaze and Fall of Rome] but also that artifacts should be worth zero status points.  If artifacts were worth zero status points, players would still seek them out for the benefit they provide to the players seeking to conquer their opponents.  This is still the solution I advocate.

I have been told for just as many years that many players play to have fun and are not necessarily determined to win at all costs. Therefore, their investment of game resources should be reflected in the status point awards as well as the other players investment of game resources.

If players aren't interested in conquering their opponents and only wish to collect artifacts, I say let them do so but give them zero status points (after all, these players are interested in a different meta-game).

So here we have a situation with the only contest to go to turn 40, everybody had a great time, and the game is going to be remembered for victory by a player owning a total of zero popcenters (game 143).  My guess is: that if the status points were calculated for game 143 with artifacts providing zero status points the winners would be those who actually had the strongest positions at the end of the contest, everybody would believe those results were satisfying, and this contest would be fondly remembered by all the players forever.

Having said all of the above, I want to be clear that I love Alamaze.  I also know how difficult it is to please everyone.  The best that can be said at this point is that everybody knew the rules when the game started.  If you don't want the UN or WI to finish second (or first) by default, collect as many artifacts as you can, win via the Rex or eliminate those two positions (as was nearly done in game 143).

[VballMichael]

The General Rules, Section 30 explains the Victory Conditions and possibilities.  Here is part of it:

The Lion’s Share. In any game in which no player, team, or epic side has achieved the victory conditions by the end of turn 40, the campaign's winner will be the player, or epic side with the greatest Status Point accumulation.

I was under the impression everyone knew the game was ending this turn (40) as it has been discussed on the forum.  Therefore, unless someone got four regions, it would be determined by Status Points, and it looks like the Underworld was leading in status points most of the game.

How status points are awarded is described elsewhere. 

RyVor, that is understood we all knew it was the last turn, but what is not is that if UN has no pc's how can he possibly win? I am not trying to argue with you just trying to understand, maybe the status points need to be looked at or..... the final turn status of a kingdom needs to be looked at with a higher degree of awarded points. What is the purpose of the game if like Jumping Fist pointed out, that a Kingdom (WI) can just sit back and collect artifacts and do nothing else and win? You should be awarded points for artifacts etc.... but this is supposed to be a game of conquest is it not?
I think the UN position is favored too highly by status points, I think this is borne out in this game.
Would say the GI get same value if he conquered 3 plus regions by turn 25 but loses all his pc's on turn 39? Does he still get credit for conquering those regions on turn 25 at end of game?

I have said for years, ad nauseum, that not only are artifacts worth too many status points [in both Alamaze and Fall of Rome] but also that artifacts should be worth zero status points.  If artifacts were worth zero status points, players would still seek them out for the benefit they provide to the players seeking to conquer their opponents.  This is still the solution I advocate.

I have been told for just as many years that many players play to have fun and are not necessarily determined to win at all costs. Therefore, their investment of game resources should be reflected in the status point awards as well as the other players investment of game resources.

If players aren't interested in conquering their opponents and only wish to collect artifacts, I say let them do so but give them zero status points (after all, these players are interested in a different meta-game).

So here we have a situation with the only contest to go to turn 40, everybody had a great time, and the game is going to be remembered for victory by a player owning a total of zero popcenters (game 143).  My guess is: that if the status points were calculated for game 143 with artifacts providing zero status points the winners would be those who actually had the strongest positions at the end of the contest, everybody would believe those results were satisfying, and this contest would be fondly remembered by all the players forever.

Having said all of the above, I want to be clear that I love Alamaze.  I also know how difficult it is to please everyone.  The best that can be said at this point is that everybody knew the rules when the game started.  If you don't want the UN or WI to finish second (or first) by default, collect as many artifacts as you can, win via the Rex or eliminate those two positions (as was nearly done in game 143).

Why are we already demeaning Daredevil's win? He was in first place the entire game! Nobody won by Rex. This was a hard fought contest. As the RD I was ranked 2-4 for most of the game, but fell off near the end based on good play by opponents in stealing my artifacts. The Ranger spent most of the last few turns building status points by hiring and training agents who were never going to be used and by stealing artifacts he gathered for status points, and earned second for that. Since the game was going to be determined by status points, he made smart moves there at the end and got second. I applaud him for that. Likewise, the Underworld, knowing the game was going to be decided by status points, stayed ahead the entire game with prisoners and artifacts. I agree artifacts may be overpowered on status, but then fix that rather than demean his victory by talking about how this game will not be fondly remembered. If the game is ONLY about taking regions, then the Underworld does not have much place in the game. He played the Underworld like an underworld. If you want to just eliminate status points for artifacts, why not eliminate for high wizards or agents or production levels or the 40 other things that give points?

[Ry Vor]

This isn't the first time this has come up.  

We have a cohort of players who feel the game is all about winning: that even second place doesn't matter.  It's nice that Alamaze can play like a strategy board game like that.  In fact, Sid Meier (of Civilization fame, et al) called Alamaze "An electronic board game".  So that's one level of Alamaze, and the easiest one to relate to as all of us grew up playing strategy board games.

