Missing Turns & 'No Cards'. RULES HAVE TO CHANGE

[JimRocky]

I believe we should look to the spirit of the game for a solution.

The game is meant to be played with everyone taking a turn once per round.
So it goes against the spirit of the game to skip turns for the purpose of gathering a clump of armies for a surprise attack.

However there is the issue that sometimes real life prevent people from taking a daily turn. We all have our moments when we can't get to play.

So what to do?

Well I think the game itself decrees that people shouldn't be able to miss turns for an advantage. Missing a turn should be a disadvantage.
Usually it is, but there are times, especially in early moves that a person can use the missing turn as a strategy, where it becomes an advantage to them. This should not be.

So perhaps there can be a rule somehow that you only get the missed turn armies on missed turns after Turn 5, (or some other turn number).

Or if that's not feasible perhaps it can be that your missed turn armies are collected at half rate. i.e. You would have collected 6 for missed turns but you only get 3 as a penalty.

It really should be that missing a turn becomes a disadvantage, and never a way to create an advantage.

[CreepyUncleAndy]

I don't see a problem with strategic deadbeaters. As a rule of thumb, if I see someone miss a turn, I immediately go for their nearby territories. This does a few things:

(1) I can walk over their territories easier because they haven't been reinforced yet, so I generally don't loose as many armies as I would going against more active players.

(2) It sets an example, like a battlecry, and the other players sometimes start following the example to eliminate the delinquent player.

(3) Even if we don't manage to eliminate the strategic deadbeater before he gets his double- or triple-deployment, at least I've managed to take him off my doorstep. I am no longer a viable target for his extra armies. At best, he will barely have enough to reclaim what he has lost in the heart of his empire. At worst, he will drop buckets of troops in the middle of someone else's neighborhood and reak havoc. It's like having an atomic bomb dropped into the midst of your enemies. They'll grind each other to nothing while I'm still sitting comfortably outside the conflagration, building my forces.

Perfect example is Game # 292111 -- viditdd has been missing rounds left and right (or taking forever to take his turns -- I think he's just not as addicted to CC as the rest of us). Anyways, I've been quietly moving to consolidate Europe (ever notice how tough those pesky neutral armies are to defeat? thx for deadbeating, btw, lacokat67).

When viditdd missed a turn, the first thing I did was eliminate his (three? seven?) armies from Eastern Europe, first and foremost. I pretty much ignored everyone else while doing this. Others have been similarly purging him from their corners of the globe. The result? viditdd has been reduced to half-a-dozen randomly scattered territories. One, maybe two more rounds, and his deadbeat is will be eliminated (but no for deadbeating -- he'll be crushed).

[tahitiwahini]

It really should be that missing a turn becomes a disadvantage, and never a way to create an advantage.

Well-said. I'm in favor of reducing the missed turn bonus to zero, but I would also support either of your proposals that increase the undesirability of missing turns.

I think it's the first time I've heard a proposal disallowing the missed turn bonus for the first few rounds. Since that's the period during which the missed turn bonus has the most impact, the proposal is very interesting.

Thanks.

[PerkinsRooster]

I respectfully disagree. If you can't log in for 2 minutes once a day, don't play the game.

Well. I don't agree. On many occassions I've missed rounds here and there due o being on he road or having a hang-over.

You are so hung over you can't sit at a computer for a few minutes? Wow, dude!

[Nikolai]

In case it's not yet perfectly clear, I am against any alteration of the rules as they currently stand regarding army compensation for missed turns. If you can't take tactical advantage of the improved flexibility and increased potential for more armies that another player gives you by skipping turns, you need to improve your game, not whine louder. It's pesky, since it takes more time, but I like watching people who try it get eaten. And if you haven't got the patience to wait an extra six hours while someone hands you an advantage, well... don't play.

[b.k. barunt]

I've had over 300 games and have only had to miss a turn twice. Plain and simple, if you know ahead of time that you will miss turns in a game, it's selfish and inconsiderate to your opponents if you join the game. If something unexpected happens, it should be too bad for you, and not doubly too bad for us. But it's really a moot point, because to tighten the rules on deadbeating would lead to cutting down the number of deadbeat members. This would be good for us, but how soon do you think lack will be implementing changes that will cut down membership?

[Lev306]

Only read up to page 2, but heres my opinion on the matter.

Stalling the game purposely gives the player stalling a pretty big advantage. Now sure you can say, be prepared for it because he still gets the same amount of armies total as you do. However in the start of a game how prepared can you be for a deployment of 9 armies? I assume you aren't stalling the game at the moment so you are consistently deploying armies even if you don't attack with them and you are probably moving your armies around to fortify positions. Just by doing these 2 things, you are giving away your plans. However the staller who sits waiting for 9 armies can instantly deploy on any position and probably on a territory with 3 armies for a grand total of 12 just by taking 1 turn and then he/she can launch a pretty devastating surprise attack. Furthermore because other legit players are not stalling and moving their armies, there will be many territories with less than 3 armies which the stalling player can take advantage of. Finally, not many players would fully engage territories with 3 armies so the stalling player is not likely to lose too many armies even though he missed 2 turns.

