But of course I still like individual victory for the diplomacy aspect. More human interactions.
I am totally for this, except some people think the game is basically one guy plays 3 nations and has no idea that its anything but home study technique, volumes of combat calculations ( mostly written down) and the idea of “partners” is always a distasteful and unwanted prospect.
For them 3 nations play like one army with perfect clarity all guided by one general,without any idea that the war he is simulating had none of this but a loose, fragmented, and distrustful unity of efforts. Each nation had specific political as well as military objectives to pursue and of which this has never been addressed except lightly in earlier days when people played the nova games edition and the Milton Bradley edition online and OTB… A piece of the game lost by burgeoning tournaments and people who didn’t want the partners to mess up their game with “bad moves”
Ahh but the excitement was always the ability to persuade others to join in on some plan for your own help on their plan.
On this level the diplomacy was always lively. National and individual victory conditions make for shorter games, because they don’t require 3 nations to accomplish that dreaded “team thing” which was a farther goal to achieve ( hence longer games)
I hope the game can bring some of that back.