You can create a WWIV game with whatever victory condition that you desire.

Just scroll down and set it:

Alternate winning conditions:
Target SCs: (0 = default)
Max. turns: (4 < maxTurns < 200)

how do we know when we join where the game victory conditions are, I also think 50 sc's on this map is way too low, especially with the amount of NMR's there are, very frustrating when you spend the time at a game and someone on the other side is flying through because of nmr's and is done at 50, not to take anything away from the players who fought their way to 50, but solos are supposed to be extremely hard to get.

When you go to the page to join games, you'll see something in the top-left corner which says something like: 'World War IV, EoG: 121 SCs or "Autumn, 2200"'
It's right below the date and pot size information which is in turn right below the title.

Yes, I understand that. That's not the point. The point is the default is set up for 50 SCs and that means that most games being created use the default victory conditions, which is a ridiculously low number. Why wouldn't the default be 123, which is half plus one of 244? And then if you wanted (for whatever inane reason there might be) to have a 50 SC game, you could customize it.

Because the person who put it up decided so.....much as Sengoku is 2/3. You have the power to construct the game that you want.

Although, you have me thinking about what the dynamics in a EoG: 10 WTA version might be like.

Start: 1 day, 18 hours (Sun 05 AM)
reinassance1 days /phase (normal)
Pot: 40 - Spring, 1901, Pre-gameNMR:1/1

Coopolican (168 / 60+), DerekSmalls (86 / 98+), the_flying_cow (51 / 60+), squallMed (48 / 98+)


Here is a game, where exactly do I go, this is after I when into 'games'-New

That game doesn't have a non-default victory condition set. Here's one:

Viking Diplomacy IV, Gunboat, Anon, WTA, NMR:5/1, EoG: 43 SCs

ok, gotcha, I think Ruffhaus is right, all solos, no matter what game should be 50% + 1 and anything under or over that should be set by the originator, just makes sense.

The problem with changing it, especially now, is the time commitment. When you join a game, the site tells you approximately how long it will take to complete based on the phase length and the historical number of turns. For example, a WWIV game with a phase length of 10 days would take about 267.3 days to complete. To the best of my knowledge, this does not vary based on the victory conditions. So, players who join a game with a higher victory condition might be given a time limit much lower than is realistic. This problem could be solved by resetting the statistics on the variant, but there's another problem anyways.

As has already been pointed out, there is almost always at least one CD in a WWIV game. Increasing the victory condition would increase the length of the game which would in turn increase the likelihood of getting a CD over the course of the game. Maybe the CDs would end up balancing each other out, but it's more likely that CDs come from players who think they're screwed because they're up against a guy with 40+ SCs. Also, this long game would increase the odds that a good player CDs. When a player with even 20+ SCs CDS, you will be seeing some really strange and problematic things.

That being said, if you want to be a 'majority purist' then go ahead. I personally wouldn't want a game which would take that long.

I understand your concern, but then, if game players remaining feel the way you do, more draws will happen. And again if players want a shorter game they can change it to 50 sc's and then those can join. I didn't know until you told me that the default is set if otherwise not shown for the amount of sc's needed for solo. It just seems solo of a map of this magnitude is too small at a mere 20.5% of scs. But it is what it is.

what I want is better looking units :P
The game says so: World War IV, EoG: 121 SCs or "Autumn, 2200" if not then is default.
The only game that is balanced is the real dip map, and so, the number of supply centers. anything else is just variables,statistics, point of view etc. Similarly wth viking variant it is 28 out pf 81.I hated it at first but then I enjoyed the shifting alliances. Of course when nmr's take place or bad playing the game becomes way easier. and then is the time issue.

You guys are still missing the point, and gman most of all. The discussion is about the default setting being set at 50 SCs. That's like setting a standard game's victory conditions at 8 SCs. And citing examples of games with 10 day turn phases is lunacy. Any game with 10 day phases is going to take a year to play because the retreats and builds are also given 10 days.

Once again (for people with reading comprehsion issues) the problem is that the game as set up here has the default set at a ridiculously low number (less than 25%) and awards a win/solo to whomever races out to 50 centers first. That's a joke! It's fin if you want to make that an experiemental thing, or have a 'fast game', but it shouldn't be the default setting.

