How should it work? I know we discussed this some time ago, but there wasn't really a concensus reached.
When we are definate how things will go, they can be made!

I think it would be easiest to combine w/ the allied victory option. Create a table that each country can check/uncheck those other countries they are willing to accept an allied victory with. Then, if at any point 2 or more countries, which all have each other checked, achieve 18+ supply depots the game ends

Hmm, I get what your saying. Kestas seemed a little aprehensive before about adding another table, but I think this is a suitable situation. If he doesnt want another however, this can just be added to the empire's data (this is I think how I would do it, since it is easier when just working with tick boxes).
Is is still 18 that must be reached to allow for allied victory?
Also, is there a maximum number? I ask this because otherwise cheats might start games then all allied victory and thus win instantly, adding on points. This combines with the multi's thread running at the moment . . .

I don't think the game specifically limits the number of victors. 7 people could potentially declare World Peace in Spring 1901 and all "win" the game.
And yes, it is still 18 supply depots.

Hmm, you'd also have to add something which all users select to allow allied victory. (and then you'd have to prohibit unchecking it later)

well, that could go onto any game control panel if one was added.
If it is possible for all to have an allied victory, the points would have to be very carefully distributed then!

Dangermouse: Do you mean the game would end when the alliance has 18 supply centers in total (all the supply centers of the allied countries added together) or do you mean 18sc for each country to win? .. Cause I think both aren't very good solutions.
If you have an alliance of 2, I would prefer that the alliance needs 28 supply centers (or somewhere along that number, can be discussed on) to win. And in case of an alliance of 3, you'll need about 36.

That would be my thoughts, although not sure of the figures. However, if the rules say 18, 18 it shall be.
Well, actually, this could be an option, and so people could choose what they wanted.

The official rules state that an allied victory is still 18 supply depots.

36 supply depots is the entire board! That's ridiculous.

But this way, all that needs to happen is for 3 people to get 6 supply centres each, an easy task, and then ally with each other. It's an easy way to win, and I think that that's more ridiculous than 3 people getting the whole board between them

Well, all players are supposed to agree to what kind of allied victories they will allow at the beginning of the game. I can't imagine wanting to allow more than 2 people win so I suppose you could limit the options to just that.

*cough* ... There are only 34 sc's on the entire board ...
Points should be distributed acording to percentages of ocuppation. For example, if, at the end of the game, A and B have a and b sc's (as numbers), A will get (a/(a+b)) * total nr of points for a single player win.
And I think those that do finish the game with some territories should be rewarded even if they lost.

I agree with TheGreatDekuTree. Only 18sc is way too easy, but
then again, in the official rules I believe (if I'm not mistaking) you can only take a supply center in the autumn, which makes a big difference! It is much easier to get 6 supply centers on here. (Look at Turkey, take Bulgaria and Greece and he has already 5sc's after two turns without even warring another country)

I also think it's not too crazy that a 3way alliance should own (almost) the entire board ... It is not real hard to kill of other countries if you work together well. You can have them in a 3vs2 before they realise what's going on.

Elwood, you're out of date.
In the current version, you need to be in a new SC in the autumn to take it.
But yes, alliances need higher targets to strive for.

I read the rules only once when I started playing on here but have never played the boardgame so thanks for correcting me. Still, it doesn't change anything for the situation on here. Although I would prefer to follow the official rules, I think 18 will be too easy.

I think the points you get should be decided only on how many supply centers you end up with. This way a joint win would only be a way of ending the game because it's in deadlock or you want to honor an alliance, and I think the code would be simpler

How about you need to capture;
The number of SCs equal to the total number of allied players more than the previous number.
So;
1player =18SC
2=20
3=23
4=27
5=33
6=All 34
7=impossible. No point in it.

Well, 23 between 3 is still not hard, and 34 between 6 just means killing off one. I think you should have a maximum of 3 in an alliance, because past that the game is no fun. Thenm it would be:
1 -> 18
2 -> 25
3 -> 34
This is my opinion, because otherwise it is just far too easy. However, i guess the official rules will win overall

Sorry to double post, but having re-read the thread above, I think i agree with Kestas. For a joint win, powers should accept it and control a minimum of 28 supply centers (because otherwise it would be used to stop a super-power winning). Then, the game should be finished, with no points given for winning. Thus, going alone will get you a few more points for the 'win bonus', but this will be a viable alternative.
Comments...

