SVC, why the conflict?

[Airborne Ranger]

This was the turn report on the last victory by SVC.  Does it seem easy?

"The Wise One, leader of the Red Dragon kingdom has won by Secret Victory

(Be Substantial in 3 regions and Signficant in 2, Have a group with a
combat value vs PC greater than 125,000, Have 10 or more Level 4 or higher
Agents or Fanatics), regards to all who made this game an exciting contest."

Again, I think as long as we want to have kingdoms like the Underworld, we have to have more ways to win (because who doesn't want to win) than controlling 4 regions.  BTW, that used to be six regions in 1986 or so.  But that was when all other games said you had to completely eliminate everyone else to win (like Risk or Axis & Allies, or other PBEM games).  The SVC I feel is a pretty cool invention.

[SIGH]

Hate to disagree with both Ry Vor and Lord Diamond (as I respect both of them greatly), but the statement that SVC "is not easier than Rex" is simply not true.  Every kingdom has a chance to control four regions, in my opinion, provided the game last longer than 30 turns.  And even if there are kingdoms not capable of controlling four regions the correct response is to adjust those kingdoms, not create an artifical game-ending method for every kingdom on the board.

The major problem I have with SVC is that players cannot as readily see an opponent's progress as is apparent when kingdoms control two or three regions.  [Using the RD conditions described above] Substantial and Significant can be obtained entirely through diplomacy and nobody will know.  I often have groups with combat values greater than 125,000 from GI and RD (easy to achieve) to EL and DW (moderate difficulty) to WI and WA (difficult to achieve).  These groups are easy to hide because they can be split into two groups and combined on the turn when victroy is declared.  The ten agents are a result of standing orders to train and have no impact on the contest if all they do is sit and train.

Four regions require overcoming direct opposition from the majority of one's opponents because everyone can see your rise to power.  "Uneasy rests the head with a crown."  SVC by their nature are "secret" and the goal is to achieve them precisely in the absence of direct opposition from the majority of one's opponents.

I do recognize there is an order that allows one to divine the SVC of the other players.  But who wants to utilize up to eleven orders to determine how the game can end?  Seems like a good way to not be in the running for victory at all.

I think the problem with SVC has been addressed in The Choosing; my understanding is that if a kingdom obtains its SVC the contest will not end so that the other players can continue to pursue Rex.  I do also like the suggestion earlier in this thread that SVC could be available to those players without a podium finish while everyone else must pursue Rex.

Let's just decide to stop saying the SVC is equivalent to Rex in difficulty.  I might be convinced this was the case if the SVC were posted on the turn results for all other players to see.  Then instead of SVC it would be AVC (alternate victory conditions).  How many of us have taken part in diplomacy where we stopped fighting enemies to join against a dominate position?  This is the type of diplomacy that thrives when Rex is required.

As always, the above is just my opinion.  But I am only playing in the upcoming full diplomacy SVC condition contest because I need to finish a game with RA and SO to have played all kingdoms.  I truly believe there are a body of players that do not wish to play SVC at all.  I do not think any players object at all to Rex.

The only way Rex becomes a problem is if too many of the games are finishing on turn 40 and status points are determining the winner.  That, with the present Rex victory condition, is not a problem.

Agreed.

[Airborne Ranger]

There is nothing wrong with SVC if you enjoy that, its simply a choice, I like REX much better, I think ALL Kingdoms have a chance to win in Rex, but in SVC I do not see that. And if you make one mistake in SVC or get embroiled in war early you are basically out of the podium finish unless you get lucky. Your focus is much different.

[Frost Lord]

I would be interested to see how often each of the SVC options are selected by players and by kingdoms. Is that information tracked somewhere?

Ry Vor: I would think that this info would help you to disable the super easy ones or at least make them a little more difficult.

[HeadHoncho]

By definition, SVC is not as hard as the Rex.

I agree winning used to require a higher bar in the 80's and 90's, but you also had a lot more drops back then, which made obtaining more regions easier to achieve.

All that said, I don't really have a problem with SVC, and really like how it's changing in the Choosing.

[Sinestro]

Is this new system in place? I just had a game end on turn 21....that's early atleast to me

[Jumpingfist]

Games used to end as early as turn 12 with the original SVC rules these have improved greatly especially with the territory requirement. Not all SVC games end a turn or two after the minimum. I am currently playing a SVC game far past 20.

In the game you refer to ending turn 21 it was very clear early on the RD was leading everyone but nobody organized vs him until turn 18 or so. That was likely to late to try and stop someone. I was actually worried he was going to go for a REX on turn 20 not just his SVC

[VballMichael]

I agree with everything you just said lord Thanatos

Ry-Vor is also correct that the new SVC program is much more difficult than the old system was and should  eliminate games ending extremely early like some did in the past.

Every game I have played with SVC ends with the SVC on either turn 20 or turn 21 (the soonest it is allowed) and sooner when the rules allowed it sooner. I actually have had to wait in some games for turn 20 as I had the SVC in hand well before that.
SVC substitutes a fourth region for 2 secret things. These 2 things are not easy, but they are easier than a fourth region. You can choose "more regions than your enemy" (will almost always be true if you have 3 regions) and a certain number of ships or agents (you can just set on standing training or building orders). Yes, it is harder than it was, but it is still easier than Rex.
I have no problem playing Rex or SVC games, but I recognize they will almost always end by SVC.

[Drogo]

The 'more regions than your natural enemy' is a no-brainer and should be changed IMO.

[Lord Diamond]

I have only ever won one game and that was with SVC. If I depended on Rex, I would never win.

I am looking forward to seeing how this works out in 3rd Cycle.

[Ry Vor]

In Fall of Rome, all kingdoms were military, and all could win via Rex.  In Alamaze, its not the same, and now we are introducing about eight new kingdoms.  Sorry to have to say it, but both Alamaze and Fall of Rome won Game of the Year.  Not many designers can say all their games win Game of the Year, as a way of saying, I think I know what I am doing.