k...... =.=

it's just that the game is now in a situation that it's really really challenging among we 3 & if the game can last a little longer it will become very fun, that's i why i tried not to win - i took greece in spring & expected to be forced out of it in autumn, yet italy clicked the wrong button & failed to get me out of it & it became mine......

1.stop being a jerk
2.stop being a jerk

Well, i think that what you say is correct, and indeed i think you have exposed a possibility for cheating! This should be closed asap.

The game ends on SD not on units so I don't think there's much to close fig.

I don't think it does end on SC's any more dangermouse - if i remember correctly i gambled that that it still was SC's and lost badly (something like 300pts)

I don't understand why not building a unit and taking the win is being a jerk?
And i think it is on SCs rather than units!

The win condition was originally units and kestas fixed it a few months ago. The scoring might still be by units though.

maybe we should look at the source... :-)

The other players will only be able to have 16 units total, so you'll win anyways with 17 units.

i think its an imbecilic thing to do- play and not finish the game quickly. It has certainly put me off EVER playing with
yeunghauyip

well winner1, it's just that u lost... france & italy all agreed to make it a long & fun game, & we had the agreement of getting YOU & Rait out of the map before we fight ourselves, that's why u 2 die quickly when there were still 5...

figlesquidge : cheating ??? no no no, i entered greece in spring which had loads of italian fleets around & i expected to be kicked out of greece. I just entered it for fun but still in autumn i supported its hold with one unit in aegean sea. YET, italy told he that he actually picked the wrong choice & let his eastern mediterranean fleet attack smyrna instead of aegean sea to break my support, leaving his albania & ionian fleets become stalemates w me. get it? he had the power but it was a mistake he made... not cheating ok?

what's so wrong about letting the game last a little longer if everyone left agreed?! i wanted the game to turn challenging while france wants to have a chance of winning & italy doesnt want to end third. we all have our own aim whats the problem!? & what does it got to do with the lot of you...

there's another way to have a long and fun game, everybody orders there units to hold, then you can sit there all year looking at your pretty pieces and talking amongst yourselves at how good you are at holding. This however is a zero sum war game, make war till there's one winner. don't let the name fool u, the diplomacy in this game extends only insofar as the players know at some point they will have to attack each other, or in your case not.

Scenario: Player A and B have strong alliance. If it were a face-to-face game, they'd share an equal win together. But instead, through great sacrifice of player B, player A gets in a position to win outright, and under phpd rules, that means he gets the lion's share of the profits.

However, enemy player C still has significantly more units than ally player B. Player A realizes his win is due almost entirely to B's beneficience, and so wants to prolong the game long enough to allow his ally to at least get second place in the game.

This scenario should be allowed to occur; therefore artificially prolonging the game is not cheating; hence what yeunghauyip is trying to do is NOT cheating, even though his scenario is quite different from the one outlined above.

If someone wants to prolong a game he could have won and give the other players a chance to deny him, that's entirely up to him. I don't see how it can be considered selfish or cheating or imbecelic or being a jerk. At worst it is simply being patronising or triumphalist. I've done it myself, before the new points system was in place, but now there is even more incentive for a player to try and win with 21+ units rather than 18, because he will of course get more points, not just more satisfaction and glory.

If the other players don't like it, then they don't have to play, they can go CD and let someone else take their points. Personally I would try and use the opportunity to maximise my points or change the outcome, but I guess that's just a philosophical difference.

It is an entirely different matter for someone who is clearly about to be eliminated to prolong his survival by delaying orders, making pointless retreats etc, that is just spoiling, and I would be highly critical of anyone who took that route. And indeed, anyone who thought the two situations were comparable.

Noodlebug is right, i wanted more units in the end, at least 20. but Ericherboso is partially right, i'm satisfied with the positions when the game ended, the other 2 players left were my allies before other countries died. but what i can tell is, when i won the game, they were in no position to fight against me, their units were faraway from the battlefront while my units are ready to strike anytime, that's a little unfair to them because the reason their units were far away is because they were helping me. so i tried to give them some time, & thought it's fun getting into greece & be forced out by autumn. yet theres a little mistake another player made & i kept greece. that's why, i would prefer the game to end after a long war among 3 countries with all units at the battlefront which can be much more fun!~

Of course, as a player who wants to maximize your "profit", it is logically to do so, but it does NOT mean the it should be done like this......i personally dont like ppl doing that. Moreover, u said that htey were ur allies, so why take away more points from them when u 3 can share the pot. And from what i think, u are way outnumbering, so it is worthless to play on, cuz it would only turn out to be annoying the other players, saying that u want more and more points......

Well, the rules say you should stop at 18SC's, so you are exploiting a rule error by doing this.

Just finalize for crying out loud. Oh. Sorry - what were we talking about again?

Oh yeah - when it's over, it's over. Too bad you won by accident yeung. If Italy had bounced you out of Greece, you better have had every intention of finishing the game next turn because it is totally imbecilic and jerkish to deliberately drag the endgame out - unless the others wanted you to - but it sounds like they wanted it over with.

I for one won't play with Yeun.. again, that's for sure!

Ha, maybe we should let everyone mark themselves "M" or "S" -- M for metagaming, for those who like pointgrubbing, and S for single-gaming, for those who like a swift single game played to win. Then everyone could just make sure they only played with the people who shared their philosophy.

What is the general opinion about dragging on a game, that is to say, not claiming your 18th center, because you agreed to a near 2-way split with another country, and you wish to honor this agreement, and first help them get their helping?

I don't really appreciate some of the comments above.

Mr Y has explained his position and the fact that the other players left in the game agree to cooperate. It is very useful to practice end-game scenarios. I have seen Y go from a total novice to very dangerous player (live games) in just a few weeks. He might want to take a stab at a table-top tournament one day even... If so, he'll need to have as much experience in end-game play as he will for Spring 1901.

I don't think point grabbing is the issue here at all, and if it were, there are easier ways to amass them...

I don't see anyone claiming that Y has deliberately held up a game that they are in and trying to end... So this line hasn't been crossed.

If you want to make a statement, take him on and try to beat him - for a decent pot.

yes flashman, thank you for the compliments.

Guys, read carefully. The other 2 countries left agreed to lengthen the game...

EricHerboso's scenario is exactly why all surviving losers should split the pot evenly.