Proposed Changes to Reserve Troops to Prevent Stalemates.

[NewSheriffInTown]

These are some proposed changes to Flat Rate, Escalite, and Escalate, to eliminate stalemates.​

There has been a lot of discussion about how to eliminate stalemates, like in this thread: https://www.majorcommand.com/forums/threads/7165-Alternate-Escalate-Options

And after doing some digging in to the code, then I think it is possible to adjust Flat Rate, Escalite, and Escalate, to avoid stalemates.

It should be possible to increase the value of the reserve set based on either 1 of 2 things:

1. The previous reserve value: eg. Once the reserve total = 50 then increase by (a certain amount)
2. The current round: eg. Once the game round = 40 then increase reserves by (a certain amount)

So the proposal is...

=========================

ESCALATE:

Currently: after 15 reserve troops are cashed in, the count goes up by 5 every round.

Proposed changes:

• Keep the current system until the reserve count is 60, then increase by 8
• once the reserve count is 100, then increase by 12
• once the reserve count is 175, then increase by 20

ECALITE:

Currently: the reserve troops increase by + 1 every round.

Proposed changes:

• Once the game reaches round 40, then increase the reserves by + 3
• Once the game reaches round 50, then increase the reserves by + 6
• Once the game reaches round 60, then increase the reserves by + 10

FLAT RATE:

Currently: 6 troops every time a set is turned in

Proposed changes:

• Once the game reaches round 40, then increase reserve value to 10
• Once the game reaches round 50, then increase reserve value to 15
• Once the game reaches round 60, then increase reserve value to 20
• Once the game reaches round 70, then increase reserve value to 30

=========================

Of course it is impossible to please everyone all the time, so the changes mostly take effect in later game stages, like after round 40 or once the troops are more than 100.

Unfortunately this can not be an 'option' when you create a game, it needs to be hardcoded for all games. But I think the only people that not be happy are players who enjoy 80+ rounds in a game! :dontknow:

 

[brianstheman]

Awesome. All for more winning moves in all games!

One thing on the proposed Escalate changes. There are several boards (12D, Classic Massive, Europe Massive), where chaining eliminations at higher set values is meaningful through about the 85-90 troop threshold. Since the reserve system needs to be uniform, I would suggest the 100 reserve count as the initial threshold for larger increases in Escalate games.

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

Awesome. All for more winning moves in all games!

One thing on the proposed Escalate changes. There are several boards (12D, Classic Massive, Europe Massive), where chaining eliminations at higher set values is meaningful through about the 85-90 troop threshold. Since the reserve system needs to be uniform, I would suggest the 100 reserve count as the initial threshold for larger increases in Escalate games.

Sure, that can be done. It's good info to know.... We can make it 100 rounds, or it can trigger by round number too.

 

[clarkenfeld]

Interesting...i think I'm mostly in favour of this, except for the flat rate changes. I kind of think flat rate is flat rate and that's the point, you have to set up your win in a different way, no? If there's a threshold, that makes it a flat rate game until it isn't. I know flat rate isn't for everyone, but it is a certain kind of tactic that an impending threshold would change - obviously - but I wonder if that is too big a change?

There are some players who prefer flat rate who might have more to say on this. I've been involved in several drawn out flat rates recently - and am in one now - that I think would have become less fun games if it switched to escalate in this way.

I am one of the people who like SOME games to be really long, slow burners. My favourite win was after round 151 in an 8 player Euro flat. Would have been a different ending for sure if it hadn't remained constant.

 

[riskyone]

Sure, that can be done. It's good info to know.... We can make it 100 rounds, or it can trigger by round number too.

+1

 

[Sebrim]

yes, I agree with clark - flat rate should be flat rate. There have been ways of dealing with stalemates before (sidegames, -1-rule) and these work well. When somebody creates or joins a flat rate game, he or she is taking into consideration that it might end in a stalemate, and this stalemate might take months to resolve - even over a side-game. No need to trigger some kind of increment there, which, btw, after 40, or 60 rounds won't make that much of a difference anyway, since the troop counts often are up in the hundreds, if not thousands. Then a set of 10 instead of 6 makes little sense.

So, for the Escalate and escalite, yes, but flat rate, just leave it as is

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

I am one of the people who like SOME games to be really long, slow burners. My favourite win was after round 151 in an 8 player Euro flat. Would have been a different ending for sure if it hadn't remained constant.

So, for the Escalate and escalite, yes, but flat rate, just leave it as is

Okay, we can do that too. Just proliferate Escalite and Escalate in the higher rounds, and leave Flat Rate as is....

 

[d-flat]

Yes, I think these changes are great, and echo above sentiments regarding Flat Rate - let the purists enjoy their eternal truce!

 

[clarkenfeld]

Yes, I think these changes are great, and echo above sentiments regarding Flat Rate - let the purists enjoy their eternal truce!

It's a bit like Test match cricket mate. A slow burner with an intense finish is a beautiful thing

 

[periwinkle]

yes...I agree for flat...but if the point of this is to eliminate stalemates...then why not just implement the -1 rule (hard code it...everyone loses a certain amount off their biggest stack?) and it applies at a certain round number like round 50? You can inform everyone in the game chatter at round 50 through the diplo tab. I assume this has been the best method to resolve stalemates?

