So if the draw is 16-16-2 the person who has 2 moves on?

Some how I suspect the big 2 would never agree to a draw in that game and would both protect the little guy from being stabbed. I don't think that structure will work very well.

the 16-16 players should figure out a way to steal that one last supply center and they also would know that the 2 player would advance so they can plan and react accordingly . Also, I literally just thought of this idea 5 minutes ago so if anyone has any other solutions I will gladly consider them.

How about time limiting the games. All games end at the end of Retreats 1910, and whoever has the most centers then wins. This should make it good fun free for all.

I think it is a cool idea. I'd play. The games might go on literally forever, though. I think it would be fun to be the guy with 2 ("I'll throw the game to the guy who votes draw... Whoops.. You both voted for the draw? Sucks....")

1910 would be too early in my opinion. 1920 would be better I think.

Most games would end before 1920. The idea is to not let games get stale and play out to a conclusion, and in the last two years, make people play for the win.

I like it. I think the fewer additional rules the better (less confusion, more pure, less chance of unintentionally changing game dynamics, etc).

We could do a test run with a live game. The idea would be to learn from the test, not necessarily win it. So we could do public press only and agree to ready up asap.

My hypothesis is that this will cause more solo wins than the masters tourney, but suffer from the same problem of a few/some/most players ignoring the intent of the tourney and instead voting draw when it is not in their nations interests.

@santosh- But surely 1910 is too early. I've played a lot of games where every power was still alive in 1910.

Forcing an early end would cause a disadvantage for certain powers. I think Austria would be far more likely to be eliminated quickly in a game set to end in 1910 than one in 1920. The rationale behind that being that Russia, Turkey and Italy would realize that with only one turn they need to eliminate as many people as quickly as they can and they could kill Austria without greatly upsetting the balance of power. It could also work against anyone who can be ganged up on easily (i.e. everyone who isn't England or Turkey) and cause a more hurried conclusion than a game which was set to end in 1920.

One way to make sure that the games didn't become stagnant could be to say that a 17-17 draw is the one draw that gives the leaders each a 50% chance to move on. This would make games that were split 12-11-11 have somewhere to go.

Make the top player move on and, in the case of a tie in a draw, let the players in the game vote for the true winner. So the 17/17 would be decided by the eliminated players on a simple vote.

Gang-up-on-Austria might seem to be a problem at first glance, but it isn't. 1910 isn't very early in the game, and only about a couple of years before the beginning of endgame. Concerns with the opening are the same as the classic variant, it's easy to last until 1910, but it's not so easy to last with some SCs to your name.

Besides, it's not an new idea. Several tournaments use it to keep game length down, and the considerations you need to make, change. For example, now when somebody attacks you, you might show him a defense that keeps his gains low for too many years.

But I agree with jcbryan - we should run test cases with all ideas, and then decide with the one we think affects game dynamics in the most interesting manner - or not at all.

Alright so the options we currently have are 1) fixed time ending around year 1910 to 1920 2) in the case of a draw with two players tied put it to a vote among the other players.

and the player listing as of now is
1) uclabb

others can add their names to the list as we continue discussing the rules

I certainly approve of the idea of trying to get players to play for the win and not a simple draw. What if a player gets to 16 or 17 centers and the rest refuse to draw? In that case will the 17 center player withdraw from a few centers to shake things up? Or will he or she just hold fast and demand a draw after a number of years?

How about making this have potentially multiple rounds, by continuing rounds until you have 7 solos in total. So if in round one, out of the 7 games you get 2 solos, those 2 players have qualified for the finals and the remaining 46 players move on to round 2, five of which would be randomly picked to sit out, unless of course you have any quitters. This would take a lot longer to get 7 qualifiers of course.

I did think about somehow making it a double elimination tournament, such that the 7 winners from round 1 advance and there are 6 games from the remaining 42. 6 winners from there. I just couldnt think of how to set it up when games needed exactly 7 players.

My thinking with the whole setup is this: usually in normal games you have 2 players who emerge in a set alliance. wanting to ensure a part in the final draw they continue onwards. in this new format though, there is so much more incentive to stab your ally you could take into the endgame

Round 1) 7 games of 7 players each winners through
Round 2) 1 game of 7 players winner wins

I don't think anything more complicated is needed

My 2 cents:
First, sounds like an amazing idea, would be interesting to see how it worked in practise
If you have a fixed ending time, it should be set late enough that it doesn't come into play except in games where there is a real prospect of perpetual play. This means that 1920 is probably about right.
The 16-16-2 giving the 2 an advance sounds hilarious. It might be fun, or annoying, I'm not sure, but it would keep little guys interested.
Demanding exact solos will make the tournament take far too long from the experience of the Masters (where it was fine because the pairings for one round didn't depend on the previous round's results)

Just a thought, don't really know how much merit there is in it: keep the most-SCs-at-time-limit rule (1912 sounds like a nice round number to me), but in case of a draw at the top the winner is the highest on the following list (ranked in approximate reverse order of difficulty):

1) Italy
2) Austria
3) England
4) Turkey
5) Germany
6) France
7) Russia

For example, if Italy and Germany are tied after 1912, Italy advances.

Do you really think Russia is easiest? Teach me!

I would not dare do such a thing; I'm a rank beginner. The order of the list is completely open. I'm getting my impressions from the Sharp book; since it's 30 years old now, the relative rankings might be dated. Let me turn that one around: *you* teach *me*!

:)

Of all the countries I've played so far (which is not all of them), I like France best, for what that's worth.

How about, if there's a draw after (splitting the difference) 1915, then the one with the lowest GR at the start of the game goes through (lowest GR because the weaker player held a stronger player to a draw).

I think this would be very interesting. Im in if you set it up

@SpeakerToAliens, the usual thing is to let higher seeds go through...

Count me in too. You need a few easy marks. :)

@TGM:Yes but the player with the lower GR played better, under the circumstances, than the player with the higher GR. That's all I was saying.

That said, after 62 games my GR is more then 3000, so if I'm able to join, my GR would probably be the highest (worst) in the tournament. I'm a purist - I usually play WTA and fight on to the bitter end (62 games, 1 win, 7 draws, ...).

1) uclabb
2) spartan
3) rufus firefly

Like the idea. I'm in.