Solo victories should not be allowed

[Klaus klauts]

"No solos" would definitely be an interesting variant

So like, this would be the Mirror Universe equivalent of a Lusthog game? Like, a game must continue to be played in order to reach a draw of a pre-determined size? Call it a Gohtsul 3, where the game can only end in a 3WD?

I'd play that.

I propose the "perfect equality" variant:

The game must be played until the following target state is achieved:

1. All 7 powers are still alive;
2. All 7 powers control exactly three Supply Centres each.

Unlimited amount of "fun" for an unlimited amount of time lmfao

[yavuzovic]

So like, this would be the Mirror Universe equivalent of a Lusthog game? Like, a game must continue to be played in order to reach a draw of a pre-determined size? Call it a Gohtsul 3, where the game can only end in a 3WD?

I'd play that.

I propose the "perfect equality" variant:

The game must be played until the following target state is achieved:

1. All 7 powers are still alive;
2. All 7 powers control exactly three Supply Centres each.

Unlimited amount of "fun" for an unlimited amount of time lmfao

You can still win it if you leave 2+3n centers neutral at the end of the game

[goldenruler]

I appreciate the comments, and I'd like to amend my proposed change to the rules. Solo victories should remain possible, but only if the megalomaniac gets 22 SCs instead of 18. That would be more difficult, occur less often, and lead to more 4-way and 3-way draws than the current rules.

[Pengwinja]

I appreciate the comments, and I'd like to amend my proposed change to the rules. Solo victories should remain possible, but only if the megalomaniac gets 22 SCs instead of 18. That would be more difficult, occur less often, and lead to more 4-way and 3-way draws than the current rules.

I think a variant that you need to get more than 18 could be interesting. It would make it so people that want to solo would need to have some military skill as well, as when you get 18, they would have more than everyone else combined on the board, so the only way to lose would be a mistake by them.

[miminena]

I appreciate the comments, and I'd like to amend my proposed change to the rules. Solo victories should remain possible, but only if the megalomaniac gets 22 SCs instead of 18. That would be more difficult, occur less often, and lead to more 4-way and 3-way draws than the current rules.

I think a variant that you need to get more than 18 could be interesting. It would make it so people that want to solo would need to have some military skill as well, as when you get 18, they would have more than everyone else combined on the board, so the only way to lose would be a mistake by them.

p sure vdip allows it to be adjustable

[Pengwinja]

Yes, VDiplomacy allows for adjustable SC counts. Just now realized :P

[miminena]

Yes, VDiplomacy allows for adjustable SC counts. Just now realized

one of the many reasons that i prefer to play diplomacy on vdip. tbh i only frequent here for bot games, sandboxes, and the community :3

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I appreciate the comments, and I'd like to amend my proposed change to the rules. Solo victories should remain possible, but only if the megalomaniac gets 22 SCs instead of 18. That would be more difficult, occur less often, and lead to more 4-way and 3-way draws than the current rules.

This game already ends in big draws way too often for my tastes.

If I could, I would make anything more than a 4+ draw worth *nothing* for the survivors. On player profiles there should be a "care bear counter" that goes up each time they participate in a draw that includes more than half of the original players lol.

[Pengwinja]

I appreciate the comments, and I'd like to amend my proposed change to the rules. Solo victories should remain possible, but only if the megalomaniac gets 22 SCs instead of 18. That would be more difficult, occur less often, and lead to more 4-way and 3-way draws than the current rules.

This game already ends in big draws way too often for my tastes.

If I could, I would make anything more than a 4+ draw worth *nothing* for the survivors. On player profiles there should be a "care bear counter" that goes up each time they participate in a draw that includes more than half of the original players lol.

Clearly the best strategy in diplomacy free half of your colonies, give them a fully functioning government and end the game with a 10 way draw.

[miminena]

I appreciate the comments, and I'd like to amend my proposed change to the rules. Solo victories should remain possible, but only if the megalomaniac gets 22 SCs instead of 18. That would be more difficult, occur less often, and lead to more 4-way and 3-way draws than the current rules.

This game already ends in big draws way too often for my tastes.

