In WW-IV it is 'Lower' lol --> 50 of 244 SCs = ( 0.2049180...)

WWIV is understandable, as requiring the usual half+1(123) would take a LONG time.
Viking not so sure on why it is only 26, but thankfully we have the "change win condition" option

Wrote a eMail to the original developer of that map. That was his response:
---

The victory condition was intentionally set pretty low so that players would be forced to interact with the powers they are not neighbouring in order to influence the developments elsewhere. Just focusing on oneself and not seeing the bigger picture was supposed to be a big risk that some other player would then accumulate the needed SCs and get to the finish line, leaving the self-focused player with 0 as if he was eliminated, despite having 25 centers. I did run a test game with strong players, and nobody could come anywhere close to 26 SCs there, but perhaps 26 is not the right number. Maybe 28-29 would work better - though it's hard to say without studying the games.
---

So its adjusted to WTA.

That is so cool, thx for the research,
I agree with him... to a certain extent, for
he does kinda sorta somewhat say: oh I guess a few more +SCs ...

This seems to be a common problem for folks regarding this variant.

The developer wishes the variant to have a victory condition of X, and we should accept that the vanilla version of it is the default.

If however you prefer that the game is won with 50%+ of the SCs then all you have to do is specify this criteria when you create the game.

It's good to look into the designer's intent and, if it is reasonable, to follow it so that we can experience what he/she wants players to experience ~

as opposed to a painter's or author's intent, in criticism

It's nice to have a few variants that do different things with some of the standards. With the placement of each power's supply centers in this variant, and use of home centers (vs. build in any center you own), you can see that the victory conditions have a real purpose.

The assumption being made in both the viking variant and the WW4 variant is that setting a lower standard for victory conditions is a good thing. The argument that the game would take a "LONG" time is irrelevant. It takes a long time to solo on a standard 34 SC map, as well it should. A solo should be a very difficult thing to achieve in Diplomacy, and it should be highly valued.

Kaner acknowledges that you can adjust the victory condictions when creatiing the game, and this is very true. However, the same could be said of anyone wanting to have a faster game. The problem here is that the se game are set with defaluts that are ridiculously low, and 'victories' are being handed out to people who have not earnred them. Both variants would see a significant improvement in game quality if the default VC limit was set higher. Players could still create a quicker game if they wantsd, but if you want a quick game, why would you play on such a large map. I makes now sense to have these be the default settings for all games.

There are several negative elements to setting to VCs so low. First of all many players, very likely most players learned to play diplomacy where you plaay to prevent a solo at all costs. It is the very essence of the game that you're toying with by awarding a 'win' for owning 20% of the map. That's a slap in the face to the spirit of the game. That's like playing risk and saying the first guy to turn in a card set worth X armies wins, the first guy to lose his queen in chess loses the game. Sure, it's faster, but it's not what the game is about. The low SC setting create incredibly crazy dynamics on the board because you've got to start worrying about a solo when a player reaches the half way point. On the Viking map that's only 15 SCs,a nd only 25 on the WW4 map. This is not a very difficult thing to do, and its actually pretty easy to do it without haveing to face off with the other strong powers on the map. You can frequently cruise to 15 or 25 centers and half a solo by pounding on weak and/or abandoned nations. Then if the players in the game are acting responsible they all start acting irrationally because no one wants to give up a solo. Once again, it's a neat idea for a wrinkle, but a wretched idea for games to be set as the default with this dynamic. Additionally The fact that these large map games start with low VCs only encourages players to bail out early whne something doesnt go their way because they know that the game will be over soon and they can start a new one (where they can repeat the process). People pay more attention to a game that's going to last a while because they have more invested in it, and that makes a better experience for everyone.

I like the variable VC options for creating game. It's a great idea. But I think that a compromise between the 50% +1 and the @20% currently in use would be a better default setting. Players creating a game could still slide it up and down. The reason I advocate this is because many players create these game without knowing that setting the VCs is an option, and people tend to sign up for games rather than to create a competitng game.

In my opinion, the primary consideration for setting the default victory condition is the intent of the creator. He stated that his goal with the lower VC was to encourage interaction between non neighboring players which is a valid concern; since the map is large some powers are far removed from each other. After all, you can always customize the VC to your liking.

I myself have had the pleasure of playing this variant once as WTA, and I can testify that the low VC was very hair-raising towards the end of the game, when one player was steadily approaching a solo and the rest of us had to drop our struggles to force him to draw. It could have gone very differently, very easily.

