DUEL Victory Conditions

Post by **Hannibal** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:47 am

I'd like to open the debate, publicly. What should be the Victory Condition? (No, Kor, trew and I haven't discussed this at all, it's open, trying to include rather than exclude other people).

Currently, the Vic-Con are what I came up with at the design stage - the obvious of : RIP all 3 of the opposing human-player's slots/colours. Or else you win when the other guy concedes.

Option 1 : as is, the above.

Option 2 : you win as soon as a turn ends with your opponent having NO ARMIES left. No need to play it out to take every prov of his. No messing around as he desperately converts WOK to POP to ARM to keep fighting ..... (Could the engine be coded to spot that one player has no armies left at end of a turn, and declare game-over, Kor?).

Option 3 : (the lateral option) : You win if you RIP two of your opponent's three colours/slots/players. !!!! ie, even if he has a massively-powerful slot/player, you can still beat him if you take out the other two!! It would give the guy "losing" an incentive to play on, because he just might achieve it and win, even if he is outgunned? And, it would have a big, and interesting, effect on strategy and tactics: you can't put all your eggs in one basket, one strong colour just using the others to gain lev by taking empties, for example, because you'd leave yourself open to a clever win by your opponent taking out your other two slots/colours and winning ......Now, this is surely more of a skill-component than Kor wanting to be able to re-direct Robos? You would have to keep at least two of your colours/players/slots going and avoid them being ripped! OK, vest most of your strength in your strongest colour, max armies, and attacking through your other colours' empties to gain lev ..... but not so much as to leave your other two colours vulnerable for a surprise-win by your opponent! Me, I like the kind of rules/scenario where, if you spot a weakness in the other guy's "winning" plan, you can go for it and win despite his seeming dominance! Grabbing a very clever win. I favour this option.

4) Any other Vic-Con idea from anyone?

Cheers,
Han

Post by **korexus** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:54 pm

Checking for remaining armies can certainly be done - your end of turn report includes total armies, so the engine could just reference that number.

I do like the idea of alternative win conditions, just to keep players guessing *but* with either option 2 or 3, it would be possible to have both players losing on the same turn! Both players in a close battle could run out of armies, then ocnverting WOK-POP-ARM wouldn't be so desperate. Alternatively, both players could reduce their opponent to 1 player on the same turn. The current set up would allow us to consider score or OOP when this happens, but those are maybe a bit unfair.

How about, kill 2 opponents and have at least 2 remaining yourself? - Otherwise it becomes kill all three again. A bit like tennis, you have to win by 2 clear RIPs.

Chris.

Post by **Hannibal** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:52 am

korexus wrote:
How about, kill 2 opponents and have at least 2 remaining yourself? - Otherwise it becomes kill all three again. A bit like tennis, you have to win by 2 clear RIPs.

Chris.

"By 2 clear RIPs" ?! I think you mean by 1. And you used to be an Oxford mathematician?! I guess simple addition and subtraction are beneath you!

?

Han

Post by **Hannibal** » Thu May 04, 2006 5:21 pm

No reply on that, so I guess my query was OK? If you "have to have at least two colours left to win when the opponent is reduced to one", then there is no need at all to state it, right?! Because .... if you had been reduced to one colour .... the other guy would already have won, right?! So, no need to clutter up the rules with "you need to have at least two colours left to win", OK? It's simple: "You win as soon as your human opponent is reduced to one colour". OK?

That's the way I've written it into the houserules of the OPEN-FOR-PLAYERS game of Duel, i.e. Duel #02 (it's #02 because it's been open for ages).

Han

Post by **korexus** » Thu May 04, 2006 5:26 pm

Ok, so I didn't count properly, but my initial point still stands. It is quite easy for both players to be reduced to one colour on the same turn. That is the problem I was raising, and suggesting a solution to, the other option being to go with the OOP, effectively making the last turn of a game that ends this way a 50/50 chance...

korexus.

Post by **Hannibal** » Thu May 04, 2006 5:32 pm

Ah, you're there. Don't worry about it. I make far more mistakes than you do. I was teasing, not point-scoring. It just seemed so funny, you being an Oxford mathematician and all... totally au fait with Gallois Theory, but crap at addition and subtraction!

Just teasing.

