@djensen said in BATTLE IN VANCOUVER! IT'S ON! Nov. 23-25. Who will survive?:
@Karl7 said in BATTLE IN VANCOUVER! IT'S ON! Nov. 23-25. Who will survive?:
Some random photos above. The one of us toasting was after the final game, which was a split decision for Vancouver. I voted for Tacoma but Juan and Joel were for Vancouver. Joel did not participate in the battle. That was a tight game.
Why is there voting for victory conditions? Why not use IPCs controlled or IPCs + TUV (which would take forever to tabulate)?
Joel, Juan and I agreed we didn’t want some gamey tourney conditions, and we felt there was enough time to finish the games or get them to an obvious point where one side would likely concede. Indeed a number of games were conceded. But we ended up having to call (I think) around four of the 9 games. So not too bad.
Anyhow, the guidelines Joel, Juan and I used to call a game was in one part subjective, i.e. looking at the game what side would I immediately be more inclined to play, and objective, i.e. who had more money, more victory cities and better overall strategic position.
Only one game was a split decision, the last one. I raised the issue because obviously you rely on human judgment which can always be questioned. Where you draw the line between arbitrary objective conditions vs more subjective conditions is a debatable balance and one for further contemplation.



