So did Austria.

Ow, I see. Was this an eog game?

That's weird... plus Russia could have had another Austrian center had he not bounced in it, strangely.

Could be becuase Russia only gained 1 more for a win and Austria had to get 3 SCs for a win.

Is there a tiebreaker system here? As it really looks like it should be a tie. I'd love to know if this is correct or not if/when you find out.

The way it works is if two or more powers win in the same year, the year before is examined and whichever of the tied powers had the most centers wins. If still a tie the year before is examined and so on until one power wins.

I'd like to see two powers win with identical growth and have both powers with the same numbers of home SCs (ie, not Russia). Then what would happen?

Thanks gman. Is that in a particular version of the rulebook or site-specific? By the way, nice moniker!

I like your moniker as well G-man!

I don't know if this rule is in any rulebook because most variants require a majority of SCs to win. This question has come up in other threads regarding both the Economic and USA variants and the answer I gave was said to be the correct one. I believe that Kaner, who programmed the USA variant, said that this is how it works.

Another question I'd like to see answered is what happens if USA and another power both win on the same turn? USA only needs 14 SCs to win so it wouldn't be fair to look at total SCs in previous years because USA still has fewer SCs than the other possible winner. Would it look at what percentage of the total SCs required they had? So if in the previous year USA had 13 SCs and another had 16 SCs and they now both have exactly the amount required to win would USA win because they were 93% of the way to win and the other was 89% complete in the previous year?

Good question gman. Can you say "can of worms"? For multiple powers reaching victory conditions on the same turn, I like the idea of having an outright winner. However, I'm not crazy about previous seasons being the tiebreaker. Barring a better tiebreaker altogether, I think it would be more fair for a tie to be declared in those situations. That stipulation in itself might also change a few would-be ties too, as potential victors might sometimes be able to make plays to obstruct their rivals late in the endgame.

Thank you, G-men, for the thoughtful answers, the answers that lead to more questions. :)

If 2 or more player have the same SCs at the end of the game, the game checks for the turn before, and so on. If player's SC counts are the same throughout the whole game the winner is decided at random.

And this is site-specific, as there is always a clear winner for the classic game.

The way webdiplomacy is programmed, it's impossible to have 2 winners. And it's not possible to make a 2-way draw and let other powers gain a survive (a draw must involve all active players). So it's one winner based on previous turns.

Well, we got the same share of the pot, I think, so all is well that ends well.

It was a PPSC, so you both got the same share of the pot... A WTA-game would be different...

Why are the victory conditions 18 for USA, shouldn't it be 20?

I don't think an alliance like that would be able to survive in a WTA game.

I agree, in a WTA game, I would have turned at some point.... unless you stabbed me first!

So Oli, since in the USA variant, USA has a lower number of SCs required to win, if they were to tie with another power, would the winner be determined in the same way or would the previous growth be looked at as a percentage of a power's objective?

No, it's just SCs total. So a power reaching 18SC and USA reaching 14 would give the win to the other country.