I had a lot of victory condition bugs in my first version of "Roma", but I discovered that if player one and two are allied and have allied victory enabled, BOTH players have to complete their own specific objectives to win. I hope this is helpful

Well i'v realized that having an allied victory in a custom campaign doesn't let you win so i avoid that condition.

but I discovered that if player one and two are allied and have allied victory enabled, BOTH players have to complete their own specific objectives to win.

Your telling me that allied victory doesn't force the player to use global victory but instead combines all the victory conditions of the allied players? That changes everything. o.O

I was sure that I've played a couple of maps with multiple victory paths. I think it may have been one of Ingo's maps, so maybe you should take a look there.

I'm not totally sure, but that's what I remember about allied victory. I probably had global victory on standard or custom and various player specific objectives. like player one destroy a barracks and player two destroy government center. Then I put babyprez next to both buildings, tested and won. Try it out yourself if you like.

btw, I just retested this method and YES, it works! This will give a lot more victory condition options. Like having more than the maximum number vic conditions, or forcing players to work together. Maybe even in combination with a ally that only becomes your ally later in the game.

[This message has been edited by Thompsoncs (edited 01-02-2010 @ 04:36 AM).]

That is interesting. during my early (and so far, only) days as a designer i used allied victory. Hiowever when i tested the scenarios it never worked. It was so frustrating i never used it in custom scenarios and campaigns again.

Thompsoncs your advice ahs been invaluable. While the maula doesn't sufficiently describe allied victory your theroy appears to be correct. Although this changes things, you have pretty much saved Gumble's campaign! Good job! And yes this means you have access to maby 101 total possible victory conditions (including Global). That would be a wicked sick scenario.

Ninetails, what you were refering to was 'Boiling Blood' from Ingo's 'Chou Kung' campaign. It actually only uses 1 victory condition. All the exits are located along hte same map edge so therefore, 'Bring object to area' can be applied to all of them.

A helpful reference for what happens when you turn on Allied Victory:

If you and your Allies are set to Global Victory, then if only one player (you or your ally) meets his conditions, then the whole "team" of allies wins.

If you have Individual Victory Conditions and everyone has Allied Victory ON, then you must meet those specific conditions and your ally must also meet his conditions in order for your team to win. You can't win until those conditions are met.

Things get more complicated if you are allied to someone who is allied with you and with your enemy.

If you (Player 1) have an Individual Victory Condition (eg. bring blue priest to town), your ally has an Individual Condition (eg. bring blue priest to town), and your ally (Player 2) is allied with your enemy (Player 3), and everyone is set to Allied Victory, then if you meet your Individual VC and your ally meets his, then you win but your ally loses. Your own "team VCs" were met (yours + your ally's VCs), but your ally didn't have their "team VCs" met (Players 1-3) because Player 3 is part of Player 2's "team."

If you (Player 1) have an Individual Victory Condition (eg. bring blue priest to town), your ally has an Individual Condition (eg. bring blue priest to town), and your ally (Player 2) is allied with your enemy (Player 3), and you alone have Allied Victory on, then if you meet your Individual VC and your ally meets his at the same time, then you and your ally win.

If you (Player 1) have 2 Individual Victory Conditions (eg. bring blue priest to town and Destroy Player 3), your ally shares one of those Individual Conditions (eg. bring blue priest to town), and your ally (Player 2) is allied with your enemy (Player 3), and you alone have Allied Victory on, then if your ally meets his VCs without you winning yours, then your ally wins and you lose.

If Player 1 is only allied with P2 and P1 meets his VCs and has Allied Victory ON, P2 is allied with P1 and P3 and meets his own VCs and has Allied Victory ON, and P3 has standard Global VCs and is allied with P2 and is the enemy of P1 and does not have Allied Victory ON, then if P1 meets his own conditions and P2's conditions are met but not P3's, then P1 and P2 don't win even though their own VCs are met. P2 hasn't won because his ally P3's VCs aren't met, and P1 hasn't win because his ally P2 hasn't met his VCs plus P3's VCs.

If you are P1 and are allied with P2 and have 2 VCs and have Allied Victory OFF, P2 is allied with P1 and P3 and his VC is one of yours and has Allied Victory ON, and P3 is only allied with P2 and has Allied Victory OFF, then... I thought that one time I tried this, you and your ally win once you meet all of your VCs. But now when I try it, only you win and your ally loses.

This is complicated and confusing.

[This message has been edited by rakovsky (edited 08-25-2020 @ 11:28 AM).]

A chart should be helpful.