Han

Post by **korexus** » Thu May 04, 2006 11:56 pm

Well known fact: mathematicians can't count. I went through a four year course and only saw numbers for the first couple of months...

What about the point at hand though?

korexus.

Post by **Hannibal** » Sat May 06, 2006 12:17 pm

Well said. I'm aware of that. Or else, I'd even add a comment that will flatter you:

Poor mathematicians go in for it just because they can count, and do badly.

Good mathematicians are soon able to leave counting behind.

I know; I did arts/languages/literature but attended uni maths lectures as well, just for interest... I loved Gallois' life-story, and almost understood his gaol-written theory .....

Anyway, to the point:

The logician in you points out that my favoured victory-conditions could be reached by both players on the same turn. True. Good point. Hmm. Among games between two players or two sides, tennis, draughts and football knockout competitions, Grand Prix and snooker, do not allow draws. But league football (soccer), CHESS, cricket, etc. are quite happy to allow draws. In fact they're possibly over-frequent in those! I'd be happy to allow draws in Duel, especially since I think they would be very rare; I reckon two sides would reduce each other to one colour, or no armies, on the SAME turn, about one or two games in a hundred, nothing like the frequency of soccer, chess or cricket. So a draw in that rare circumstance.

You're probably right (implied) that this would be better than such a close finish (rare) being effectively decided by thje OOP. So, the rule becomes: "But if you both achieve the victory condition on the SAME turn, then it is a draw". It won't happen, I bet you, but it caters for the possibility, done.

A draw is a plus if they play equally well, not a problem, right? They'll both come out happy and keen to play again!?

Cheers,
Han

Post by **korexus** » Sun May 07, 2006 10:25 pm

I have no problems with a draw in the game. Although maybe the players should still fight to the death if the remaining colours are still strong, I also like the idea of a weaker player 'salvaging' a draw by kamikaziing into his opponent. It could be fun.
I just had to make sure that we limited the amount of luck in the game, I'm sure as an ex-VO member you appreciate how bad a random factor like the OOP is for WoK and why it should be abolished as soon as possible.

Chris.

PS, please forgive any spelling/logic/anything else errors in this post, I've had rather too much wine tonight...

Post by **Hannibal** » Wed May 10, 2006 12:57 pm

korexus wrote:I also like the idea of a weaker player 'salvaging' a draw by kamikaziing into his opponent. It could be fun.

"Salvaging a draw"?! I was thinking more of the weaker player having a half-chance of snatching VICTORY from the jaws of defeat .... ! Makes it more worth the weaker guy playing on for that chance, rather than if you knew you still had to obliterate ALL THREE of the other guy's colours ....

And it affects strategy a lot .... one tempting strategy is to put all/most of your eggs in one basket, building up one colour, using the other two mainly as fodder, to occupy empty provs to save them from draining EFF from your "main" colour; or else to vacate provs for your "main" colour to charge through picking up lev bonuses ...... Nice; can still work; but this Victory Condition of taking out TWO of the other guy's three colours means it might backfire if you put all your eggs into one basket - the weaker guy just might take out the two of the other human's colours and grab victory, however strong his main colour is ....! ie more strategy; and more strategic options for the weaker guy to continue trying ...."Duel" is a VERY strategic and skilful game ......

korexus wrote: I just had to make sure that we limited the amount of luck in the game, I'm sure as an ex-VO member you appreciate how bad a random factor like the OOP is for WoK and why it should be abolished as soon as possible.

Hey, you're teasing and confusing me with pram-projectile-merchant DAMEON, the MAD ONE. He refused to ever play standard WOK again because the odds went against him a couple of times. He didn't realise that it is 80% skill, with 20% luck to spice it up to be exciting. It's worth losing against the odds from time to time to preserve the excitement of seeing how a turn pans out, rather than it being predictable and boring. Otherwise stick to chess etc. - great game, different kind.

He also made the mistake of not spotting where the MOST luck lay in Standard WOK: it is not so much in missile/battle results as in which 3 or more of the 10 players go M-3 ..... and whether that throws the game your way or against you .... reducing it to 75% skill or so.

Current VO-members might rail against the luck-component (right, Duke? -just kidding!), but EX-Vo members like it and rely on it (right, trewqh!?).

Cheers,
Han