Is it possible for a game on BGA to last forever?

[Jellby]

If neither player has a non-plant action that is superior enough to the other player's non-plant actions to make it possible to give up the tableau completion bonus, the game could essentially become a stalemate/draw.

Can the players take such actions forever? Will the game be stuck until a plant action is taken? (I've played Earth once, I don't remember the rules.)

In Ark Nova a similar situation can arise where neither player want to trigger a "break", because then the other player will grab a juicy bonus. But even if both (all) players try to stall, eventually one player will be forced to trigger it because no other action is possible.

But to answer the topic's question: Yes, some games can last forever. I'd consider it a "bug" in game design, similar to a programming bug that causes a deadlock. If the players recognize the situation, they should probably agree to abandon. If one doesn't, they're probably expecting the other(s) to give up and quit the game, hoping to get some elo out of it (and some likely red thumbs).

[h_illes]

A similar situation could theoretically happen in Century: Spice Road. In this game, the game end is triggered by a player action; once it's triggered, the game goes to scoring, so it's not necessarily the player who triggers the finish that wins. Also, it is possible to take actions indefinitely without triggering the finish. Also, normally there are no ties/draws, the last tie-breaker is reverse player order, so every game is fully decided.

Theoretically, the following situation is possible for a 2-player game:
- Player 2 could trigger the game end, but he will lose on points, so he does not want to do that.
- Player 1 cannot trigger the game end in the current position; he needs one more preparation step before he can trigger, but a side effect of the preparation step is that it lowers his score temporarily. If player 1 executes the preparation step, then player 2 can intervene and trigger while player 1's score is lower, stealing the win. So player 1 does not want to execute the preparation step.

So neither player wants to finish; they will keep taking actions without any meaningful progress towards the finish. I guess this would be a tie then, and the best they can do is agree to abandon.

Such a situation would be extremely rare; I have not encountered it during 15000+ games.

[nik592]

The Terraforming Mars example (given in the post above yours) is a bit odd. It's difficult to envision a scenario where a game of Terraforming Mars reaches a standoff because neither player wants to do anything (from a strategic standpoint).

I originally mentioned TM as a game that requires player actions in order to move the game towards its conclusion - there's no fixed rounds, it depends on terraforming the planet. teallite seems to be arguing that the rules account for this because you can't take no action indefinitely, unless you pass for the whole round. And even if you pass for a round, I mentioned you're unlikely not to actually take actions in a new round with refreshed resources. But that still doesn't mean two players couldn't do that (which was my point). The rules don't specifically prevent you from doing so, but they do encourage you to actually play the game.

In any case, my point was, there are lots of games which have an end game condition triggered by the play, and if players choose not to play, yes, a game could last forever. But I don't understand people who would choose to not actually play the game. I mean, I guess such situations have been described in this thread, but as I said above, I can't imagine two players would continue trading stalemate moves forever. I certainly wouldn't.

Can the players take such actions forever? Will the game be stuck until a plant action is taken? (I've played Earth once, I don't remember the rules.)

Earth ends because at least one player completes their tableau, so if neither takes a plant action, no, the game won't end. You can play other actions that (mostly) gain you resources of various kinds, and you could keep playing those actions instead, even if it gets to a point where gaining the resources does nothing for you. But whether two players would is another question - and it would depend on other factors, meaning it's probably a rare occurrence as h_iles describes in Century.

I think in Ark Nova, you could just keep passing and taking X-tokens? I know that to either take cards or get money from sponsors progresses the break track, and other actions require either certain cards/money/assistants to do them so would become unplayable at some point, but I think you could keep taking x-tokens forever. But again, I would assume it's usually not worthwhile on balance - you'd need a very specific circumstance for that actually to be your best move (and no other options).

I suspect the answer to this thread is theoretically, yes. It is both possible to have games that last forever, and with the right circumstances, both players might be at a disadvantage by taking anything other than a non-stalling move. But such circumstances would be rare, and even where they did happen, I would expect a lot of the time, either one or both players may not see it for what it is and continue to play anyway.

[Fuchur]

8<

I think in Ark Nova, you could just keep passing and taking X-tokens?

8<

As far as i know you are limited to 5 tokens.

[FrankJones]

If neither player has a non-plant action that is superior enough to the other player's non-plant actions to make it possible to give up the tableau completion bonus, the game could essentially become a stalemate/draw.

Can the players take such actions forever? Will the game be stuck until a plant action is taken? (I've played Earth once, I don't remember the rules.)

