should end game requirements be optional?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • should end game requirements be optional?

      i was wondering if there can be an option for victory points where it can be disabled so that the strongest nation which takes over all of the world would win...of corse this would be a game that would come to a reaward and can be emplimented in select games if disired...i got to thinking about it as im geting closer to end game and thought.....what if we tryed this....overall i dont think that this would come without quite a few could base the new requrements on if all the ais have been eliminated/all players have been eliminated, get to so many colonys ect...the victory points does only give us 1 option and i do think that maby the games can be flexable... the world isnt bound simply by points but who can rule entire empires and expand ect. i do not think that the victory points could not be implmented just to alow for options including the victory point games
      ok so my full title of my name is supose to be (bubba camp) c bear i made this name to fit into conflict of nations so you guys can reconize me on both

      The post was edited 1 time, last by (B C)C Bear ().

    • While I admit it would be really cool to see the entire map painted one color, by the time you've reached fifty percent, probably even fourty percent, of total points there really isn't any way you could lose, or even face a real challenge, and by that point games just start losing their fun. I think it might be fun if they made it so that the required percentage of points needed to win could be adjusted, but I think 20% is pretty well balanced for the game to end about when it stops being fun
    • UGH!!! It's only 20%?

      I knew it was unbearably low, but 20%? That is preposterous in terms of reality. There is no way in human history that an informed populous of earth could ever let a nation representing only 20% of the world's power dominate the rest. That's a bully mentality. And nations band together against those bullies, no matter how strong they get. That's why the Axis lost WWII, that's why Rome was eventually brought down. That's even why the British Empire -- which spanned the globe -- was reduced to what it is now.

      I could see maybe 40% for victory, and even that is far too low in my mind, even if it were 60%, the remaining 40% could theoretically turn things around with good strategy and a little luck.

      20% is just too low. If it were up to me, I'd set the threshold for VP win at 67%. However, since this game is starving for players, maybe settling for 40% is reasonable. But 20% is off the charts too low.

      Actually, the VP threshold -- regardless of it's percentage -- is not realistic anyway. Power isn't determined solely by land, but by war materiel, by soldier counts, by their training, by resource production and by resource stockpiles, by munitions stockpiles, by supply lines, by command infrastructure, by morale of the populace (the reason USA lost in Vietnam), by random chance (yes, this can affect battle outcomes), and even by acts of metaphysical intervention (whether you believe in God, aliens, mythological beasts, or magic, etc.).

      However, the VP system is a best-guess way of estimating the power of a nation regardless of the fact that many players will throw their ENTIRE army off against an enemy and they leave their home completely defenseless with the hope that no one attacks them; real nations don't do least not fully.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Devious Rancor ().