This is a tough issue. I think that joint wins should be limited to 4 powers. You might think the limit should be 3, but if there is an alliance of 3, the logical way to counter would be with another triple alliance, leaving someone as a mercenary, who will probably join one of the alliances, making it 3 on 4.
But any reasons to increase the supply centers needed over 18 are pointless. If the alliance is devoted enough to share a victory, then they will be devoted enough to not stab each other. Then they can dominate the rest of the board with a majority of the supply centers and fight amongst themselves after everyone else is gone.
So either they share a victory, or only one of them wins. It doesn't change anything for anyone outside the alliance.
Should shared victories be based off supply centers? If they are, a weaker player would want to start stabbing before they get the 18, otherwise he will get minuscule for points. So the game either ends with the weakest player getting weakly rewarded, or the weaker player will start stabbing, thus prolonging the game. If allied victories are scored independently of supply centers, how would it be scored? I say each player in the alliance should get points based off how big the alliance is. An alliance of 3 gets 1/3 of an individual victory, and an alliance of 2 gets 1/2 an individual victory. In this case, a weaker player has no reason not to accept the allied victory. The larger players in the alliance have a reason to kill off the weaker players, though. Their gains would increase from 1/3 to 1/2. After all, Diplomacy is about betrayal, right?

And draws... The rules say that all remaining players share the draw equally. So if all players agree to a draw, they agree that all survivors deserve to be a part of this draw.
However, I think at least two players, if not three, has to be eliminated and it has to go for about 10 rounds until there can be draws.
I don't know whether or not draws should be shared equally. If draws are based off remaining supply centers, killing off a weak player and getting his supply centers would increase a person's gain. Thus, there would be no reason not to go after a weak player before drawing. Unless you think you will be owned by other players, since they also have a reason to keep fighting. The only person who would currently desire a draw would be someone who is on the brink of death in that case.
But if the value of draws was based off how many powers are left, what would change? Two people remaining is worth 1/2, three remaining would be worth 1/3, etc... So killing off a weaker nation before declaring a draw still increases your gain, but killing off that player also increases everyone else's gain. Would other people still attack you? Eliminating you will also increase their gains. The fighting will probably continue until the increased gain would no longer be worth the time or until all unworthy players have lost.


So how should this be implemented? Well, I think the options should be set before the game is created. When you start a new game, it should ask how many players should be allowed in an allied win, from one to four(one being no allied victories), and how many players should be allowed in a draw, from 1 to 5(one again being no draws), and perhaps in what year draws can be declared.
In game, there should be boxes for declaring up to three powers you are declaring allied victory with. At the end of the turn, this list is submitted and, if the sum of these players' and your supply centers is 18 or more, it sends everyone in your boxes a proposal that they can answer with acceptance or refusal, and you are also given another chance to confirm this allied victory now that you have seen what moves they made. Everyone answers the proposal with acceptance or refusal, and the answer is submitted at the end of the turn. If someone refuses, they are removed from the alliance and the total supply centers are recalculated, and if it is still over 18 all the players who accepted get an equal piece of the allied victory.
Additionally, there will be a button or box or something for declaring a draw. If all the conditions are met for draws to be legal(players left, year reached), it sends all players a proposal, and the game ends in an equal draw if all players accept. Otherwise the game continues.

I don't want to hear anyone say "tl;dr". I demand respect for the time I spend typing this up =(

Thanks for the thought provoking post, but I'm very wary of ideas that require new options to be set, or control panels, or messages to be sent+received.

However draws end up being implemented it must be simple. I was thinking an icon in each player's chatbox header that lets you tick a box saying whether you ally with them (They don't see whether or not you have though).
Then when all allies put together have 18 the game ends. The score a player gets for the game is based only on how many supply centers they end up with, and not only alliances that win get a score.
The score for the number of supply centers you have is something like (supply centers)^2 (perhaps slightly less than 2) so having 18 gives many more points than 17.
This way an alliance won't get much out of all voting against someone; it'd be better for an alliance to work together against that person and increase their own scores by a large amount.

That's what I'm currently planning to do when I get around to this.

Yeah, your idea sounds better. And all surviving players getting points provides incentive to dying powers to stay alive versus getting eliminated. Looking back, my idea is overly complicated anyways. And that method of scoring makes allied victories much less desirable than an individual getting a full 18 supply centers.

You know, if I knew PHP and wasn't lazy and intimidated by that much source code, I'd work on implementing that.

I'll second (or third) that idea kestas.

Well, thats good. Personally, I think the formula should also envolve a constant for having won. ie, a winner would get something like:
(6 / (members of alliance))+((supply centers)^1.5)
[ Any pedants: I know thats more brackets than needed! ]