In Ark Nova a similar situation can arise where neither player want to trigger a "break", because then the other player will grab a juicy bonus. But even if both (all) players try to stall, eventually one player will be forced to trigger it because no other action is possible.

But to answer the topic's question: Yes, some games can last forever. I'd consider it a "bug" in game design, similar to a programming bug that causes a deadlock. If the players recognize the situation, they should probably agree to abandon. If one doesn't, they're probably expecting the other(s) to give up and quit the game, hoping to get some elo out of it (and some likely red thumbs).

"Earth" continues until someone has planted 16 cards.

If each player has 13, then whoever plants first will lose the completion bonus (active player plants 2, secondary player plants 1). In such a situation, a big advantage would be held by the player who has the strongest economy in one of the other 3 actions. But if both players have similar-strength economy, the game could stagnate for a while, especially if neither player has a card draw ability in the action of their best scoring engine.

If one player has a non-plant action that scores points and draws a card or two, that player will eventually have such strong cards that it might become worth gambling with a plant action even though it means allowing the other player to trigger the end game.

This is the only thematic strategy game I have played in which a stalemate situation like that is possible.

[teallite]

Sometimes you may make a less than optimal move in order to progress your game (and yes, often that's because you've made one or more poor decisions leading up to that point). I've definitely looked at a board state and said, well, all of my options are pretty poor, so I'll take this one that will at least give me some resources (or something) that mean I have better options later. I've sometimes felt sure that taking said moves are going to put me at a disadvantage, but that's not always the case. I guess that means your move is not a guaranteed disadvantage?

Yes, it can be hard to tell if your actions are really disadvantageous. It is possible to take a temporary hit to achieve overall win for example. Maybe it is better to talk about a guaranteed loss instead to avoid ambiguity. Imagine a scenario with two players A and B. The game is about to end and winner is undecided. Player A has actions A1 and A2, player B has actions B1 and B2. Action A1 wins over B1 but loses to B2. Action A2 wins over B2 but loses to B1. In this scenario whoever makes any of these actions first loses, because second player can respond with a winning move. And if there is no way to force another player to act and passing turns is allowed, this would lead to a deadlock.

I've also been in situations where the better choice is to pass for a round (or a turn), even if it means my opponent does the same. Admittedly, in the case of TM, it's pretty rare that you'd follow passing a round with also passing out the next round where you have refreshed resources. <...> But I would assume after a few rounds of both players essentially passing because no one wants to "take the hit", someone would eventually do something. I would definitely get to that point. But then I'm here to play games, so I'd rather be playing and looking at a potential loss than sitting in a stalemate making pointless moves. I know there are some who would rather pass forever than take a move that's going to probably mean they lose the game, but not everyone feels that way.

Yes, there are situations in TM, when it's better to pass immediately. And it can happen for all players and maybe even for a couple of rounds. But it doesn't lead to a stalemate, unless all players act completely irrationally, because passing for a round and getting to a next round significantly changes game state. Even in an extreme theoretical scenario, when no one can decide what to do and just passes for many rounds, there is a tipping point. By 39th generation all players will accumulate 750 MC, which is enough to completely terraform Mars with standard projects. So, if players continue to pass following a turn order, then last player in that turn order wins, because they alone can max all parameters without any interference.

[teallite]

The Terraforming Mars example (given in the post above yours) is a bit odd. It's difficult to envision a scenario where a game of Terraforming Mars reaches a standoff because neither player wants to do anything (from a strategic standpoint).

Well, it's not possible to reach an endless standoff in TM. But there are a lot of situations when players do stall actions (actions on blue cards, selling cards, "raising" parameters already at max) trying to force each other to act (or pass, or reveal some information). It not that neither player wants to do anything, but neither player wants to do anything _first_. Sometimes the ability to out-stall opponent can decide who wins a game.

[FrankJones]

The Terraforming Mars example (given in the post above yours) is a bit odd. It's difficult to envision a scenario where a game of Terraforming Mars reaches a standoff because neither player wants to do anything (from a strategic standpoint).

Well, it's not possible to reach an endless standoff in TM. But there are a lot of situations when players do stall actions (actions on blue cards, selling cards, "raising" parameters already at max) trying to force each other to act (or pass, or reveal some information). It not that neither player wants to do anything, but neither player wants to do anything _first_. Sometimes the ability to out-stall opponent can decide who wins a game.

I'm aware. My TFM Ello is 479 and was as high as 535, and I help maintain the game here on BGA.


My post was a bit unclear, I suppose. When I said "standoff", I essentially meant "stalemate" because of the situation I described in "Earth", and the general situation succinctly described in your post right before this one.

My apologies for the confusion.