I'm of the opinion that WWIV games shouldn't even be made with 1 day phases (I mean, allow it, but it should not be encouraged). I would like seeing 100+ unit megacoalitions fighting each other in WWIV lategame, but obviously this could only feasibly happen in games with 2+ day phases.

That being said, I think a number in the 75-125 range would be a good cutoff for victory.

I think the one over halfway rule is probably best...otherwise 2 people winning at once sucks.

121 SC's. People know what they signed up for when they joined after all.

50 is far too short. With 50, a victory in say North America, is a victory over the world. 121 sounds great.

plus after a center point a lot of your units wont be needed anyway if they are too far behind the lines

However consider how the game slows down (at least for me) when picking coastal unit movement or convoys. I don't know *how* bad it could get, but I know in games of World Diplomacy once fleets are in every major body of water sometimes it takes up to 10 seconds for the browser to register a single move order.

thats a good point, ive been on maps where ive had thirty plus units and the thing slows down a lot

The three games the maker showed on http://www.dipwiki.com/index.php?title=World_War_IV had the rule "35 SC's or most Supply Centers after 18 Nations lost all SC's". Each game had a winner but they weren't always clearcut-one game had a winner w/ 32 and two close behind with 30 and 28. Doesn't seem like a true victory. 121 sounds fun, but will it bog down the server or cause bug problems? You'd really have to work for your victory, entering 100+ orders!

So....51-81 is probably more realistic.

I say try 81. If it needs adjusting, adjust it later.

50 seems low. Theoretically there could be 4 winners. 61 would allow 3 winners and 81 would allow a maximum of 2 winners. So, I think 61 or 81 would be best, but how would you account for multiple winners with the same number of SC's. It seems like they should be awarded a draw, with the others awarded survive. Whereas multiple winners where the SC's are unequal, the one with the most SC's would get a win.

I do not think 50 is too low. That's a lot of SCs! I don't know about you guys, but I put a lot of time into strategizing the movement of 10 scs, let alone more than 50. Also, with as many different powers are out there, I don't think it will be as easy to 'run away' with the victory as in smaller format games. I think this game will be plenty long and would hate to see it go that lowly state of people not staying interested due to time/length demands. I have plans this summer. My vote is to remain at 50, or, at least not to exceed 65 SCs. Imputing the orders for more than that would be harmful to my eyes and brain.

I agree, I can see many players who could lose interest if the game drags on too long, and there is no guarantee yet that many players reaching 50 at the same time will be a simple task. We should test how these games go first.

I agree with tt and Raro, lets finish the games we have going now and then give feedback

Yea, I say we let some games finish up, see how they go. If they are too low, we could raise it. I say between 81 and 121 is best, but lets test and see...

http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=650 and http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=649 join up boys

agreed, leave it at 50 for the first few games while we figure it out, once we see how things play out over a whole game it will be much easier to determine the right number for victory

sorry to be a party pooper - but there are no land bridges visible on the map we have here.

ie. SRI is adjacent to MDR
LBR is NWE
MIA is SNC
SAP is SAK
etc...

http://www.dipwiki.com/images/c/cb/WWIV.gif

*shrug?

Another question, what happens if two or more people surpass the victory conditions in the same turn. Do they all win? Does the one with the most SCs win? Or do they draw or something weirder?

@kaner: I'll take a look. Should be easy to fix. Some SC's are missing too...

@guak: I didn't change the adjucation-code, so it'll be a surprise for me too...