Mandatory War Games

[ntcbadabing]

Concise description:
Mandatory war games would be an option to discourage or actually eliminate stalemates in games with the mandatory war option selected.

Specifics/Details:
The 'Mandatory War' option would be in the list of game options and the 'Mandatory War' setting would either be 'Off' (default), '1', '2', or '3' with the 1, 2, and 3 being how many turns a player can go without winning a territory before being kicked and the player's army go to neutral.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
I've seen many people trying to come up with solutions for getting rid of stalemates and just as many (myself included) not too fond of truces. But the real problem is both of those lead to looooong games of people just stacking and are really just tests of patience. This game option would give players who do not want to be in tests of patience a game setting to play where you're guaranteed a game with a good fight! It forces a warring strategy on all that play. Probably needs some fine tuning, hopefully there'll be some comments.

Thanks

[MoB Deadly]

You can use the Round Limit feature to prevent stalemates and obnoxiously long games

[betiko]

You can use the Round Limit feature to prevent stalemates and obnoxiously long games

and the solution he proposes is very bad anyway. taking 1 territory every turn doesn't prevent stalements mostly in games with escalating or flat rate spoils.

[ntcbadabing]

I'm well aware there's more than 1 way to end/ prevent / whatever stalemates.. this type game would create a game where all have to fight. I probably should have included in the description this option would encourage all out fights and thus an increase of warring strategies since it seems all the replies are about is stalemate prevention. I know round limits, terminator, etc encourage the same in a different way.. the mandatory war option would allow 'standard' game types with a high, or at least much higher, probability of competing war strategies to the death.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm well aware there's more than 1 way to end/ prevent / whatever stalemates.. this type game would create a game where all have to fight. I probably should have included in the description this option would encourage all out fights and thus an increase of warring strategies since it seems all the replies are about is stalemate prevention. I know round limits, terminator, etc encourage the same in a different way.. the mandatory war option would allow 'standard' game types with a high, or at least much higher, probability of competing war strategies to the death.

Suppose this game type is created, and we're in a stalemate.

What do I have to do in order to keep building and stay in the game?

I simply take a 1-man territory every so often. Other players, who want to continue the stalemate but don't want to be kicked, would do the same. Ultimately, you'd get 1-man territory swapping.

How does your suggestion prevent this outcome?

[ntcbadabing]

It doesn't prevent it 100%.. but it would ad a variable to the strategy of the game you didn't include in your example, which would be players would position themselves to make it difficult for other players to trade 1. You could win just by being the last player to successfully win a territory. So the only way a stalemate could happen would be if all remaining players were trading 1 territory.. and if 1 of those players was receiving just one or 2 more reinf per round, the 'stalemate' would be limited before that player would be able to close off whoever he was trading with, which in that case, his trade partner would get kicked if that player can't trade or assault somewhere else. I wouldn't see that happening very often.. basically, and what I should have opened with, is the 'mandatory war' option would be an option that would lead to entirely new play style and strategues, which in turn would expand on all the different strategies CC has done a good job of providing game options to meet different players desires from the game.

[BigBallinStalin]

Sure, but you're assuming they want to risk some loss in order to eliminate someone--which is the main problem about stalemates. Somehow, in your example the lock-in problem of stalemates disappears because players have to build such that they eliminate the other (i.e. they have to spend troops to eliminate the other...). The problem of stalemate still remains. You've just opened the avenue to one more chokepoint/possibility, but the underlying logic of stalemate hasn't changed, so why would this fix even 1% of stalemates?


A new possibility for elimination is interesting though, but:

(a) players who are enemies still are open to trade through 1-man swap spots (e.g. in escalating and flat rate)--even with little to no communication. 1-man terry swaps have been cheap and easy to organize, but will the threat of elimination increase the payoffs of coordination or conflict? I'd guess you'd get the same, current mix of strategies.

(b) your point holds if it's easy for players to prevent others from grabbing territories cheaply. On maps with multiple chokepoints, is that feasible?


All and all, it's an interesting setting, but... it needs more. Is it really worth adding yet another feature to CC's ever-growing list of settings?

[ntcbadabing]

Thanks for the reply..

A couple other things to consider is if one player can't trade easily while others can, he's going to cost at least one player some troops, which would then make the 2 more vulnerable. The only possible stalemate is if ALL remaining players agree to swap 1, which would be unlikely IMO due to many maps this would not be possible without at least one player not getting an area bonus.. which then goes back to eventually whoever he's trading with that does get a bonus would be able to cut off the weaker player's easy assault which would lead to the weaker being eliminated, and/or 'suicidal' which with this setting (mandatory war) suicides would be more like take down all you can with me.. which of course, breaks the stalemate.

I can't think of many maps, or many game situations that 'mandatory war' setting would lead to stalemates.. unless it's down to 2, and they just want a stalemate.. lol

And yes, I think this feature is worth implementing, it's why I posted it! Lol.. this setting would create an entirely new play style that would center around all out war the whole game.. it would give an advantage to those who like to come out strong rather than those who sit quietly waiting for others to fight.