The only way to truly combat stalling is to stall yourself. That way once everyone resumes play, nothing will have changed from the original status (although the original staller still has advantage - eg. has 2 of 4 territories in Oceania on classic, deploys 9 and takes it within a turn) However this would just turn CC into a really slow, long game and will end up being played in ways that lack didnt intend it to be played (not to mention that many maps will be unsuitable for initial 9 army deployments)

IMO, stalling should not be rewarded nor punished. When the player returns he gets his 3 armies and thats it. However there is a means by which you can keep the game playable. If a player misses turns in the first, lets say 7 rounds? then he doesn't get any bonus armies from his missed turns. During those 7 rounds, it is not too likely the player will be eliminated (especially in a no card game) and the players who are actually playing will already have had their chances to establish themselves in certain territories. Another possibility is that instead of getting the full 3, the player only gets 1 for each turn he missed.

[Capt Killroy]

this is the rule you have (24hrs to take your turn) ,

if you can't take a turn in 24 that's 24 hrs people,

you should not i repeat NOT get your armies for that turn


i would like to know why you get those armies in the first place is that a risk ,
rule from the board game or is that a rule that was made up on this site .

[lackattack]

This would be good for us, but how soon do you think lack will be implementing changes that will cut down membership?

Sooner than you think

[tahitiwahini]

Only read up to page 2, but heres my opinion on the matter.

Stalling the game purposely gives the player stalling a pretty big advantage. Now sure you can say, be prepared for it because he still gets the same amount of armies total as you do. However in the start of a game how prepared can you be for a deployment of 9 armies? I assume you aren't stalling the game at the moment so you are consistently deploying armies even if you don't attack with them and you are probably moving your armies around to fortify positions. Just by doing these 2 things, you are giving away your plans. However the staller who sits waiting for 9 armies can instantly deploy on any position and probably on a territory with 3 armies for a grand total of 12 just by taking 1 turn and then he/she can launch a pretty devastating surprise attack. Furthermore because other legit players are not stalling and moving their armies, there will be many territories with less than 3 armies which the stalling player can take advantage of. Finally, not many players would fully engage territories with 3 armies so the stalling player is not likely to lose too many armies even though he missed 2 turns.

The only way to truly combat stalling is to stall yourself. That way once everyone resumes play, nothing will have changed from the original status (although the original staller still has advantage - eg. has 2 of 4 territories in Oceania on classic, deploys 9 and takes it within a turn) However this would just turn CC into a really slow, long game and will end up being played in ways that lack didnt intend it to be played (not to mention that many maps will be unsuitable for initial 9 army deployments)

IMO, stalling should not be rewarded nor punished. When the player returns he gets his 3 armies and thats it. However there is a means by which you can keep the game playable. If a player misses turns in the first, lets say 7 rounds? then he doesn't get any bonus armies from his missed turns. During those 7 rounds, it is not too likely the player will be eliminated (especially in a no card game) and the players who are actually playing will already have had their chances to establish themselves in certain territories. Another possibility is that instead of getting the full 3, the player only gets 1 for each turn he missed.

Good points all, well-said.

[tahitiwahini]

This would be good for us, but how soon do you think lack will be implementing changes that will cut down membership?

Sooner than you think

That's encouraging...

[alster]

Only read up to page 2, but heres my opinion on the matter.

Stalling the game purposely gives the player stalling a pretty big advantage. Now sure you can say, be prepared for it because he still gets the same amount of armies total as you do. However in the start of a game how prepared can you be for a deployment of 9 armies? I assume you aren't stalling the game at the moment so you are consistently deploying armies even if you don't attack with them and you are probably moving your armies around to fortify positions. Just by doing these 2 things, you are giving away your plans. However the staller who sits waiting for 9 armies can instantly deploy on any position and probably on a territory with 3 armies for a grand total of 12 just by taking 1 turn and then he/she can launch a pretty devastating surprise attack. Furthermore because other legit players are not stalling and moving their armies, there will be many territories with less than 3 armies which the stalling player can take advantage of. Finally, not many players would fully engage territories with 3 armies so the stalling player is not likely to lose too many armies even though he missed 2 turns.

The only way to truly combat stalling is to stall yourself. That way once everyone resumes play, nothing will have changed from the original status (although the original staller still has advantage - eg. has 2 of 4 territories in Oceania on classic, deploys 9 and takes it within a turn) However this would just turn CC into a really slow, long game and will end up being played in ways that lack didnt intend it to be played (not to mention that many maps will be unsuitable for initial 9 army deployments)

IMO, stalling should not be rewarded nor punished. When the player returns he gets his 3 armies and thats it. However there is a means by which you can keep the game playable. If a player misses turns in the first, lets say 7 rounds? then he doesn't get any bonus armies from his missed turns. During those 7 rounds, it is not too likely the player will be eliminated (especially in a no card game) and the players who are actually playing will already have had their chances to establish themselves in certain territories. Another possibility is that instead of getting the full 3, the player only gets 1 for each turn he missed.

Good points all, well-said.

I see why you found it to be imperative to include the whole quote before patting him on the shoulder. Well quoted.

[chessplaya]

If you think it's such an advantage, and it's legal, why not do it yourself, instead of whining that other people do it?

As for freestyle, If you don't like it, don't play.

Thats wisdome my friend!!!
but still missing turns in games is just aint classy i never do that