[MN-dip] Victory conditions

[Jim Swift]

And in other news, I wanted to pitch something before the game and give you
folks time to think about it.

I thought the 15 center victory condition (versus the normal 18) worked well in
our last game.  One drawback Ry4an pointed out at the time: it makes a 2-way
draw all but impossible.  (Though he noted it's really hard to pull off anyway.)

So I got to thinking.  If 15 is a victory, then 14-14 (versus the normal 17-17)
could be a two-way draw.  Generalizing the principle leads to this (ta da):

"A draw can be declared by disregarding 6 centers of the smallest power(s)."

Example: Powers A, B, C, D have the following center counts: A: 13, B: 11, C: 6,
D: 4.  To declare a draw, all 4 of D's centers and 2 of C's centers are
disregarded.  The "survivors" are A, B, and C, who then vote to declare the
draw, shared amongst themselves.  Power D is excluded from voting and sharing in
the draw.

Example 2: Same as above, but powers C and D are tied at 5 apiece.  The
disregarded centers are shared evenly between C and D at 3 apiece.  Therefore
all powers are included in the draw.

WHY?...

Now, aside from trying to achieve some kind of mathematical "completeness" to
the 15 center victory condition, why on earth would we want to do this?

1. Makes a 2-way draw possible.  Granted, not the most exciting reason.  But
more importantly...
2. Removes the need for the large powers to go around and completely eliminate
the smaller powers about two thirds the way through the game.

I suspect the latter effect will jazz up the end game, changing it from a "mop
up" operation (a desultory march to an inevitable conclusion) to something near
as exciting and fluid as the beginning of the game.

Well that's it.  I e-discussed this at length w/ Ry4an, and, well, he's cool to
the idea.  So if you're cool too, don't be afraid, you're in good company.

Food for thought; see you at the game.
Jim