infected neutrals.
enough said.

in

im in

im in

awesome idea. some thoughts:
-The challenger should have the option of calling off the duel after the conditions are decided by the challenged. (this is also more realistic.. as one way to avoid a duel without refusing to duel is to choose ridiculous conditions, attempting to get the challenger to ...

there's this think called the ignore list. use it. (actually, now it's called foes i believe)

I love this idea and risk 2.0... iv'e been trying to get parts of this implemented, but haven't succeeded yet. Some notes: the "battle resolutions" part is actually part of the attack phase (at the end) resolving situations where two different people attack the same territ and win, they then have to ...

does nobody have feedback?

Concise description:

⋅ There would be a Troop Multiplier game option. If selected, all armies would be multiplied by some constant C. I propose that c=10, but that could be decided here if you prefer a different number.

Specifics:

⋅ So with a constant of 10, all ...

As for tieryn's idea, the problem with spreading is that is prevents the large armies from being isolated. For example, consider the sanctuary on AoR:Magic. With the current rules, the army there is isolated until someone takes a bordering territ, releasing it. With ur proposal, it would spread out ...

yeah cic where'd ya go? Do you have any other ideas on this?

MsC im in

Perhaps a way to make the citadel a little less overwhelming is to give its siege weapons a range. Also, siege weapons are no good short range.. so my thought was that the citadel can bombard any waterfront territory, but not on the island? This would restrict it's range a little, and reduce it's ...

so I've updated some of the graphics, changed the legend, etc. Any input?

i like it as it stands

yes i agree that it would be cool, and didn't say that it was a problem!
I also know that the last one standing situacion was already discussed, what I don't know is if anyone
actually analyzed the probability behind it. So I figured that I would.

I don't know if anyone's actually thought this through, but if the nz's are
getting +1 army for every territ and humans only get +1 for every 3, the
nz's would potentially get far more armies than the human players. This
means that on maps like AoR, it might be impossible for humans to last ...

Yeah random posts!
btw, how about Dark Tranquility or Nightwish

i think something like:

round 1:
player1
buildup
player2
buildup
player3
buildup

round 2:
player1
attack
player2
attack
player3
attack

where the nz's build up for one round, then attack on the next, then build up on the next, etc.
could work, but beyond this I think it is at ...

i see the double turn now, i didn't notice before

Is this thread about freestyle vs sequential or infected neutrals

my cycling turn proposal was in response to people who thought that the nz's
always going last would give the last player an unfair advantage. Since the
nz's are supposed to be a game play feature, and thus should not give any ...

im in

Iliad wrote:Nightwish!!!

YES!!!!! and within temptation, Leave's eyes, elis, Dark Tranquility,
Cradle of Filth, Arch Enemy, Graveworm, Draconian, Renascent, Devildriver

ok won't reply to people who don't understand what i'm talking about... anyways cic, if in a 3 player freestyle game, if you capture a bonus, and you're the last to go, then you can leave 1.s by the neutrals, and just fortify the areas that have other players near them and the let player on the ...

yeah i have the same problem. I think it's related to the site going down today.