I bet even if you changed how escalate/escalate rises...there will still be games in a stalemate. :lollypop:

 

[Cardinalsrule]

yes...I agree for flat...but if the point of this is to eliminate stalemates...then why not just implement the -1 rule (hard code it...everyone loses a certain amount off their biggest stack?) and it applies at a certain round number like round 50? You can inform everyone in the game chatter at round 50 through the diplo tab. I assume this has been the best method to resolve stalemates?

I bet even if you changed how escalate/escalate rises...there will still be games in a stalemate. :lollypop:

I'd love to see the -1 rule coded in as an option that can be employed if all players agree, (a button to click?)

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

then why not just implement the -1 rule

I'd love to see the -1 rule coded in as an option that can be employed if all players agree, (a button to click?)

It is literally impossible to create something like that using the current code. I wish we could, but we can't.

The only reason I am suggesting any changes to the current code, is because the suggestions I'm proposing won't break the current code.... since it's not really "creating" new code, but just adjusting what already exists.

For example, all we're doing is adding a couple more lines, like this:

OLD CODE:

If reserves < 12
then + 2
If reserves > 15
then + 5

NEW CODE:

If reserves < 12
then + 2
If reserves > 15
then + 5
If reserves > 100
then + 10
If reserves > 150
then + 20

As you can see, we are not really changing or creating any new code or making new rules, the changes are simple and will not likely break the existing game.

Creating a -1 rule is a whole different ball game!

However, the new engine is coded completely different, and I'm told that making things like a -1 rule should be easier in the new engine, and less risky for breakage! So any major chances will happen there.

 

[periwinkle]

Creating a -1 rule is a whole different ball game!

However, the new engine is coded completely different, and I'm told that making things like a -1 rule should be easier in the new engine, and less risky for breakage! So any major chances will happen there.

Well then...if the new UI is coming out relatively soon...then let's focus our attention and efforts on that ...making the -1 rule work. I'm happy to wait until then...this all might be a mute point anyway . This might also fix the nukes stalemate issue too. :lollypop:

 

[d-flat]

It's a bit like Test match cricket mate. A slow burner with an intense finish is a beautiful thing

Haha, always a cricket analogy clarkenfeld! Love it!

d-flat rate

 

[riskyone]

Big problem with -1

Well then...if the new UI is coming out relatively soon...then let's focus our attention and efforts on that ...making the -1 rule work. I'm happy to wait until then...this all might be a mute point anyway . This might also fix the nukes stalemate issue too. :lollypop:

I'm in a game right now where I wasn't able to get under my total by 34 troops. Sets are around 210. There are 2 other players left. I knew this would come up and now it did. What should be done and is it right that one of the players suggested I skip turns until my score is under what it needed to be. I don't know if that's fair. I can easily get a card if I were to play my turn but I still wouldn't be able to get under. I then don't feel it's right for me to get a card, but this is a flaw of -1. or it's just some unwritten rule that I have never heard about in over 6,000 games. I feel that game is ruined. Pleas give thoughts?

 

[Sebrim]

I guess you're talking about 12D, are you?
In that case, skipping your turn till you are under is probably a good idea, since it won't really affect your chances, as everybody else has to go -1 and you will therefore end up being the strongest player if they do not attack you at some point.

In the new engine, I have understood that the rule will mean your biggest stack is automatically reduced so much that you actually have -1 at the end of your turn automatically, if you do not do that yourself. Is that right?

 

[riskyone]

Big problem with -1

I guess you're talking about 12D, are you?
In that case, skipping your turn till you are under is probably a good idea, since it won't really affect your chances, as everybody else has to go -1 and you will therefore end up being the strongest player if they do not attack you at some point.

In the new engine, I have understood that the rule will mean your biggest stack is automatically reduced so much that you actually have -1 at the end of your turn automatically, if you do not do that yourself. Is that right?

It's a Massive Europe game, and now I think they can box me in or at the very least get better position. Has this never come up before? I agree with the automatic adjust the new engine will provide. Very much so, but what about the game I'm in. This can't be a first. Does anyone know how it was resolved. Time is running out.

 

[brianstheman]

I'm in a game right now where I wasn't able to get under my total by 34 troops. Sets are around 210. There are 2 other players left. I knew this would come up and now it did. What should be done and is it right that one of the players suggested I skip turns until my score is under what it needed to be. I don't know if that's fair. I can easily get a card if I were to play my turn but I still wouldn't be able to get under. I then don't feel it's right for me to get a card, but this is a flaw of -1. or it's just some unwritten rule that I have never heard about in over 6,000 games. I feel that game is ruined. Pleas give thoughts?

https://www.majorcommand.com/games/478856/
It's a weird situation. Because when you start the current round, you will be given another 16 troops on your auto deploys. But you don't have a stack anywhere near that size to reduce with.

Given that it is -1, maybe it doesn't matter that much to miss a card, as players will have to attack you eventually, and in the meanwhile be reducing themselves also.

 

[Sebrim]

Given that it is -1, maybe it doesn't matter that much to miss a card, as players will have to attack you eventually, and in the meanwhile be reducing themselves also.

Exactly . I'm talking about. You're not in danger until someone s you, and they reduce their troop count every ound

 

[empirejeff]

https://www.majorcommand.com/games/478856/
It's a weird situation. Because when you start the current round, you will be given another 16 troops on your auto deploys. But you don't have a stack anywhere near that size to reduce with.

Given that it is -1, maybe it doesn't matter that much to miss a card, as players will have to attack you eventually, and in the meanwhile be reducing themselves also.

Fair enough, I guess.