This may have been brought up already but AnA game ends with this:

Your win record for Public 2x2.5 team games on this board is now 1 / 1 (100.0%)

Your overall win record for Public 2x2.5 team games is now 1 / 1 (100.0%)

I also now have a stat for 2x2.5 team games.

Thanks!

AttilaTheHun wrote:

Interesting bug...http://www.wargear.net/games/player/48686 Turn ID: 464

When playing on AnA my opponent got booted and it doubled my bonus (+46 x 2).  Won't matter to the outcome of the match.

Thanks I have got a fix for this which will go out next week.

tom wrote:

AttilaTheHun wrote:

Interesting bug...http://www.wargear.net/games/player/48686 Turn ID: 464

When playing on AnA my opponent got booted and it doubled my bonus (+46 x 2).  Won't matter to the outcome of the match.

Thanks I have got a fix for this which will go out next week.

Thx tom

Yertle wrote:

Kjeld wrote:

Kjeld wrote:

I asked Gimli to start up a game on my War of the Gear map, which is available through public beta here: http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/1664. However, he keeps getting an error message saying, "This development board is not enabled for Public Beta". Here's what he told me:

"From that link, I do see the options. Earlier when I mentioned fog, i was just using that as an example of what appears under additional options. There is nothing there. But when I just go to the Create Game tab, I get the list of all boards available (yours is red to show it is in Dev). I select the game, and it takes me to the create game options screen. From there all I get is the standard options of naming the game, selecting team play or individual, # of players (set to 5 and only 5), Game Speed and Game Type (public or private).

So for some reason, there is no option to select scenarios from the basic create games tab."

Also, to clarify, the board is definitely set to "Public beta enabled", so I don't know why it won't let anyone but me start a game on it.

Looks like it's related to if a Beta Board has Scenarios then you get the Not Beta Enabled (Ozy's Land and Sea in beta does the same thing).  So the Beta flag isn't getting flipped for Scenarios (which is what is actually played).

Gimli's still encountering problems trying to start a beta game on that board, fyi.

Getting a "Failed to load fog image" message in this game:

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/50087

Thanks,

BD

BlackDog wrote:

Getting a "Failed to load fog image" message in this game:

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/50087

Thanks,

BD

Try again, looks like the Fog image was deleted in the new version, so I uploaded the one from the previous version.  I'll let KrocK know as well just in case something was to be changed with it.

Thanks Yertle!

In an Axis and Allies game, the axis wanted to surrender. I was the last player to accept a surrender, but when I went to accept one surrender, the second offer to surrender lost the previous votes required.  It could be that because the teammate was required to accept the surrender, and then was out of the game when the surrender was accepted, the tally reset erasing the previous votes. Some way to fix this would help end games in a timely fashion, avoid people having to keep coming back to vote.

Toto wrote:

What when there will be 999 units on all the territories ?

More seriously, I find there should be a way to shorten game. They can go on forever when 3 or more players share a board with similar forces. They all know that attacking means loosing.

May be an idea is to increase card value much quicker. For example 4,6,8 ... 100, 125, 150 ... 500, 600, 700 ... I don't know if that would work.

Some other ideas ?

 

I posted this in the map designers forum, but I don't think that gets read as much.  I would like to see an option to automatically end games when a stalemate is reached.  This would be something that can be set by the map designer.  A stalemate would be determined if the lead player (determined by # of units) has not changed in N turns, and no players have been eliminated in N turns.  In the case of a stalemate either the player in the lead wins, or the game is a tie (set by map designer, as is N).

One problem I see with this is that in the case of a foggy map, it would not be clear that the lead has (not) changed.

Ozyman wrote:

Toto wrote:

What when there will be 999 units on all the territories ?

More seriously, I find there should be a way to shorten game. They can go on forever when 3 or more players share a board with similar forces. They all know that attacking means loosing.

May be an idea is to increase card value much quicker. For example 4,6,8 ... 100, 125, 150 ... 500, 600, 700 ... I don't know if that would work.

Some other ideas ?

 

I posted this in the map designers forum, but I don't think that gets read as much.  I would like to see an option to automatically end games when a stalemate is reached.  This would be something that can be set by the map designer.  A stalemate would be determined if the lead player (determined by # of units) has not changed in N turns, and no players have been eliminated in N turns.  In the case of a stalemate either the player in the lead wins, or the game is a tie (set by map designer, as is N).

One problem I see with this is that in the case of a foggy map, it would not be clear that the lead has (not) changed.

 

Not sure this falls under Support, as it is really a new Gameplay type.  The players have the option to End a stalemate, not sure why the Board Designer should set that rule up (unless it was a Gameplay type and not just for protection of stalemates).

Gimli wrote:

In an Axis and Allies game, the axis wanted to surrender. I was the last player to accept a surrender, but when I went to accept one surrender, the second offer to surrender lost the previous votes required.  It could be that because the teammate was required to accept the surrender, and then was out of the game when the surrender was accepted, the tally reset erasing the previous votes. Some way to fix this would help end games in a timely fashion, avoid people having to keep coming back to vote.