@Ruffhaus 8
I agree that a solo is generally regarded as the ultimate challenge in Diplomacy, but I don't think that half+1 should be set in stone for all variants. I think that defeats the purpose of making a variant in the first place: to provide players with a way to experiment with new takes on the game, with the goal of keeping the game fresh. As to players bailing out when things don't go their way, all I have to say is this: You can't design a game for sore losers. Actually, in long games a player would be more likely to bail out from boredom, as opposed to a quick game where it would be over soon anyways. Also, a game shouldn't be designed for ignorant people who don't know how to set a VC.

I'm not asking for set in stone. I support the variable settings of VCs. I'm not even askign for defaults as 50%+1 although that is what I prefer. I'm suggesting that these variants have been played many times here and found to have significant problems from default settings being too low.

You cannot design a game for sore losers? Really? I have a few thoughts on this, and I'll take them from differing perspectives. First of all the where did a long game ecome a bad thing? The reason the games last so long has less to do with high supply center VCs then it does with people using the maximum time for retreats and disbands. This is just discourteous behavior. If the pace of game is at issue, then setting code to spedd up the time allowed for retreats to one day would expedite games more than lower VCs would. The fact is that this community is full of players who abandon games. Making it easier for them to do so isn't a good idea. If people knew that a WW4 game was going to go on for a while, maybe they would invest some real effort and commitment into it. And setting the RR high to avoild bailers makes more difficult to fill up a 35 player variant. Finally it's not a matter of designing for poor losers. It's amatter of returning to (closer to) the basic precepts of the game, where victory is achieved by controling 50%+1 of the board. It's a simple concept, and it's been proven to work over many years with both the sandard games and variants.

As for the variant designer's opinion, I suppose that the Viking designer has spoken to this. I disagree with his decision, but at least he presented some reasons for it. However, I think that it's pretty clear why this variant is not one of the more popular one played here. The WW4 game was not designed to be won by control of 50 SCs though. This is an arbitrary number selected by the VDiplomacy folks. I'm simply suggesting that since this number was arbitrarily selected, that we take notice of problems that it brings and move the default setting to a highter number. SInce a vocal minority of people seem to prefer a lower setting, I think that a compromise at 75 or 80 would allieve amny of the problems on both sides of the discussion. The Viking game could benefit from a similar approach.

I agree with RUFFHAUS 8 (what happened to the first 7?) about the WWIV victory condition, I think 75-80 is appropriate. A world map with 35 players *should* take a long time. 50 is just too low, and I feel it greatly reduces the mid-game, where alliances shift and the real work begins of stopping solos and reaching a draw. A victory condition of 75-80 would allow for a full mid-game stage, instead of the games ending just as they really get interesting.

Of course, I understand that the VC can be set upon creation, but I'll echo what was said above - most of these games are started with the default settings, and it's hard enough sometimes to get them filled without starting competing games just because of the VC.

As for the concept of a lower condition necessitating greater and broader communication and coordination to limit rapid growth, I think that is still necessary at 75 centers - personally, I think it's necessary at any VC, and most skilled and experienced players are going to be doing so regardless of the VC. These 35-player games have plenty of of inexperienced players and others who just aren't going to communicate much or put their regional differences aside to stop solo opportunities anyway. I don't think that should be a consideration in setting the default VC, or at least it shouldn't be the deciding factor.

Back to the Viking map, I'm more willing to defer to the creator, though I do think adding a few to the VC would improve the games. Maybe even just to 30. I've only played 2 Viking games, so my opinion isn't as strong as with WWIV.

That's my two cents, and my vote for a 75-80 VC default for the WWIV variant.

IMHO,
I don't think the VC's are set too low.

for WWIV: I think 50 centers is an appropriate win condition simply due to the vastness of the map. 50 sc's is difficult to attain. When thinking of the proportion of 50 sc's to ALL of the sc's on the map, you must consider how many of those SC's are quite out of reach. On the WWIV map, there are 34 players and surely at least 10 players will become strong enough to have establish unbreakable stalemate lines, by using the sea-zones and coastal areas effectively.

Kaner had done some work previously on making a map with more sea zones to offer greater flexibility in naval combat. If that were the case, then I would agree that maybe a larger VC would be appropriate; however, as it is now, I think 50 sc's is appropriate simply due to the fact that in most cases, getting a solo victory requires establishing a base on another continent, which is really hard to do on that map because there are a disproportionate amount of sea-zones to the sc counts of individual land-masses. For this reason, the VC should be lower than 50%+. I have never seen a player "cruise" to an easy victory on the WWIV map, unless there are some crucial nmr's or cd's, which is another story. If the game is active, it's usually pretty easy to stop a solo on the WWIV map.

As far as the viking map, I believe it is OK because it was the intention of the creator. And getting a solo on that map isn't a piece of cake either (maybe it is easier in gunboats). As Dipstick points out, it may very well alter the dynamic of the game, but don't we all like this site because of the diversity of the games and the maps? I don't think all the maps must have the goal of all playing like a standard game of Diplomacy, I think it is fine to have some with a slightly different dynamic. Besides, if you think about it, conquering nations and gaining ultimate power WAS easier in the times of the vikings than it would be in today's diplomatic and globalized world.