But most players, surprise to some, aren't really concerned about winning, and in fact, most never will, and don't care.  They are playing for entirely different reasons.  I don't need to enumerate them here.  I'd just say there are many ways to approach, and play, and enjoy Alamaze, and we want to make sure as many of those ways as possible are present in the game.   I think that has a lot to do with why Alamaze is here almost 30 years after the design.  You can count the games that can claim that on your fingers and toes.

And just to continue, while Classic will be frozen after these last changes are in the code so all the traditional Alamaze players will always have the game they know, the designer's intention is to go to a bit more character centric, developing many aspects of the kingdom, less character death, more role playing elements, more numerous and more interesting artifacts, more distinction in magic capabilities, and likely address more of the diplomatic status between kingdoms, and kingdoms with regions.

I wouldn't begrudge the Underworld his victory.  Some of the players in this game play Warlords, and they know the Underworld is not often selected because it is a developing position.  If the Underworld can't claim a victory in a 40 turn game, and some players claim they can never win but can come in 2nd, and they win, then something is wrong with the game?

[Lord Thanatos]

This isn't the first time this has come up.  

We have a cohort of players who feel the game is all about winning: that even second place doesn't matter.  It's nice that Alamaze can play like a strategy board game like that.  In fact, Sid Meier (of Civilization fame, et al) called Alamaze "An electronic board game".  So that's one level of Alamaze, and the easiest one to relate to as all of us grew up playing strategy board games.

But most players, surprise to some, aren't really concerned about winning, and in fact, most never will, and don't care.  They are playing for entirely different reasons.  I don't need to enumerate them here.  I'd just say there are many ways to approach, and play, and enjoy Alamaze, and we want to make sure as many of those ways as possible are present in the game.   I think that has a lot to do with why Alamaze is here almost 30 years after the design.  You can count the games that can claim that on your fingers and toes.

And just to continue, while Classic will be frozen after these last changes are in the code so all the traditional Alamaze players will always have the game they know, the designer's intention is to go to a bit more character centric, developing many aspects of the kingdom, less character death, more role playing elements, more numerous and more interesting artifacts, more distinction in magic capabilities, and likely address more of the diplomatic status between kingdoms, and kingdoms with regions.

I wouldn't begrudge the Underworld his victory.  Some of the players in this game play Warlords, and they know the Underworld is not often selected because it is a developing position.  If the Underworld can't claim a victory in a 40 turn game, and some players claim they can never win but can come in 2nd, and they win, then something is wrong with the game?

Do you just cut and paste this response. 

Every time I have mentioned artifact status points over the last six years or so I think you go back to the archives to find what you told me last time.

I love Alamaze and will be an Imperator so long as you are alive and allow me to play Alamaze.

I am certainly NOT diminishing the UN victory.  We all knew the rules going in.

I was just sympathizing with the previous player who posted that artifact collection didn't quite seem like conquest to him.  If the RA did the same thing as the UN then kudos for playing by the rules to achieve victory.  I need not diminish my fellow players' accomplishments to point out that if artifacts had no status points the victory would go to the player owning the most territory for the longest period of time...  Players would adjust their play style to however status points were calculated.  Artifacts would be retrieved because they are helpful, not because they had status points.  That is not the case presently.  I think something should change.  Rick disagrees - so it will never change!

Just for the record... I finally built ships [having given up my silent protest over this particular game change...] I still love Alamaze.

[DuPont]

I'll steal a line from The Wise Man's Fear by Patrick Rothfuss. To me, the point of Alamaze isn't winning; it's to play a beautiful game. Winning while holding no pop centers at the end it doing that to me. After all, an 'Underworld' isn't expected to conquer via storm. But if you have people around the world who control other people, you can be the most powerful person in the world. Think of the (obviously non-existent) Illuminati. There are those who believe this group controls our world with a combination of agents and ancient artifacts, yet they are not a nation on the map. Often the Pope in Rome was the most important person without controlling lots of territory.

[kevindusi]

"The Beautiful Game" is football, DuPont. Real Football.

[Airborne Ranger]

"The Beautiful Game" is football, DuPont. Real Football.

Gotta love ya DUSI!

[kevindusi]

"The Beautiful Game" is football, DuPont. Real Football.

Gotta love ya DUSI!

Yes. Yes you do.

[Airborne Ranger]

I'll steal a line from The Wise Man's Fear by Patrick Rothfuss. To me, the point of Alamaze isn't winning; it's to play a beautiful game. Winning while holding no pop centers at the end it doing that to me. After all, an 'Underworld' isn't expected to conquer via storm. But if you have people around the world who control other people, you can be the most powerful person in the world. Think of the (obviously non-existent) Illuminati. There are those who believe this group controls our world with a combination of agents and ancient artifacts, yet they are not a nation on the map. Often the Pope in Rome was the most important person without controlling lots of territory.

Dupont, this is all in fun.....but I can remember General Patton once said something like this, "I would not give a hoot in hell for someone who plays a game or anything that loses and is happy about it.  Americans love to win and Americans like winners!"

I know I play any game, I play to win. I know I cannot win them all but I play to win, that's me, I do not buy the pc crap of now a days. Every kid on a team gets a trophy for just being on a team, we cannot recognize gifted students because it hurts the feelings of those knuckle heads getting F's etc etc

You won and that's that. I will get you in another game,,,,arrgghhh!