A new way for winning by SP

So you all know how at the end of the game, if there's 2+ people left, the person with the most SP wins?
How about this. If say, there were 3 or more people, and 2 of those people were allied, and the game ends by SP, the allied team should still win. I find it really unfair that although they're allied, the person with more SP wins.

Agreed, but it should be an option.

When you ally someone, you don't form a team with them, so your sp is still independent, if you don't want to lose your sp, ally end or beat the player, it is only your fault if you lose the sp, plain and simple.

Arbliterated, the scenario was me and 3 other guys were fighting two other people. We killed one of them, but two of my allies got in a scruple about cities, and they got into a war after I killed the 2nd enemy. At this time it was around week 38, and I was able to get units to his capital but it was week 45 by this time and he managed to turn block me enough so that he kept his capital.
In the end he lost because of SP, but me and one other person were allied with the winner, and it honestly seems unfair that we both lost when we were allied with the winner.
My point is, in situations like this, it's totally unfair that people lose because of things like that.

Napisao nonames, 18.05.2012 at 17:20

When you ally someone, you don't form a team with them, so your sp is still independent, if you don't want to lose your sp, ally end or beat the player, it is only your fault if you lose the sp, plain and simple.

This just in, Soviet Union wins the Second World War because of most civilian casualties. USA hands over Nuclear weapons and sends a "gg" note to the obviously superior Russian state.

Napisao Garde, 18.05.2012 at 18:29

Napisao nonames, 18.05.2012 at 17:20

When you ally someone, you don't form a team with them, so your sp is still independent, if you don't want to lose your sp, ally end or beat the player, it is only your fault if you lose the sp, plain and simple.

This just in, Soviet Union wins the Second World War because of most civilian casualties. USA hands over Nuclear weapons and sends a "gg" note to the obviously superior Russian state.

problem?

on a serious note, this is not a war simulator, it's a game, if you haven't beaten every player by specific time (or meet the requirements), the person with the top sp wins, this happens in most games in a similar way

but seriously Gking, you know the rules, you know you were going to lose, the games rules and mechanics and rules were followed and you knew exactly what was going to happen if you failed to capture him, you should of know the risk. there is nothing "unfair" about it.
plenty of times I have won by sp with just my capital region in play. (only when ally fagged by 4+)

also, even if this was changed, and allies did win by sp, people could just ally the turn before last and viola, you have solved nothing.

Napisao nonames, 18.05.2012 at 18:49

Napisao Garde, 18.05.2012 at 18:29

Napisao nonames, 18.05.2012 at 17:20

When you ally someone, you don't form a team with them, so your sp is still independent, if you don't want to lose your sp, ally end or beat the player, it is only your fault if you lose the sp, plain and simple.

This just in, Soviet Union wins the Second World War because of most civilian casualties. USA hands over Nuclear weapons and sends a "gg" note to the obviously superior Russian state.

problem?

on a serious note, this is not a war simulator, it's a game, if you haven't beaten every player by specific time (or meet the requirements), the person with the top sp wins, this happens in most games in a similar way

but seriously Gking, you know the rules, you know you were going to lose, the games rules and mechanics and rules were followed and you knew exactly what was going to happen if you failed to capture him, you should of know the risk. there is nothing "unfair" about it.
plenty of times I have won by sp with just my capital region in play. (only when ally fagged by 4+)

also, even if this was changed, and allies did win by sp, people could just ally the turn before last and viola, you have solved nothing.

It's a simple idea that would make people happy. Why must you bash it? I like your competitive view and all, by giving some diversity to win options would be better than none at all. Not everyone likes being Grand vizier Fruit and winning alone, so something like OP said would be nice for the wide audience of people that would rather win with their friend than alone and feel like a dick.