I know this will never, ever happen - so more of a conversation starter - but I think I could get behind a turn-limit for some games. I am in 3-4 games now that have stalemated beyond redemption and am just tired of them.

I offered to surrender in one, made a stupid suicidal move in another. In a couple we had the "should we terminate" discussion but someone did not want to.

I can think of reasons not to have this - like "playing to stalemate vs playing to win" so mainly I am just being a whiny butt.

Sorry for that - maybe this should be one of those "write a letter to get it off your mind but then tear it up" things -

So here's my take. In most games there's a strict code of conduct that I follow, what I consider objectively the most sporting way to approach an activity like this.

In a game that's clearly stalemated, LOTS more options are on the table. Stuff I'd never normally consider.

If you're in a game that's clearly a stalemate, and everyone but one agrees on that obvious fact, but one wants to continue - well, you're in a situation where there's one clear obstacle in your way to a fair finish. I'd negotiate with the other players. Minimum everybody cooperates to eliminate the obstacle first. You can terminate after, or give the game to one of the rest by agreement... but that one player is basically griefing the rest of you at that point.

See I didn't mind that Fall of Rome game and stalemates in general I find at least psychologically interesting as to who is going to blink first. In Fall of Rome long after I was gone I'd rather have seen you suicide into who annoyed you most or hit both of them equally to take the unit numbers down rather than surrendering.

On the other hand I'm shockingly bad at this despite a decade of it and like 20 years in University at this point.

I mainly avoid games  likely to end in a stalemate, after a six-month 11-man game on World War back in 2017 (that I in the end won). If I end up in one anyway I try to negotiate a termination, if that fails then asm's suggestion is the best option imo. I have on one occasion teamed up against one player specifically to get a termination after he was gone. 

If everything else fails I have near endless patience and have never lost a stalemated game from suicidal attacks. I have lost to another player's suicidal attacks, though, when he chose to go at me instead of the 3rd remainee.

Litotes wrote:

 ...I have near endless patience...

This explains why Litotes is a scary opponent!

Xrayjay wrote:

who is going to blink first.

This is the _opposite_ of interesting to me. I'm not here to compete in "who can log in for the most consecutive days".

asm wrote:

If you're in a game that's clearly a stalemate, and everyone but one agrees on that obvious fact, but one wants to continue - well, you're in a situation where there's one clear obstacle in your way to a fair finish. I'd negotiate with the other players. Minimum everybody cooperates to eliminate the obstacle first. You can terminate after, or give the game to one of the rest by agreement... but that one player is basically griefing the rest of you at that point.

This is an interesting idea, and I have to agree that it's probably the best move. If you surrender or do a suicide move, all that happens is you give the other players the satisfaction of you cracking first, and possibly handing one of them the win.

Xrayjay wrote:

See I didn't mind that Fall of Rome game and stalemates in general I find at least psychologically interesting as to who is going to blink first. In Fall of Rome long after I was gone I'd rather have seen you suicide into who annoyed you most or hit both of them equally to take the unit numbers down rather than surrendering.

Sorry I took you out - I find eliminating people strategically interesting.

Waiting for someone to blink... not so much. 

That's why I rarely play big maps with no fog! Everyone watches the whole board and balances it out until you get stuck.

How do we feel about terminated games in a tournament? Just recently, this one ended: https://www.wargear.net/tournaments/view/3373

The winner played well, but had a 2-0-1 record, while the other top players had 2-1 records.

I would add that we find out things regarding maps when they appear in a BRG tournament. No harm no foul, close losses sting, no doubt. Those games were terminated in good faith. 5 player Swiss system - is a bit of a gamble.

Was still fun for some of us

I know I was part of a vote to terminate in a tournament game once. I forget what it meant for who got to win overall, but I think it played a part.

Some games just aren't going to end, especially on wide open maps with no fog.

and thanks for resurrecting an old thread I started. Re-reading was fun. Hopefully XrayJay, asma and Aiken Drumn return to play someday.

Amidon37 wrote:I know I was part of a vote to terminate in a tournament game once. I forget what it meant for who got to win overall, but I think it played a part.

Those who terminate a game get a percentage of the 1 win. So, 0.2 in a five person game, I believe.

and thanks for resurrecting an old thread I started. Re-reading was fun. Hopefully XrayJay, asma and Aiken Drumn return to play someday.

Be great to see those folks back here.

Targeting the abstainer to terminate once their gone seems to be such a simple and obvious solution that I'm surprised that other suggestions are getting as much credibility as they are.

Aiken Drumn's answer is the right answer. Play with the right level of fog and you don't have stalemates.

BlackDog wrote:Aiken Drumn's answer is the right answer. Play with the right level of fog and you don't have stalemates.

Join a game - let's see if you still got it -

The legends are true...

Sure, what would you like to play?

Sure, what would you like to play?