Quantum Entanglement games are ended when an off-board factory kicks in at the beginning of the winning player's next turn.  While I'm thinking of it, this is a place where a Real Time factory would be preferable, but I digress.

The way the Custom Win mechanism seems to work is that the factory doesn't engage until after the winning player places their units on the board (on the turn following their "win"), which is disconcerting if not downright confusing for some. It's tempting to think something's broken because they already won the game a turn ago.

Nonetheless, the mechanism works so I'm not (really) complaining.  However, upon actually winning no Win Stat window pops up and game just stops - treminates - doesn't work -  which can also be a bit disconcerting.

Nothing's broken technically speaking, but the winning experience is anti-climactic ..and a bit spooky.

M57 - can you explain how you have used the win condition in Quantum Entanglement.

Sure - It's very simple.

There is one off-board territory named "Win Win" that has no borders to the map. It starts out neutral. The "Custom" win condition is to capture iWin Win. For all scenarios, each world map comprises the "members" of a "continent" that auto-captures the factory 'Win Win.' 

The designer only lets you have one win condition territory and this is the only way I can think of to support two entirely different win conditions.

I too can not think of a more elegant solution then what you have already implemented.

Maybe Tom could add holding an entire continent satisfy as being a win condition, then, any territory or set of territories could be designated as the Win condition, and, for the case of your quantum board, two separate continents comprising off all the territories on each side (up/down) of your board could satisfy the Continent Win condition. (so, for that, 1 or more continents should be able to be designated to satisfy the win condition)  I realize that this isn't an option, but, maybe with the code for the new win conditions already in place it wouldn't be much to add?  If added then it could work much like the territory count win condition in that once attained it takes effect immediately and does not force going through that confusing round to satisfy the win condition as it is now.

I have another board I am working on right now that I have been puzzling over how to end-game it, and a continent capture win condition would suit that one perfectly too, so, it is something that I think would provide some practical benefit to designers.  For mine I have been playing with different selections of on-board capitals to create a capital capture win condition (although a continent capture win condition would be far superior), but, for yours, capitals obviously would not provide any solution.

The solution I use is a 'work-around,' but it is an acceptable one in my mind.  As nice as a Multiple win condition designer element would be, "Real-Time" factories would solve the problematic 'delayed' aspects of the way the board works, and would open up other possibilities as well.

real-time factories would be nice, but I think could also be confusing.

If I understand correctly, I think another more obvious problem is that win conditions are not checked after factories are applied at the beginning of the turn.  I've also noticed something similar in a dev game I am working on.  In my game a player was losing their capital via a factory, but it did not trigger their loss until the end of their turn (or maybe it was the next turn, I can't remember).

Due to the one turn lapse, is it possible if another player captures the other side of the map directly after the first side is captured that the 'win win' territory is infinitely traded without end to the game, or, does first come first serve apply?

I don't think  so berickf since the win condition is automatic - as soon as you capture the territory you win the game.

I just won my first game on M's map and it certainly was clunky.  I had to place my units and then the game looked like it froze - with a reload I saw that I had won, but I never got the "You won this game" message.

What ami said.  If a second player does take the remaining map, the only way he could win is if the first player misses or skips his turn.

Other than that, the system is pretty fool-proof, though for the first time winner it definitely feels like something's wrong.  For starters, you're wondering why you have to place your armies when you know you should have won at the end of your last turn.  The good new is, you pretty much have no choice but to place your armies ..and then poof - the game freezes and you've won.   All told, it's pretty much the epitome of an anti-climax.

I would propose that even if Tom does fix it so you get the "you won this game," if the win-condition does not enact the win until the following turn, it's feels just as uncomfortable.

A great example is the board Rescue.
You clear all your miners out of the mine, and then have to wait until the next turn for the factory to produce an army in your topside tent, and then eliminate your opponents.
You still get the "You won this game" message, but there could be 4 day wait time between when you cleared your miners and when you get to eliminate your opponents....during which you're anxiously waiting to see if someone else beat you to it.
VERY uncomfortable.
Slander and I (who are two of the more frequent players of the board) have started announcing when we've finished our extrications just to help ease the discomfort.
Examples:
http://www.wargear.net/games/view/143827
http://www.wargear.net/games/view/136879
http://www.wargear.net/games/view/163842
http://www.wargear.net/games/view/151754 - Especially painful because WT took vacation that started after he'd released all his miners, but before the game ended, so the rest of us had to wait around for a week for him to finish the game and put us out of our misery.

 

There is no harm in announcing wins on boards where the win is guaranteed.  Quantum and Waterloo also fall into this category.

muahaha, i did it just to make you wallow in that misery ;)

I've never played Quantum, but at least in Waterloo you're announcing a win, but your opponent can see that you've already won too.  Same is true with boards like Ten Propogate where you have to wait the extra turn.

The reason why WT is a d*** is because he made a board that is foggy so can't see if you've won until the turn comes back around to you.  So it's not just that you have to wait, it's that you have to wait AND you don't know for sure that you're the winner.

(I still love that board though.... )

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

I've never played Quantum, but at least in Waterloo you're announcing a win, but your opponent can see that you've already won too.  Same is true with boards like Ten Propogate where you have to wait the extra turn.

The reason why WT is a d*** is because he made a board that is foggy so can't see if you've won until the turn comes back around to you.  So it's not just that you have to wait, it's that you have to wait AND you don't know for sure that you're the winner.

OK, technically, the same applies with Quantum, ..kind of ..and for different reasons.  It too is a fogged map (though it can be played with no fog.  Once you've taken a Map in Quantum, it's generally fair to assume that you've won and there's no reason for you not to announce this.  However, it is possible that a player who preceded you had already taken the other map, and didn't announce that they had won "first."   

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

..but at least in Waterloo you're announcing a win, but your opponent can see that you've already won too.  

Actually, with Waterloo it can "look" like the other player has won, but you can't be sure because they may not have been able to muster the 17 units necessary to win the game.  Moreover, if this is the case and the game is close, you may have a very reasonable chance of thwarting the attack and/or forging your own win; so even if your opponent "claims" victory, it is often prudent to play your turn out in as strong and thoughtful a fashion as possible.

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

The reason why WT is a d*** is because he made a board that is foggy so can't see if you've won until the turn comes back around to you.  

wait...what?

weathertop wrote:

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

The reason why WT is a d*** is because he made a board that is foggy so can't see if you've won until the turn comes back around to you.  

wait...what?

Sorry, I was looking at your name and thinking about EN, who is the designer of Rescue, which is who I was referencing in my comment.  Ignore that comment.  

WT is a scholar and a gentleman.

well that's a first...