The winning conditions and game specific rules for SG1

[wieder]

All of this (or almost all of this) was already talked about somewhere. I'm simply listing everything in one place.

Winning or ending the game

There are several ways for ending the game.

The players can win the game by building the Bismarck Tower or by building the space ship and ending the game with it. With Bismarck Tower Freeciv 2.5 doesn't allow the game to be ended automatically. That feature is only available with Freeciv 2.6. Once someone builds the Bismarck Tower the game will be ended by hand by the server admin. If the server admin is not around to do that when the wonder is built, the game will be ended at the first moment possible. At that time the game is loaded from the point when the Bismarck Tower was built and ended. The possible extra turns do not matter for the end result. The space ship can end the game automatically, as usual.

The game can also be ended if all the remaining played are allied. This will end the game automatically. There is no limit to how many players can do this.

The game can be ended if someone claims victory (only one player) and all the remaining, alive, players agree to the victory. It's not possible for a player or a group of players to announce victory on the forum and win the game in case no one objects. This is different from most LT games.

The players will be ranked by score. At this time it's not possible to know if the scores can be easily enough extracted. If they can be, the final scores will be listed on the forum.


Idlers and idler replacements

If a player is idle after T0 his/her nation can be given away. If a player is idler for 3 turns, his/her nation can be given away. If there are no takers, the alternative is that the cities owned by the idlers will be /taken by the admin and set to produce defensive military units only. When this is done, the admin can also move units outside the cities inside the cities. The admin will not actually start playing the game but instead will balance the game by making the idlers harder targets and not soft target. Soft targets might possibly build only city improvements. Once this is done the city productions will not be updated (by the admin) to better unit types. The players need to ask the admin for doing this since the admin is not actively tracking the idlers. The admin can also change other settings (settings the leaders of the idling nations can change) to make the idlers less soft targets.

If a player is replaced by someone else, his/her nation can be first delegated to the replacement player or the player can be actually replaced. The admin will decide how the replacement is done. If delegated the original player can return and take the control of the nation if the player is not yet actually replaced. After replacing the player there is no going back.


If the game can't be continued for some reason it will be a tie.

Since this is the first Scenario Game, there may be errors. If there are game breaking errors, the ruleset can be changed during the game. This is however something that can be done only in extreme situations. For example, if unit has 3 moves while it should have 2 (or the other way around) there will be no fix during the game.

The players can ally in-game or with secret alliances and only one delegation/player is allowed.

Have fun with SG1!

[kevin551]

Please clarify -

"The players can win the game by building the Bismarck Tower or by building the space ship"

Does this mean all those who are still alive and formally allied to the nation that created the Tower or landed the spaceship get the victory.
If so what benefit is the victory if all the players will be ranked by score.

Standard longturn gameplay would be for a player at the back to focus on science while those at the front focus on attack / defence.
In the standard rules all the allied players would share the victory equally.

Is the focus on score a deliberate policy for this game? If so why?

[wieder]

The question might be: Who won it when Germany was unified in 1871?

The idea for this game was that once Germany is unified, there is only one player doing that and this from this point of view only one player alone kind of wins the game. Victory is however not the main idea with this scenario even while one player will unite the country. All the remaining (alive) nations will be part of the unified Germany and this is why the players will be ranked based on in-game score.

In other words, there is no allied victory but two different ways to rank the players. The first is of course about the catalyst for the unification process. Prussia will be remembered as the nation who unified Germany. Only one nation can do this and only one nation will be remembered as the one who will unite the Germany for SG1.

The in-game score will determine how well the players have played the game. This will simply list the players and tell us how well they played the game. As the scenario tries to recreate the unification process, all the surviving nations kind of "win" as part of the new Germany. However some may have "won" more and this is determined by the in-game score.

So yes, this is quite different from normal LT game and this is because of the scenario aspect. Somehow it doesn't feel right to make rules for n number of players winning the game in a process leading to unified country with common goals and objectives.

I would say there are some mild role playing elements because of the scenario and because of the winning conditions, but those can easily be ignored. They may just spice the game for some players.

The space ship victory is similar to the one with Bismarck Tower and it's listed on the winning conditions for the unlikely case of no one ending the game with Bismarck Tower.

In this scenario victory is more defined by the players. If the players want to ally and unify Germany in some other way, like wiping out everyone else, this can be done and the end result will be quite similar to standard LT victory. You only need to kill the players not allied to you and then ally with everyone to end the game.

Since this is the first scenario game, there is much to be learned about winning and ending this kind of games. For the future games we should have a better idea about how to define winning and how to create interesting scenarios.

[kevin551]

Wieder - Thanks for the explanation. I will take this into account while I consider how to play this game.