1s 2735 / 16651 (16.43%)
2s 2724 / 16651 (16.36%)
3s 2810 / 16651 (16.88%)
4s 2794 / 16651 (16.78%)
5s 2787 / 16651 (16.74%)
6s 2801 / 16651 (16.82%)

Looks pretty fair to me... that's a pretty good even distribution.

Edit: Nevermind, I was replacing. Fix works.

Found it through a story on Digg.

Escalating drives me batty but I'll give it a shot. Count me in.

I'm pretty sure gangusclam eats babies

None of them are worth printing.

Wait for Lack to change it so skipped turns don't provide extra armies.

That's a tough line to draw. I missed a turn in a few games this weekend because I was on travel and the hotel wireless was acting up before I left. I tried to have no games going when I left, but many games will run longer ...

The1exile wrote:You lose less points losing to a major than a cook.

Aaah, I didn't realize that. Thanks.

The Hobbit army shall decimate Middle Earth, starting with the kneecaps!

try to make sure the person with the highest score wins

Would you mind sharing your logic behind that? I'm not being sarcastic at all, I'm really interested to understand why that seems like a good approach from your perspective.

Brownie points in case you meet them again in another game ...

I'll join the fray. Count me in.

I find that alliances made through chat make the game much more enjoyable. It can be a lot of fun to wage psychological warfare against your opponents and turn them against each other. Some of my most memorable games had hundreds of lines of chat dedicated to making, breaking, twisting, and whining ...

I like the new icons.. look more 'professional' and offer more variety

------ My Rolls -------------------- Opponent Rolls -----
1s - 612 / 3944 (15.52%) ---- 362 / 2052 (17.64%)
2s - 651 / 3944 (16.51%) ---- 311 / 2052 (15.16%)
3s - 649 / 3944 (16.46%) ---- 336 / 2052 (16.37%)
4s - 677 / 3944 (17.17%) ---- 352 / 2052 (17.15%)
5s - 670 / 3944 (16.99%) ---- 343 ...

Dice are random and generated external to the site. (random.org)

However, since defender dice win ties, if you attack 2 on 2 the defender has distinct advantage. If you are attacking 3 on 2 the attacker has a probabilistic advantage:

Attacker wins - 2890/7776 = 37.17%
Defender wins - 2275 ...

wicked wrote:Chalu, those people who joined are his teammates, so it was preplanned.

He starts the triples games alone and random people join as his teammates.. I'm playing (or waiting) in 6 games as his teammate without any invite from him at all.

I've just started playing more group games lately for a few reasons:

- Education: I consider myself a good player but there's still more for me to learn. I get a lot from working with someone and being exposed to their thought processes as they play.

- Safety Net: Every so often my luck runs ...

I do see JR's point and agree he should be given an exception, if possible. I realize it's a bad precedent to set, but perhaps a rule could be made that after 3000 finished games (or some other ridiculous number) the restriction is lifted. Every game he has started already has at least 2 other ...

Sounds like a good idea to me. At very least it provides the rest of us with an indication that a new player is actually playing games.

alstergren wrote:What is it with today’s youth? No spirit of exploration… Just get your ass out there and wreck havoc a few games, it’s soon catch on…

Normally I'd agree, but when other people count on you it's good to be as educated as possible before making a mistake that might hurt your whole team.

Rather than start a new thread I'll ask here.

Playing my first team game and I noticed my teammate deployed his troops on my territory. Are the only two options for sharing troops to deploy or fortify them to someone else?

I voted yes based on the spam-heavy response with no content from the Spamalot members. Forum posts are a privilege, not a right. No one cares about your post count except you.

5 month game.. hot damn

Pancake Pith Helmet, +3 against syrup-based attacks

Thanks a lot, lack. That's exactly what I was looking for. You da man.

Sounds like as long as I don't capitalize on the name brand to sell a product the game mechanics themselves are free to use. As long as a specific patent isn't being violated for the actual game apparatus there really aren't ...