and if it the same number the previous year, then it would go to the year before that one?

Yes. And if somehow the 2 or more players have the same number of SCs every year the winner is randomly selected.

Guaroz and I thought we would test out the random selection: gameID=14892

right on I appreciate your time!

I'd like to protest against this. If you reach the winning conditions together, who reached the more SCs the previous year is irrelevant. A win's a win. Surely the points should be equally split?

Example: A has 15 SC for 10 years and then gets 3 SC, B goes from 3 SC to 18SC in a single turn - the game is effectively saying A deserves a win, when clearly B has done more to deserve one.

So are you saying that the player who has the least amount of SCs the previous turn should be the winner?

No, I'm obviously not saying that, read above. "Surely the points should be equally split?"

If you're playing WTA, there is no prize for second place, we all agree. Why is there a prize for penultimate turn SCs? It seems to go against the spirit of WTA.

Well I'm not sure about the coding problems that this would entail, something for someone with a better understanding of php than me.

Being able to draw 2 (or three) of the remaining players if they reach the target SCs at the same time would be a good addition if you ask me, with practical ramifications for team based SRGs.

I suppose this is less of an issue with PPSC, where you can argue that the 2nd winner should get less SC's because they weren't ahead the previous year, but in terms of WTA I think it's important.

Mfarb, If you take one more sc on that same year you win the game.
I won a solo by reaching 51 scs and my opponent got 50 on the same year.

In the previous year I was at 48 while my opponent at 49.

Mfarb is asking if two players got 50 SC, and the year before both got 49. Does it go two years back? Three years back?

Either way I think this needs to be re-examined.

The main reason that this is an issue is because the victory conditions departed from the 50%+1 protocol. However, in cases where this occurs, the best (and most often implemented) method of handling it is to play on another year, until one nation has enough centers to win, but more than any other player. For example 101 supply centers trumps 100 centers. Looking at who got to 49 first or who had more SC the year before is completely irrelevant. Also I would like to point out that the 50 SC threshold is absurdly low, and that by extending the victory conditions to 80 or 100, you avoid this scenario is a very high percentage of games.

my question was less about the points and more about who the "winner" actually is. Kaners example game would suggest it is chosen at random. Others bring up a good point though.

A quite popular variant, 1900, plays on until one player has more centres. Several other variants do this as well. If someone were to write up the code for something like this, it would get some decent re-use. That, and it's a better solution anyways. "Previous turn" centres sounds bad, and random sounds horrible. Just play on.

I agree 50 centres in a 244 centre game is way too low. The various groups of players are essentially playing independent games, since many players will end up unable to affect the eventual winner. You also miss out on some interesting alliance shifts. This is especially unsatisfying for WTA play. But I assume this variant gets used mostly in the weird PPSC mode? What a strange animal is the PPSC mode...

+1 for a better system to replace 'previous year.'

zurn - on one hand you're right, but on the other.....inputting orders for 100 units is absurd. Capping it at 50 makes it a whole lot more manageable.

But I agree with your point. A player could stay on one continent and solo easily.

Well, I assume anyone signing up for a Diplomacy game with over 200 centres knows what they're getting into... anyone tried a live 5 min game? ;)

In a WTA game where the win threshhold is say, 10 centers, and 3 players get 10 centers in the same turn, the winnings should be split between them. They are winners, and winners take all. Ofc the solution to not splitting WTA winnings is not to set winning conditions that more than one player can attain at the same time.

Not exactly winner takes *all* then, if they split the winnings. What you've described is a 3 way draw, which if they hadn't agreed to one, would be frustrating. Playing on is a perfectly valid and enjoyable solution I think. The >50% rule isn't written in stone.