I cannot say anything about the Viking variant because I have never played it.

Except that, I FULLY AGREE with everything that Raro has written about the WWIV variant.

I also appreciate VERY MUCH that there are variants with different diplomatic dynamics, so I think that it is a VERY GOOD thing that some variants have victory conditions (much) lower than 50 % of the total number of SCs.

On a side note, variants that have an odd number of SCs should have their solo requirement (when it is just above 50 %) at 50 % + 1,5 (and not at 50 % + 0,5) because otherwise the option of having a 2-way Draw is impossible ! For example, the solo requirement for the Known World 901 variant should be 56 (and not 55) out of 109 SCs.

Two way draws aren't impossible on those maps :) gameID=8392

@ Captainmeme :
Yes, you are right but they are impossible as soon as every SC is controlled by players.
So my point is valid.

I agree - I just wanted to get that game a mention :D It was a brilliant one.

Retillion, your opinion on the 50 SC solo is well etched in the halls of shame here at VDiplomacy. It rather invalidates pretty much any insight that you could offer on the subject. It's interesting though that you contradict your own position in the same post though. It's also interesting that the arugment Raro posted above,which you "FULLY AGREE" with contradicts all of your previous commentary on the subject, and your justification for why you threw a game to another player in a pedantic tantrum.

Raro, I'm a bit surprised that you think accumulating 50 SC s on the WW4 map is all is difficult. Perhaps our perspective on what is 'difficult differs'. As someone that has a history of games with 54 and 41 SCs on that map you should have some idea of this, but I suppose the level of difficulty depends on the level of opposition and frequency of NMRs, and other factors. I have not found it difficult to reach 50 supply centers at all. The only difficulty in doing this is that it forces you to play as a soloist to avoid being soloed against. Maybe this is a good thing to some folks and introduces a dynamic worth exploring, but it removes the dynamics of playing for small alliance draws. It also removes the dynamics of 3-5 small alliances competeing against one another for and alliance 'victory' even if the game ends in a draw. This discussion is not meant to trivialize those accomplishments in any way, but to cast a contrast against what gets recorded as a "victory".

Solos are mean to be rare. Very few games end in a solo. Most end in a draw. A solo means that there was complete and abject failure of Diplomacy by all but one player. However, awarding one to a player in control of only 20% of the board is rash and contrary to the spirit of the game, while getting a draw in a 50 SC WW4 game means that players performing well have to prematurely end their games to avoid a solo. Once again this is fine if a variant (of the variant) is sought, but setting the default victory conditions to a horserace is a bad idea, and makes the game succeptable to exploitation and abuse (see Retillion).

Setting the WW4 victory default higher, at say 100, would not necessarily make the game decidedly longer. It seems to me that the preference to set/keep the default VCs at 50 is more about players wanting to claim a cheapened solo for their stats, or to induce group hug draws where no one loses, and everone gets a trophy.

@ RUFFHAUS_8 :

Yes, I once wrote that 50 SCs was too low for the WWIV variant. Don't have I the right to change my opinion ?

To write that "someone's opinon is well etched in the halls of shame here at VDiplomacy" is not nice at all, to stay polite and respectful.

So far, nobody has never controlled 100 SCs in the WWIV variant and I really doubt that it is possible to control 100 SCs in that variant if the victory conditions are set at 100 SCs, unless massive CD's and NMR's happen.

I think that a victory should be at least possible.

There are spots on WWIV that are way too easy to stalemate, especially on the top and bottom edges of the board.

I don't want to get involved in the debate here - I have not played the WW4 map enough to have a valid opinion - but I'm fairly certain there was a game where several players got to over 100. I'll try to find it for you.

Sorry - scratch that. The one I was thinking of was gameID=8066, but the top player was 90SCs in that.

This is the game with the highest number of controlled SCs, which was 90 :

http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=8066#gamePanel

Captainmeme and I wrote simultaneously.

From experience, the Viking variant low sc victory condition creates an amazing dynamic in the game. This is because players form and desolve their alliances quickly and sometimes form weird ones due to the necessity to stop the upcoming solo.

The first time I played it I had the same problem "too few centers" "im gonna lose this" but hey I won as Danmark by a point.
Th second time

same feeling and same result.
So perhaps the designer had this in mind. That players have to really work through their alliances since the lands interwine

Exactly Cypeg. The placement of home centers has a huge effect on the victory conditions as well as the alliances and negotiations needed for victory.

Can a forum entry Title somehow be changed - this should now be WW4 etc.