If I could, I would make anything more than a 4+ draw worth *nothing* for the survivors. On player profiles there should be a "care bear counter" that goes up each time they participate in a draw that includes more than half of the original players lol.

sometimes stalemates just require a lot of people, though. once i was in a game where France was threatening to solo and all of Russia, Germany, Italy, and me (Austria) were required for it to happen.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I appreciate the comments, and I'd like to amend my proposed change to the rules. Solo victories should remain possible, but only if the megalomaniac gets 22 SCs instead of 18. That would be more difficult, occur less often, and lead to more 4-way and 3-way draws than the current rules.

This game already ends in big draws way too often for my tastes.

If I could, I would make anything more than a 4+ draw worth *nothing* for the survivors. On player profiles there should be a "care bear counter" that goes up each time they participate in a draw that includes more than half of the original players lol.

sometimes stalemates just require a lot of people, though. once i was in a game where France was threatening to solo and all of Russia, Germany, Italy, and me (Austria) were required for it to happen.

Big draws are occasionally necessary, but even in the case you describe, they typically reflect a series of strategic mistakes. The minor nations in such a draw are already somewhat punished for their mistakes with fewer points in SoS, but not DSS.

Has a player who "survives" as a tiny part of a 4 v 1 coalition really proven they are better than the (often unlucky) player or two who gets eliminated early? Sometimes the answer really might be "yes", but I'd say on average the answer is "no".

[miminena]

This game already ends in big draws way too often for my tastes.

If I could, I would make anything more than a 4+ draw worth *nothing* for the survivors. On player profiles there should be a "care bear counter" that goes up each time they participate in a draw that includes more than half of the original players lol.

sometimes stalemates just require a lot of people, though. once i was in a game where France was threatening to solo and all of Russia, Germany, Italy, and me (Austria) were required for it to happen.

Big draws are occasionally necessary, but even in the case you describe, they typically reflect a series of strategic mistakes. The minor nations in such a draw are already somewhat punished for their mistakes with fewer points in SoS, but not DSS.

Has a player who "survives" as a tiny part of a 4 v 1 coalition really proven they are better than the (often unlucky) player or two who gets eliminated early? Sometimes the answer really might be "yes", but I'd say on average the answer is "no".

sure, but is it right to equate them to care bears when it's a draw from necessity, even if said necessity was self-inflicted?

i mean i also dislike big draws, 3 people is definitely the sweet spot, but larger draws aren't always from a care bear philosophy

[Sunstriker]

What a very interesting idea......
I do think I don't find this idea even remotely engaging or one I'd care to try. At least not with the current rule set up. Going for something beyond 18 centers could be interesting, though a part of me wonders if we might see *more* solos because of it?

One of the big dangers signs is a player getting close to controlling their half of the board and everyone rushing to stop it. You can afford few mistakes. But if players look at the board and see that the player in question only has 14 of the required 24 or something (I just made that number up) they're liable to be slow to respond.

I feel like - though this is speculation and would require playing to prove or disprove this thought - that with players slower to respond by the time they start to respond to the threat, it's already too late. Especially since 18 centers would mean they'd have as many units as every other player put together.

Actually.... to add some nuance to my claim I think among veteran players, solos would occur about the same - only take longer - and among new players they'd go up.

All this said... solo wins are pretty rare in my experience. I'm not a long term vet who's played for ages but I've put sometime into this game. I feel like 3-way draws are the most common, by a wide wide wide wide margin.

Making solos occur less isn't something I'm really worried about from a game design standpoint.

[dargorygel]

18 is designed because of stalemate lines. It is not a random selection.

[Osfos]

You're really that salty about my solo that you posted about how they shouldn't be allowed?

Lol, Lmao, even.

[David E. Cohen]

There is a "no solos" variant, it's called tic-tac-toe. An even more balanced game, one with no possibility of winners or losers, is where all the players sit around in a circle and sing kumbaya together.

I once played tic tac toe against a chicken in Chinatown in New York City. We drew. I did not conduct any diplomacy (small 'd') with the chicken.

[Ernst_Brenner]

"No solos" would definitely be an interesting variant

So like, this would be the Mirror Universe equivalent of a Lusthog game? Like, a game must continue to be played in order to reach a draw of a pre-determined size? Call it a Gohtsul 3, where the game can only end in a 3WD?

I'd play that.

I propose the "perfect equality" variant:

The game must be played until the following target state is achieved:

1. All 7 powers are still alive;
2. All 7 powers control exactly three Supply Centres each.

This is impossible, no?
But maybe that is the point?