Hi, i'd like to start a series of games with a twist to them.

The premise is this: There'll be several FFA games, each with varying maps and settings. At the end of each match, the percentage of territories each player possesses will be converted into his score. After the series of matches, providing there is no tie, the player with the highest score wins.

I'd like to see how it changes the dynamics of a diplomatic game, as risking a war with another Empire may not be in your best interest.

Would anybody be interested in joining this? Suggestions regarding the maps and settings to play would also be appreciated.

i love any type of game that is a different. im definitely up for it

just one question. when you say "at the end of the match" what do you mean? will there be a turn limit or something? otherwise the end will be one player will have all territories and the rest eliminated and score nothing

I'm interested and suggestions

Europe since its a general map
Earth since its basic map
East Asia since its a big map

Those players remaining can vote to end the game, and the scores will be worked out then.

If they can agree to it, of course. It may be that everyone just wishes to dominate the entire earth, so confident in their skills.

Soooo, if I get it right, everyone starts in a different position, but may not attack each-other, and after all the neutral territories are gone the game ends?

Moros, I think his idea is simply to equate the winner with the number of territories controlled and that fighting is allowed.

However, it doesn't make much sense to me since typically the winning faction will be the one to control the most bonuses and thus have the greatest income. So long as the map is decent, having the greatest income is directly related to having the most territories.

Then I still have no clue when the game is over.

There's nothing forcing somebody to agree to stopping early. If somebody is dominating quite so easilly that they can win via regular means, and are willing to, then that can happen. It'd certainly give them a large score. A regular win would score them asif they took every territory.

The point is to offer an alternative, to risking everything for a complete victory, or trying to make a deal to take a partial victory. Starting up a small league aswell is a nice addition.

Or perhaps i'm just neurotic in my need to try and make a balance of power in every game I play, heh.

Also, yes having the most bonuses is most likely going to equal the amount of territories. It could have been split that way, but I decided, in the interest of promoting more diplomatic actions, that territory count would be a nicer way to determine the score, in the outcome for peace.

Franco, I think the confusion is over just what is different in your series.

In a normal game, the player that has the most territories is generally the player that wins the game. So just how would this be different?

There's not much of a difference at all, this merely counts your score differently to open the channels for more diplomacy than a regular game. Potentially atleast.

I'd create a RP game, but I fear nobody would play that. Partioning the region, genuine diplomatic actions and treaty forming are what i'd like to play with. I think this, slightly different goal will help foster those sorts of actions.

Obviously war matters, but if 3 nations, of roughly equal strength decide to agree to terms and divvy up the world according to their desires, than that's fine, and is able to be part of the scoring system.

If instead they'd rather risk total annihalation for a complete victory, as it is usually, than that's fine too.

More complex diplomacy is what this new series offers, different to the regular games.

I don't see how it offers anything different.

In a normal game, diplomacy is used to further your own agenda and help you win the game. You have peace to allow for expansion while it suits you and then you declare war to weaken your former ally and win the game.

In your system, you would do the exact same thing. You go for peace when it suits you to get bigger and then attack when you are afraid they are too strong. You essentially can't win without having more territory in either system so I don't see the difference here. The only difference I see is using a series of games to determine the eventual winner but the same could be done in a normal game with regular rules.

Except that every act of diplomacy you perform, ends with the eventual plan of annihalating your partner, which both people realize. This creates a rather shallow pool to dive in, diplomatically speaking. That isn't the case with this alternative.

Not really Franco.

As I see it, both systems require you to take more territory in order to win. At some point, the only possible way to accomplish this goal is to turn on your former ally. Weakens them while strengthening you.

Think about it... what benefit is there to maintaining a truce when your opponent has more territories than you do or when you can't expand elsewhere? You keep the truce in place and you are essentially accepting defeat.

Yes, for one round. That's why it's a series, rather than just 1 game. Understandbly it's not perfect to accept a lower score, but a lower score in one round doesn't make you a loser in the series.

One advantage to these rules is that it awards some points for 2nd place. In the game as is, only the winner is credited in their record. Under these rules a player that consistently comes in second place might actually end up winning the most points if the winners vary greatly.


Also, now that I think about it, this game could reward early surrenders once it gets down to 2 people. If you feel the tide turning against you, it would be better to surrender early and not let the opponent gain more territory/ you lose territory. Unless the game is VERY evenly matched, it seems like it would be a fight to make it to the last 2 spots. I don't see why someone would vote to end the game if they felt they were in a strong position.

Lastly, these rules could be interested if it didn't require EVERYone to vote to end. What if only 2/3ds were required? That would put a major twist on things...

Regardless, i've enough people to start it. I'll wait another day so post if you'd like to join. Anyone is welcome.

To clarify: The games will be unranked, so you'll have no change to your record.
Only territories you hold at the end of the game will count towards your score.
If you surrender or are defeated you gain nothing. - I do have ideas to change this but i'm starting with the very basics
Voting to end will result in the split score, otherwise the person who won gains it all.

To Richard's critism: Thankyou and I understand. You think that because there are no technical gameplay differences, the games will be exactly the same to normal. This might be true for martial tactics, but as I stated, I hope to create new diplomatic options with the game.