Thanks Mad777 that totally solves my problem. For those who have PMed me on the final answer step by step:

⋅ In Personal Menu in the left column of the page, click on settings which will bring up the Game Settings menu.
⋅ The third section down in Game Setting.
⋅&nbsp ...

Are you using a special add-on? I have looked all over for a page that has the dropdowns that you have at the top of your post. And when I go to Settings in the Personal Menu section on the left all I get is a list of options with yes/no, small/large, and on/off buttons. None of them mention circle ...

Concise description:

⋅ Some of the maps, Tamriel for example, place the colors and troop counts in dark circles. I joined CC in 2010 and I’m almost 70 now. As you get older and your vision changes it sometimes gets difficult to easily read dark blue or dark green on a dark background ...

No, my issue is not with his rank, it is with clogging up the list with games that no one seems to want to play, and yes, I will move this to the suggestion area since the answer seem to be no, there is no limit on how long games stay in the lists.

I don’t want to get specific, but, like many others, I tend to search for a specific combination of game options. I joined some 12 player games which usually fill up in a reasonable time. Then, a Cook decided to start 40 games with the same map, 5 each with various number of players. Most of those ...

I did a search for my favorite list, terminator fog trench no random, and the first 45 games that came up were all from the same player. Looks like games with the same map and options options, 4 each for 12,11,10,9,8,7,6 and 5 players with some of the player counts set to 8 each.

Is there a limit?

But concerning what we could do, I totally agree with you on all possible solutions you offered.

I guess that leads to the next logical question! There have been many suggestions on this thread, so how do we decide which one the majority of players would like, and then how do we get that one ...

Donelladan,

If deadlock games are the issue, then why not change the default Round Limit for all games to some rather high number like 200 or 250 and eliminate the None setting.

In the game that I am in now that has reached over 200 rounds, all three of the remaining players are tired of the game ...

Owen,

To a degree I would sort of agree with you that my argument was kind of mute; if only 0.0001% of the games and players were effected by this request, but the real percentage of games and players effected is over 7.4%, so the argument is not mute. We should be looking for a solution to fix a ...

Another idea is to have like a warning popup if people try to start or join a game with these characteristics, telling them that this combination of settings should be treated as experimental and unsupported by the site. We might even consider turning off points for those combinations.

What ...

There is a third solution! On the Start Games screen, if trench and escalating are both checked, if the Round Limit radio button is currently “none” change it to “100 Rounds” and disable the “none” button. Let the user check 20, 30, 50, or 100, but if the user tries to check none, light up the 100 ...

How would your suggestion remove this deadlock situation?

My original suggestion that started this thread was not the proper solution to the problem, but it did create some interesting replies with alternate solutions.

When I combined the alternate suggested solutions, to me the best way to ...

I like escalating trench. It is definitely a different type of strategy but it can be won. You just cant be afraid to hit the attack button. Lots of players are afraid to hit the attack button.

It is not a matter of being afraid to attack. It is the matter of being afraid to advance a huge stack ...

Even before the change, escalating trench was awful because the two strategies are polar opposites of each other to begin with

I disagree and some other people, probably the OP as well to start, also disagree.
I think it is a subjectiv statement. Like for example owenshooter who dislike all ...

What about the compromise I just posted? Go back to the old escalating counts, but only in if it is an escalating trench game. No change to any boards, just an internal change to the logic. This would also require a small note on the Game Options page under Spoils to let players know that the ...

After reading all of these posts, I realize that there is a very simple solution to this problem.

Do nothing to the playing board or any of the other screens, do not add any new fields or boxes! These changes would indeed take a lot of programming.

The suggestion was made to change the create a ...

Another option is to go back to the original rule in the Risk game that CC was originally designed to copy.

In those Escalating games the sets were worth 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15 and “after the sixth set has been traded in, each additional set is worth 5 more armies”.

The game I am stuck in is now up ...

Counter Suggestion: CC should prevent players from starting games with both trench and escalating settings.



Good Point, they could take away some of the things that certain players enjoy, or take the steps to improve what they have.

I'm sure that all of the members who read this want CC to ...

If CC would find the energy and the resources to make that change requested, it would be great to give another possibillity besides 'attack' and 'auto attack'. I would like to have a third option: 'autoattack minus 1 or 2' When i want to break down a big stack of an opponent to a single or 2 armys ...

First of all I did not ask for or invent Trench Escalating, it is something offered by CC, and I didn’t change the size of the escalating changes, again something done by CC.

I can’t believe that either modifying the existing box or adding a new one where I can just enter that I want to advance 46 ...

how about you just stop stacking and actually play the game? stackers represent less than .0001% of CC players... not worth programming this for the very few...

I’m in an 8 Player Escalating WWII Europe game that is down to round 85 3 players and its current bonus is now 17,525.
Also a 5 player ...

Concise description:

⋅ The current list of advance troop counts has several huge gaps in huge stack situations.
⋅ If you attack with 687,346 troops it is impossible to advance 257,000 troops
⋅ You can’t even type in that number in the selection box.

Specifics ...

I've been having the same problem for the past couple months:

"Communication with the server has timed out. Wait another 10 seconds?"

pops up multiple times for a single move.

I wait for 30 seconds for the central command to come up and then another 30 seconds for a selected game to come up ...

I also did a calculator using excel generation of random numbers for the dice rolls. My results showed an average 54.5 % advantage to the attacker. Then I got into the following situation which just about confirms my excel calculations:

I’m in a, what seems to be marathon, trench, escalating, no ...

One of the problems is the link in the Master Suggestion Index. The Semi-Auto Assault link takes you to a 2007 suggestion that references a situation where two stacks of 488 and 460 are up against a single stack of 440. If you auto-assault with either stack you capture the region and can only ...