And to get back to the length of game issues, that point isn't really relavent because no one is ever going to get a 123 center nation. But it's absurd to have the whole board going apeshit about a country that's getting close to 50 centers. And you're ignoring the fact that the game will almost certainly be called draws after the alliances become rigidly defined. and solos are prevented.

I think that I have actually hit the point well. In case you have reading comprehension issues, I can restate what I have said before. I think that whoever implemented the map made the choice of 50 SCs based on their own opinions of what would be best. I think that the best thing to do is just not complain about it, and accept the changed dynamic. Whoever implemented the map thought that they would not want to play such a large scale game and probably didn't want the alliances to become rigidly defined. The smaller scale allows flexibility at a much earlier point so that more players are involved in the alliance changes and, as you put it "going apeshit" which is in my opinion (and probably the implementer's) the fun part of the game. Stable rigid alliances aren't fun. Dynamic, changing alliances are what make the game much more interesting. And, along that vein and because of gopher's idea, here is a WWIV WTA game which ends with one player capturing 10 SCs.
http://vdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=8500

And, if you don't like the way the map was implemented, you can just play the game the way you like. I think it's quite rude and unnecessary to describe someone else's decision, based on a matter of opinion, as a "grievious mistake."

Yes, and the person implemented the map in a flawed fashion, and recent gameplay has demonstrated the issues caused by the mistake. It's not rude or unnesecessary at all to voice an opinion. I started this thread in hopes of generating a conversation based on my experiences with this map on and off this site, which are far more than you have ever known. I suppose that only people that agree with sophmoric points of view like yours are entitled to opinions? My opinions are actually based upon experience and fact, not preconcieved opposition to changes. You played this variant less than a handful of times, only surviving once, and never had more than 16 centers. I don't think that your opinion means squat in this debate, because you cannot have understood the dynamics in question. Try playing a nation that has 30+ centers and "loses" because someone else got to 50 centers ahead of you on a mpa with 244 centers. Try having the entire board attack you because you're close to 50 centers, which is less than 25% of the total. You're really just blowing air out of your ass here.

The number of SCs necessary for a win has nothing to do with the dynamics of alliances. That's just some half baked expalnation you created to suggest that you have a point, or even know what your speaking about.

The reason I asked that the default be reconsidered is because the default is set too low, and many players have expressed the same opinions of wishing the game went on longer. It's only no talent fools like you that get eliminated in four out of five attempts at it that want shorter games. Now I'm starting to understand your logic though.

then, Ruffhaus, why not change it from the default when you create the game? Seems you are making a big deal out of nothing

+1 Fortress Doerr.

RUFFHAUS: I don't think it's rude or unnecessary to voice an opinion or start a conversation. I think that your way of raising your opinion is what was out of line. Calling someone's personal opinion a "greivious mistake" is what's out of line. That just begs a big rude debate.

I have only played this variant 4 times, but that represents a little over 6% of my finished games. In contrast, this variant is one of 73 and so represents a little over 1% of the site's variants. So, I have actually overplayed this variant. In contrast, you have only completed one game of WWIV. (Which is still overplaying at 4.5%). I have also survived two, not one of my games of this variant although I had a 0 SC survive in a third. (Which I don't count as a survive.) So, I have played to the end of this variant more than you have. While I don't have the experience with this variant near the endgame that you think I should have, neither do you. You have not tried "playing a nation that has 30+ centers and "loses" because someone else got to 50 centers ahead of you on a mpa with 244 centers."

I have however had the experience of the board attacking me as I close in on 25% of the SCs. It happens very frequently on smaller maps such as classic where 9 SCs is over 25% of the map. So, I am not "blowing air out of [my] ass."

The number of SCs for a win has everything to do with dynamics of alliances. In fact, you pointed that out yourself. As you close in on 50 SCs, the alliances change because you're close to victory. If the victory condition were 123 SCs, the alliances would not change at the same point but would instead change once you hit about 90-100 SCs.

If other players think the default is set too low, they aren't doing much about their issue with the map. They should be posting here. But they aren't. And that's because they're doing more than you are about the issue. They're making 123 SC games and actually solving their problems.

We actually had a discussion similar to this on a thread about the Viking variant, where the original victory condition is far less than half plus one centers. That discussion brought about the option to create your own victory condition. This basically shows that not everyone will be pleased, but for once the solution actually allows that to happen.

So in all fairness why not just make a game with the victory condition you want? I just feel any discussion about the WWIV design should be aimed at trying to balance it.