search

nymanjens / Alliances

WWI-themed board game
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2038974445
3 stars 0 forks source link

The required advantage for winning is now decreasing #111

Closed nymanjens closed 7 years ago

nymanjens commented 7 years ago

Fixes https://github.com/nymanjens/Alliances/issues/91

nymanjens commented 7 years ago

But they are only used as a tie breaker. Would you rather have a draw than a clear winner in such cases?

Tantali commented 7 years ago

I'd rather have a draw then an arbitrary winner (clear winner>draw>arbitrary winner). Given that the balance of invested coins, army and available coins isn't easily captured in a 'larger than'-fashion, I'm afraid it would be arbitrary.

nymanjens commented 7 years ago

Ok, I respect your opinion, but there is a possibility that you're interpreting the new rules differently.

I mean that if there is no winner after turn 10, the team with the most strategic cities wins. If there is still a draw, the team with the most coins wins, if there is still a draw, the team....

Is that how you interpreted it as well?

Tantali commented 7 years ago

Yes, that was my interpretation. And after that list, you could theoretically still end up with a draw. I'd keep the length of that list short up to the point where the criteria seem logical. Splitting the coin/army balance in separate criteria results in arbitrary winners I'd think. And thinking of a coin/army balance number makes it too complicated for what it's worth. That's my opinion of course.

Maybe simply number of regions would be a better criteria (so first strategic cities, then number of regions, then draw)

Tantali commented 7 years ago

Hmmm, might change opinion. I just realized that number of invested coins is quite similar to regions owned.

nymanjens commented 7 years ago

How about the current version? I used your region suggestion.

Tantali commented 7 years ago

Seems good.