If there are only two players and they are allied with each other, and P1 has Goal A and Goal B and Allied Victory OFF, and P2 has only Goal A and Allied Victory ON, then if Goal A and Goal B are met, then P1 wins and P2 loses. If Goal A is met, the game continues until Goal B is met, at which point P1 wins and P2 loses.

If there are only two players and they are allied with each other, and P1 has Goal A and Goal B and Allied Victory OFF, and P2 has Goal A and Goal C and Allied Victory ON, then if Goal A and Goal B are met, then P1 wins and P2 loses. If Goal A and Goal C are met, the game continues until Goal B is met, at which point P1 wins and P2 loses.

It is hard to see what the actual underlying "computer logic" is here, because as far as P2 is concerned, all of P2's goals and its allies' goals are met, so having "Allied Victory" checked for P2 would seem to give victory to both P1 and P2. Maybe the logic is that P1 wins first by virtue of meeting its goals and it does not transfer this victory to P2 because it does not have Allied Victory ON. And P1 wins alone before P2's Allied Victory is registered, so only P1 wins. It's hard to tell.

The reason that I got into this issue was because I just submitted a new scenario that I had been working on, Thomas' mission to India. Thomas converted Gondophares' court and accomplished some individual objectives while the Kushans were invading your ally and Gondophares' ally, Indo-Parthia. So there were four different forces with different objectives, which created a network of alliances with different couplings of objectives.

The simple way to address it was to make Thomas meet his objectives with Allied Victory set to OFF for Thomas while his ally had Allied Victory set to ON. This meant that if Thomas won, his ally (Indo-Parthia) would lose, but there was no simple way to address this so long as Indo-Parthia was allied with Thomas' enemy. Another way to address the problem would be to set everyone's Allied Victory to ON and require Thomas to convert all of Gondophares' units so that you became Indo-Parthia's only ally, but that would create a time-consuming "unit hunt" for the player as Thomas looked for those units all over the big map.

[This message has been edited by rakovsky (edited 09-16-2020 @ 09:30 PM).]

Here is a chart.

Let's say that you are Player 1 and you are allied only with P2. Player 2 is allies with you and with Player 3. Player 3 is only allied with Player 2.

In the chart below, Player 2 meets his Individual VC first, and then you (Player 1) meet your Individual VC.

___________________P1___P2___P3_______ RESULT
1. Allied Victory: ON___ON___ON_______ Only P1 wins
2. Allied Victory: ON___ON___OFF______ P1 and P2 don't win
3. Allied Victory: ON___OFF__OFF______ Only P2 wins (unless P1 shares the same objectives, in which case P1 and P2 win)
4. Allied Victory: OFF__ON___ON_______ P1 & P2 don't win (or P1 alone wins as a glitch)
5. Allied Victory: OFF__ON___OFF______ Unclear/Glitchy/P1 and P2 win (see Notes)
6. Allied Victory: OFF_OFF___ON_______ Only P2 wins
7. Allied Victory: ON__OFF___ON_______ Only P2 wins

Notes:
In the chart above, if I write that "only P2 wins", then what happens is that the game ends when P2 met his conditions, so that the game doesn't continue to let you meet yours.

1. If everyone has Allied Victory ON, then only P1 wins, even if both P1 and P2 have met their goals.
2. If only P3 has AV OFF, then even though P1 and P2 met their goals, the gameplay just continues.
3. If only P1 has AV set to ON, then P1 and P2 only win as a team if P1 shares the same objectives as P2.
4. If only P1 has AV OFF, then in general, P1 and P2 don't win, but it's alittle glitchy: the first time I tested it on the same map with the same features, I won alone.
5. With only P2's AV set ON, then it becomes potentially glitchy. In August, I thought that P1 and P2 won when I met P1's and P2's VCs. Then when I retried it, only P1 won and P2 lost. Now in January when I tried it on another map, on the first round, only P2 won, but then when I retested it without changing anything on the map, P1 and P2 win together, even I repeatedly retest it. But then if I change some insignificant feature of the map (eg. move a unit a bit without affecting the VCs), then the map practically resets so that P2 wins the 1st time and then on follow-ups, P1 and P2 win together.

[This message has been edited by rakovsky (edited 01-26-2021 @ 03:56 PM).]

The reason that you would want to get into the chart above is if you have Players who are allied with two other players who are enemied to each other and you want to make some players win as a team. In that case, Combination #3 in the chart above is the most reliable, but for it to work, you need to have P1 and P2 meet their objectives at the same time.

Combination #5 would be ideal if it worked, but it's not reliable. Maybe it will work on some scenarios.

This is very useful info and should be turned into an article, methinks. Thank you rakovsky.