game ending

[borner]

just curious, as no game i have seen ever got close to he end. When a nation hits 100% vp, in 1812 for example, does the game automatically stop, or can you continue on?

[obsidiandrag]

Once you (or another nation) hit the 100% (actually over the 100% as the chart can round up so it may say 100% and you have not won yet..) the game will post a screen declaring the winner of Europe etc.. you have options of quiting, resuming, or stats. Quiting is self explanitory, Resuming (and Stats after you look at the bars) will take you to the game intro screen where you can hit the resume button and continue on with that econ phase and as long as you want to keep playing.

[iamspamus]

In the board game, you had to declare victory once you had reached 100%. This was a mechanic to allow several people to win. You could wait until more people crossed the victory line before declaring victory. I often played for a dual victory. Once as Russia, who had gone dominant with Austrian help, I got to 100% for VP and waited the three more turns for him to as well. Dual winners.

Not sure if this is resolved this way in EiANW.

Jason

ORIGINAL: borner

just curious, as no game i have seen ever got close to he end. When a nation hits 100% vp, in 1812 for example, does the game automatically stop, or can you continue on?

[MarshallEllis]

It is autochecked. A winner should show up after an econ phase where he/she got the VPs needed.
 

[Jimmer]

And then it adds in manpower, right? So, there still can be more than one winner.

[Jimmer]

I just read the rules again, and that section appears to have been removed (again?). However, I've never seen any notice of a change. What happened? The rules used to match the original boardgame rules: You add manpower to your VP total to determine if there are other winners.

[wbm4x]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

I just read the rules again, and that section appears to have been removed (again?). However, I've never seen any notice of a change. What happened? The rules used to match the original boardgame rules:

This appears to be an increasingly common practice.

A few months ago, I posted a "Rules Deviation" issue on Mantis regarding reinforcements. Essentially, the RAW doesn't ever allow the placement of factors directly on a depot or with a corps outside the home nation unless it is next to or on a depot chain that traces to a home nation supply source. EiANW allows both placement on depots and with corps on/next to any valid depot chain, regardless of its supply source.

At the time I made my posting, the EiANW rules followed the RAW, both in the older PDF manual, and in the ingame manual.

My request was put on the backburner and when I checked the ingame rules recently, I was surprised to find the reinforcement rules changed to reflect how EiANW handles them. No announcement that I'm aware of.

Aside from the fact that this is another deviation away from classic EiA, I find such Orwellian revisionism quite disappointing. If it was/is a programming issue, just say so. I'd prefer classic EiA, but if some rule can't be programmed easily, I can understand that. If this wasn't a programming issue, then that just makes me mad. [:@]

[MarshallEllis]

I have never added manpower at the end. It is a simple clear one man wins. I'm not opposed to doing this???
Does this need to be added?
 

[borner]

this is how we always played in our group. One nation hits 100%, then we all add manpower, then ranked them 1-7. Only manpower from conq minors counted, not free states. However, there is no reason that any game going on right now cannot make that choice themselves as they see fit?

[MarshallEllis]

We just played straight up win BUT would use total money / manpower (All conquered) as a tie breaker (i.e. 2 nations achieving their vicotry goals in the same eco phase).
I imagine there a thousand ways to do this. I'm open...
 

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I have never added manpower at the end. It is a simple clear one man wins. I'm not opposed to doing this???
Does this need to be added?

Maybe only in your "classic" EiA!? [:D]

On the serious side, this is in the rulesbook:

8.1.3 and beyond.

[MarshallEllis]

I'll look at this and see how we might be able to add.
 
 
 

[Dancing Bear]

I would not call this a priority by any means.

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I'll look at this and see how we might be able to add.

[borner]

not at all, house rules can cover it nicely. I was just curious what the game itself did.

[MarshallEllis]

Understood.
 

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

I would not call this a priority by any means.

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I'll look at this and see how we might be able to add.

Not a priority, but how hard can this be to add? It SHOULD be done.

[MarshallEllis]

Actually, not hard at all. I could also simply print out a ranking at the end of the game.
 
 

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I have never added manpower at the end. It is a simple clear one man wins. I'm not opposed to doing this???
Does this need to be added?

IMO, definitely do so. The game takes far too long to play to only have one "winner". If I finish it, I don't want to lose because somebody got one VP more than I did.

The original game designers (or AH -- not sure which) certainly saw the problem and included it in the rules to rectify that (most likely).

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Actually, not hard at all. I could also simply print out a ranking at the end of the game.

I agree with Neverman: This can be in your "EIA" scenario, or it also could be an option.

That would be nice. Plus, maybe have a two-toned column for each player, showing what they earned vs added manpower.

By the way, since you are on the subject, if you DO make changes, keep an option open:

I would like to see how the game ebbed and flowed throughout the game. To do that, you could "remember" the actual VP scores (or, percent of their total needed) each player earned each quarter. Then, graph it over the timespan of the game. Check out Age of Empires' end-game graphs, or Civilizations.

My point is to keep the option open (i.e. not write code that would later make it a lot harder).

[MarshallEllis]

Jimmer:
 
Ahhhhh YES! I know the exact graphs you're talking about. It was always pretty cool to see how you were doing among the different ages and also see at what point you really started to win!
 
Hmmmmm......????