Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
6 Posts

Diplomacy» Forums » Variants

Subject: Alliance victory rules? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Henri de Marcellus
United States
Marin
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
As has been stated before, one aspect that many do not like about Diplomacy is that to win one must inevitably betray one's allies. Many like this aspect of the game, but I am considering variant rules for grades of victory.

What I have in mind currently is:

Absolute Victory: Single player with 18 SC (worth 2 tournament points).

Allied Victory: Two players with 24 SC combined (1.5 tournament points).

Minor Victory: Three players with 30 SC combined (1 tournament point).

Is anybody familiar with any existing rule variants along these lines?

- Henri
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Haver
United States
Upper Arlington
Ohio
flag msg tools
www.theCOGS.org
badge
www.theCOGS.org
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There are many, many scoring systems and everyone who plays competitively has their own opinion. I suggest going through this list in the World Diplomacy Database
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Henri de Marcellus
United States
Marin
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Cashtool wrote:
There are many, many scoring systems and everyone who plays competitively has their own opinion. I suggest going through this list in the World Diplomacy Database


Thanks very much. These all appear to be for adjudicating tournament points with a solo victor or with a draw situation. I am interested in rules that allow for alliances to plan for shared victories with shared results.

- Henri
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Shields
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
hdemarcellus wrote:
Cashtool wrote:
There are many, many scoring systems and everyone who plays competitively has their own opinion. I suggest going through this list in the World Diplomacy Database


Thanks very much. These all appear to be for adjudicating tournament points with a solo victor or with a draw situation. I am interested in rules that allow for alliances to plan for shared victories with shared results.

- Henri


Hi Henry,

Thanks for raising this.

I guess I have a question. In your system, would players have to commit in advance to working together in some way that could be enforced, or are you simply trying to come up with a method to assigning points to players that choose to work together and stick to it?

If it's the later (which is what I'm assuming), it seems to me that from a practical standpoint your suggestion isn't really that different than most other scoring systems. For example, what do you intend the functional difference to be between a minor victory in your system, and say a 3-way draw under the regular rules?

In both cases you've simply got 3 guys who took over the board and decided to call it a day. I do note that you have a diminished supply center requirement to force the end of the game, but there have actually been tournaments that did that too. (and truthfully, once 3 guys have 30 centers, picking up the remaining ones isn't much trouble.)

There used to be a semi-common tournament rule on the east coast of the US that said that a coalition of players who owned 29 centers could vote to end the game over the objection of the other powers. In that case you had a few players (usually 3) who simply forced the game end and took the "draw".

There have been other systems that likewise tinkered with the end game conditions to speed up the conclusion of the game.

So I guess with that in mind it seems like the main difference between that and what you suggest is really just whether we call it a "victory" or call it a "draw". But both are simply cases of a subset of players defeating everyone else, and then receiving a number of points less than what a solo gets.

I think what you're suggesting is structurally fine as a scoring/tournament system. It would certainly work. I will say that I think the specific numbers you assign might need to be altered. Getting to 12-12 with a partner is much much easier than getting to 18. I'd think that assigning it only 25% fewer points than a solo doesn't really recognize the significant difference in the accomplishment. Honestly I don't think you'd ever seen anyone bother to get to 18 in such a system, at least not against opponents of equal skill.

But give it a shot. I'd certainly be interested to see how it affects play style.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Bart
United States
Winnetka
California
flag msg tools
designer
Baseball been bery bery good to me
badge
This is a picture of a published game designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
When you start a game of Diplomacy, there are only two possible outcomes:

1) You achieve solo victory over the other six players, or
2) You don't.

Dividing #2 into multiple classes corrupts the game. There is no need for shades of failure. You conquered the world or you didn't.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Henri de Marcellus
United States
Marin
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think I ever replied to this. Thanks, Matt, for your very helpful reply. I haven't tried out the rules yet, but I agree that they would essentially be similar to a two- or three-way draw, except perhaps that they would perhaps be more premeditated/formalized. Maybe the point system should be 4 for solo, vs. 2 for 2-player and 1 for a three-way alliance.

As you say, I should just try it and see.

Thanks again,

Henri
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.