magenta <3333333333

in

man this is lame, i get an invite and i still dont make it in on time.

making it a requirement only eliminates the ability for an already organized team to create a game where random people will be thier opponents?


is that something you want?

i would like to participate

i will edit in maps

Nice in theory, crap in practice. It'll just make it oh so much easier for the hardcore farmers if they could mass foe everyone above Private. At least with the current arrangement they can only foe by typing in names in the manage foes page or by clicking the Add Foe link on a profile. It's labour ...

hmm, do people like the additional sugestion i made to making this an option?

It would be a good way to lure farming victims to an "easy win"


although it seeing that happen WOULD be a bit comical..but still

no

given, i forgot that the game finder search results expire after left.


this is technically a new suggestion altogether, but a solution for that would be to add the ability to join more than one game at once in the game finder
Try holding 'ctrl' while you click the 'join game' link.


Oh, okay ...

given, i forgot that the game finder search results expire after left.


this is technically a new suggestion altogether, but a solution for that would be to add the ability to join more than one game at once in the game finder, or more simply be able to have a "join all" link that you can click ...

Because you have people that think this site should be more "fair". Where the dice should play no part and it should be 100% skill. Which is not ConquerClub (almost typed in RISK )

Ignore their bitching. The Foe list is your friend.

are you saying you dont care for skill?


and i think everyone ...

^and thats when you should use game finder.

the join a game page should have the benefit of letting y9ou go through all sorts of games

that sort of game hiding thing wouldnt have to apply for the game finder.

how bout this

public games with purposeful teams must be joined as teams

if someone who has a team wants to join a game, when they join, it will have the player enter what who they're teamates are so they can join. their teammates recieve notification for the games they're teammates have signed up ...

in general, continents usually give a higher bonus than the number of territories that continent has which would itg the mor efficient bonus improvijng method

however, what adonis sais is true so I would say a mix of both is the best strategy, however ignoring the still present help of bonuses ...

2. if you go through NA, this does not affect your borders with yellow so you wont have to worry about him.
N2 & N3 are pretty much out there on an island if hostilities occur, with adjacent forts there is no quick support coming... IF you had lucky dice maybe you could instigate an insurgency ...

para, look, it doesn't matter at which point of the map Zaphod would attack red, red can still make up his own mind about where to retaliate, there are no guarantees that the conflict could be contained in formerly North America with few losses for both parties. Furthermore, you have done nothing ...

once again, i gather my opinion based on logic, not experience

I could argue to you about how my games here have nothing to do with my risk knowledge but really it comes down to opinion so im not going to bother. you wont give me any credibility anyway as anything a cook says is apparently ...

well even with three players, thats 130ish armies even if your equal, if you go man for man against one of the other two you will still have 100 armies left and most likely a new set with which to gain enough armies to take out the other player, so how is that a stalemate?

and thats with only three ...

from what I have understood of this argument, you claim that stalemates happen in no cards, not escalating

were'nt you the one SUPPORTING escalating? why would you be complaining about stalemates happening there?

you make no sense. a stale mate in escalating makes no sense to begin with.

I can ...

You're incorrect about the first part - unless you're hoping on waiting for someone to make a critical mistake and pounce - which will NEVER happen. The strategy at that point of hte game is too simplistic - if you're a private and are able to realize that's the best strategy (to wait and build up ...

thanks for the sarcasm herpes ^_^

and why exactly is my logic poor? back up your statements

you say alliances are unneccessary, but you havent given a solution.

you say people know when something is mutually beneficial, but if something is beneficial for two of those players, that something is ...

crap, i had this whole awesome example of how more luck factors increases overall luck and when i pushed submit it turns out that i had been logged out.

bah

but the golf analogy works too.



also to remove the luck of who goes first, it doesnt neccessarily need to be speed, except for the fact ...

il be honest when i say I dont have experiencen on the subject.

of all the no-cards games ive played (and thats all ive played as of late) ive only come across one game that could be considered a build-up game and im still currently playing it. even that game is breaking down now, sp yeah. i cant ...

i would hope that you would base your decision on more than that

well first of all, thats different then what you said that the lucl of dice without cards is more than the luvk of cards and dice combined

thats like saying without cardsm luck of dice is 150%

regardless, the way i see it, dice luck is 50%, and card luck is 50% (thats of course they're assuming ...