Concise description:

⋅  I suggest that points lost by losing players and the points gained by the winning players be dependent on the number of rounds taken to win.

Specifics/Details:

⋅  To reward quicker wins, I suggest a multiplicative factor in determining the points ...

I do not support this suggestion. It is true that there are many maps I have never played. But it is rarely the case because I am afraid of losing points. In any case, premium players can join as many games as they want. So, if you are afraid of losing points on a map then join another game on a map ...

congrats on a well deserved win, GON

yes, i am waiting for that game to end too so that i can formally congratulate you guys on a great win.

Thanks for implementing this feature

I sorely miss this feature. I suggest { bold-italics } in curly braces to indicate spoils owned by teammates.

Concise description:

⋅ Indicate spoils owned by teammates

Specifics/Details:

⋅ Highlight my spoils owned by my teammate in bold-italics .

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

⋅ Particularly useful in team nuclear games. We don't have to ...

I support this suggestion. It can lead to very interesting game dynamics such as improved diplomacy and proxy wars.

In please

Accused:

maasman

The accused are suspected of:

Using sitters in a non-clan, non-team game

Game number(s):

12953243


Comments:

At least 2-3 players are sitting for maasman in a singles game (non-clan, non-team). The sitters are announcing that they are sitting but I don't think it is legal ...

i like this year's joke.

can someone pm me the std password? thanks.

looking to join a non-escalating game.

looking to join a non-escalating game.

IMHO stacking on a card is a cheap but legitimate tactic. Meaning I won't join a game with you again but I also wouldn't click the cheap tactic box on rating.

The problem with stacking on a card is that if you attack the stacker, you are greatly weakened and likely to be the first out of the game ...

Two player games are boring. They depend too much on luck. Initial drop and who gets to play first almost always determine who wins. And the outcome of most games is determined in the first turn itself or rarely in the second turn, specially on smaller maps. Adjacent reinforcements and bigger maps ...

Valid point about multis and noobs. But if this feature is introduced as a gametype, noobs can be denied access to these games. As for multis, isn't this feature also a good way to detect multis? If somebody regularly feeds a particular opponent in multiple games, that is a very strong indication ...

also, it is very important to see the logs - to know the rough location of each player and the bonuses they have, who is fighting who to gauge their strengths etc.

instead of one large stack, distribute your defenses. Your opponents won't be able to gauge your true strength that way. Maintain your presence in as many parts of the map as possible to have accurate information and the ability to influence the board.

Escalating games depend too much on luck:
1. Spoils - the color of your spoils determines when you can cash in. In the beginning, one of course delays cashing in spoils as long as possible. But in the middle game, the colors highly matter.
2. At least one player is stupid (highly likely in each game ...

Concise description:

⋅ Allow players to gift troops to opponent players during deployment and reinforcement stages.

Specifics/Details:

⋅ Allow players to deploy and reinforce on opponent player territories. It can be similar to the present system of how one can deploy ...

of course, one has to play in reaction to other players' strategies but in general, i try to get bonuses in the early game (first 2-3 rounds) and in the late game, when there are fewer players and hence there is lesser chance of my bonuses getting nuked. but if some player is stockpiling troops in ...

in please

In please

in please