Kjeld wrote:

M57 wrote:

Kjeld had one as well

That's right, I'd forgotten all about KESP (Kjeld's Engine for Simultaneous Play)!

I remember that thread well.  It pretty much encompasses the dynamics of what was going on at the time. There were the TOS BaO proponents who wanted their fix (pretty much everyone) and then there was you and me, K. BTW, I'm pretty sure that thread is the very first mention of the term Simulgear.  Even after the current engine was decided on, I remember lobbying for that name - my one contribution - even though I was disappointed in the decision.

M57 wrote:

Thingol wrote:

Antastic might actually play ok, depending on the number of players allowed.  It could be a looooong game, which may try the patience of some.

That touches on one of my over-arching design criteria. For me at least, long games are a sign of poor design. I like games that run 15 to 30 moves, with the sweet spot probably somewhere on the lower side of that spread - maybe 18-22 moves.  I suppose you could bump up those numbers up by 5 moves with very large maps, but you get the idea.

Which brings me to one of my problems with Simulgear. I just don't like the one move at a time aspect of play.  I didn't like it on TOS and I don't like it here. I was at one time working on a theoretical Simulgear-like engine that let players plot multiple moves per turn, or turns per move, depending on your definition of the words, and it would play on most any existing board.  At that time, WarGear members were actively involved in deciding on a second engine for play, but membership was mostly made up of refugees from TOS.  It pretty much became a foregone conclusion what SG would look like, in large part I believe because folks wanted to port some of their favorite SG-like boards over here. I fought a valiant but fruitless battle for my idea.  Kjeld had one as well - his was better than SG in my opinion, but this is what what we ended up with.  So ..it's not inconceivable that part of my dislike of SG comes from the fact that I think it should have had a much better and more intuitive engine for play in the first place.

See, this is where I (and I suspect several others) differ from your train of thought.  Typically, if I can win a game quickly, then I really don't consider it worthy of a time investment (granted, the time estimate being by definition not too long) and it doesn't give me much satisfaction to win said games.  There are players who want to build up their win totals and thus might prefer tons of short games.  You might find these players having over 100 games going at one time.  I prefer to put some thought into games and I'll typically have 5 to 12 games going at one time.  Occasionaly, I'll join some quick games as a change-of-pace.  A well-designed simulgear map, especially one which is team-oriented, allows for some good thought and teamwork. On the other hand, I don't think too many folks like games that drag on either.  I guess what I'm saying is, I'd prefer a good game to a quick game and the number of turns to complete the game really doesn't necessarily define how good a game is.

I was bummed when Ed didn't enter an under the sea board......m57 as well.....and you know....riskyback

So this means we can count you on the simulplay list MB?

Yes.....put me on the list!

Throw me on there

I don't mind long maps as long as I feel like they are getting somewhere. I cannot stand games that have stalemated and each turn is some variation of place, attack to get a card, end.  There are other ways for maps to stalemate, but that's the most common.  As a designer I consider it a failure if a stalemate on my maps happens more than extremely rarely.  I'd probably put my sweet spot a bit higher than M57.  I think 30-40 rounds is good for a game, although I appreciate ones that run shorter too.

That's actually my one lingering disappointment with Invention 2nd edition - I feel like games are too short.  Still thinking about what to do about it...

Yeah, 30 to 40 rounds feels about right.  Ozy, when you say stalemate - are you referring to the dreaded 3-player end-game where each is about equal?  If so, I think we all abhor those, but I think that can happen on any map (2-player game excepting, of course).

Thingol wrote:

.. the dreaded 3-player end-game where each is about equal?  If so, I think we all abhor those, but I think that can happen on any map (2-player game excepting, of course).

Not quite. WotR and Ren Wars are pretty much stalemate proof.  At some point the cards alone force the issue.  Fog is also a very effective crab-game deterent.

I'm glad you mentioned the Renaissance Wars map - I quite like that map and had forgotten about it.

However, even that map can be stalemated.  It simply requires 3 players acquiring enough bonus and then a player has to decide, with his large card bonus, which of the other 2 players he's gonna screw over - thus the 3-player stalemate.  I think Throne Defense, by Nygma, was a map where I've never seen a stalemate occur.  Granted, it's only at most a 5-player game.

Thingol wrote:

However, even that map can be stalemated.  It simply requires 3 players acquiring enough bonus and then a player has to decide, with his large card bonus, which of the other 2 players he's gonna screw over - thus the 3-player stalemate. 

Not really. With a large card bonus, you just put all your units on the mercenary and win the game.

Yeah, that's true - I'd conflated that map with another map which had a similar island setup. Like I mentioned, I'd kind of forgotten about the map (and apparently, also, a little about gameplay, lol).

I'm generally down for simul if I have room under the game cap. 

M57 wrote:

Edward Nygma wrote:

I'm curious how factories can be used if they happen for each player at the same time.  If we all autocapture a territory, who gets it?

That's also one of my problems with SG.. It's not truly simultaneous.  In fact, there is an order for execution - so factories don't aren't really executed simultaneously.  What that order is ..is confusing to say the least.  At one point in time I think I understood it.

BTW, for those who might not be familiar with Edward because he is not seen often on these forums - he is one of, if not THE premier designer when it comes to 'programming' factories.  His designs and design theories have been an inspiration to me and catalyst for many of my designs. Most of his boards are ground breaking, brilliant and devilishly complex.

Thanks dude!  It's nice to be appreciated.  With my recent return I'm trying to bring things down to earth a bit.  My designs were getting over zealous.

Mad Bomber wrote: I was bummed when Ed didn't enter an under the sea board......m57 as well.....and you know....riskyback

I forgot!  I was even working on one!

http://www.wargear.net/boards/designer/6436