I believe/assume Surrenders/Votes to End get reset when a player is eliminated, surrenders, or is booted.  This feels right (since game "state" has changed), although I see the point/possibility of it not getting reset.

Yertle wrote:

Ozyman wrote:

Toto wrote:

What when there will be 999 units on all the territories ?

More seriously, I find there should be a way to shorten game. They can go on forever when 3 or more players share a board with similar forces. They all know that attacking means loosing.

May be an idea is to increase card value much quicker. For example 4,6,8 ... 100, 125, 150 ... 500, 600, 700 ... I don't know if that would work.

Some other ideas ?

 

I posted this in the map designers forum, but I don't think that gets read as much.  I would like to see an option to automatically end games when a stalemate is reached.  This would be something that can be set by the map designer.  A stalemate would be determined if the lead player (determined by # of units) has not changed in N turns, and no players have been eliminated in N turns.  In the case of a stalemate either the player in the lead wins, or the game is a tie (set by map designer, as is N).

One problem I see with this is that in the case of a foggy map, it would not be clear that the lead has (not) changed.

 

Not sure this falls under Support, as it is really a new Gameplay type.  The players have the option to End a stalemate, not sure why the Board Designer should set that rule up (unless it was a Gameplay type and not just for protection of stalemates).

Thanks for your support Ozyman. Your idea deserves to be tested. We have to find something.

Yertle, this is especially needed in tounaments where there is no way to terminate a game.

I think the idea of an automatic game termination on stalemate is workable. Any other conditions that you can think of to trigger the termination?

Toto wrote:

Yertle, this is especially needed in tounaments where there is no way to terminate a game.

 

Then why not just allow tournament games to be terminated?  I'm not sure this is going to solve anything.

If automatic termination is added, I hope it's well displayed when/how many turns and who the winner is and why it's going to be terminated, along with notification of when all that is reset, I don't think players should have to keep track of that.  As well as the Fog issue Ozy brought up.

Still "blech" overall on the issue IMO, I think as the game changes from strategizing on winning to not having the game auto-terminate. 

Again, this is different from new Gameplay options such as Winning Scenarios (ie defeat a particular opponent), and really just seems to attempt to band-aid something that's not broken since players already have the End/Terminate option along with potentially adding more complexity/confusion to gameplay.

tom wrote:

I think the idea of an automatic game termination on stalemate is workable. Any other conditions that you can think of to trigger the termination?

Could be the total number of armies on the board is over X (depending of the board) for more than Y turns ? Thus when you cash armies you would be obliged to use some of them if you don't want the game to terminate.

Yertle wrote:

Toto wrote:

Yertle, this is especially needed in tounaments where there is no way to terminate a game.

 

Then why not just allow tournament games to be terminated?  I'm not sure this is going to solve anything.

You have to decide who will go on for the next turn, or who wins the trophy.

In another thread, Tom's idea to allow a vote to restart the game between the non-eliminated players could be a good solution ?

Toto wrote:

In another thread, Tom's idea to allow a vote to restart the game between the non-eliminated players could be a good solution ?

Yes, I like this idea better as it changes the power from the Board Designer to the players in the game without changing the strategy of the game.  Of course there are big holes with this such as only 3 players remaining and need 4 for the restart.

Yertle wrote:

Toto wrote:

In another thread, Tom's idea to allow a vote to restart the game between the non-eliminated players could be a good solution ?

Yes, I like this idea better as it changes the power from the Board Designer to the players in the game without changing the strategy of the game.  Of course there are big holes with this such as only 3 players remaining and need 4 for the restart.

Why not just have a vote to restart game option in tournament games.  All players including those that were eliminated will begin anew.  (This just sounds like the easiest solutions to me.)

I have not come across many true stalemate games, maybe 1 or 2 in the 1500 games I have played here.  I have had 20-30 tend toward a stalemate, but someone was able to pull out a victory with planning and patience.  I am pretty much against an auto-terminate option (especially in the hands of the designer and not a site-wide rule) and agree with Yertle.  I would much rather have a vote to restart that spanned across all games (not just for tournament games) so that players could vote to restart if they desired and in not tournament play vote to end.

In my opinion, a game that ends in stalemate is in part a design flaw.  The classic example of this in my mind is my Prion4 map which in play testing and the review game played fine, but since the card sets increase fast and reset and the bonuses are relatively small, games tends toward a three player stalemate (a board I want to change).  However, all of the games I have been in have ended and I am pretty sure the others have ended as well.

This game is fraked!

http://www.wargear.net/games/player/46493

I placed and attacked red's capital and I'm pretty sure I took it since it says he is eliminated but his territories still show and it is nobody's turn.

Not sure what happened there but it is up and running now.