Change victory condition: First to 6 points minus recruiting strategic regions

[Tantali]

Original title: Simplified win conditions

Each team has a track of e.g. 5. First to 5 wins. Your track is incremented if you have a strategic advantage. In case of a tie, some options:

• neither track gets incremented: potentially infinite game, so probably not
• both tracks get incremented: definite end, but shorter game if balanced, so probably not
• tiebreaker: e.g. most regions; if still a tie, no track gets incremented, so still potentially infinite but unlikely (this gets my vote)

Either we increment the tracks with difference in strategic cities, or simply by one if you have an advantage (this gets my vote, as it helps with #179).

This fixes #162 and is very close to what we have now, but simplified:

• no concept of rounds anymore, but game still takes at most 9 turns
• only one track to increment, and winning team will gladly do that, so less risk of forgetting
• more fun to win, because winning by updating the turn tracker doesn't give as good a feeling as winning by updating your victory track

[317070]

I like the train of thought 👍 I will think about it.

[Tantali]

Well, the 'increment by one' clearly failed miserably. I thought about it, and the increment by difference actually could work. In the last game, this would have led to: J: 1; RJ: 0 J: 2; RJ: 0 J: 4; RJ: 0 J: 4; RJ: 1 J: 4; RJ: 8

I would say first to e.g. 6 wins.

Jonas mentioned that this change would mean you have to actually calculate the difference between cities. While in the current tracker, you can move it e.g. 4 places to the left, 5 places to the right, to 'automatically' calculate the difference. So in that aspect it's slightly more complex. However, I think this change might go well with the "train units doesn't generate point". Making it a lot easier to see what points you need to win the game.

I would suggest keeping this alternative tracker in mind similarly how we did it in last game to see whether it would have any merit.

[317070]

I would note that the problem with the approach is that games could take way too long.

[Tantali]

Well, if you take first to 6, then a perfectly balanced game could take up to 12 turns, compared to 10 turns in the current system. Looks reasonable, especially given that we haven't seen such balanced games yet.

[nymanjens]

This is now in experimental: https://github.com/nymanjens/Alliances/pull/201