How does nibotha play the 32nd ranked player with the title on the line? The guy isn't even going to show up.

In any case, well earned nibotha, congrats, and thanks to osman for putting it together. Great to see so many cool new maps.

I think it would add strategy to the straights if MS4 to MS9 also got the landing ship bonus or at least a 1 autodeploy. Most games the straights don't even come into play. There is just not the incentive.

Still think kum kale has to start neutral. Its just too key. You should have to earn the ...

Seems like it would be more fair if the territories that can bombard landing ships always start out neutral. Especially in the south were once the landing ship is lost, you can't get it back.

I'm playing a game and have caverns but the bonus doesn't seem to be applied as indicated on the map. I had to have 3 of them just to get 1 bonus.

I don't think allowing the use of the special feature troops works with the intention they were made for. Its still fair. Stranding troops from turning ...

Spanish Armada was pretty interesting. Probably my favorite so far. Well USA 2.1 is great, surprised it's still beta.

by my count it's 6-6 with 3 games too close to call.

in please.

Dean, could you clarify. In a terminator game ending by round limit, is kill credit given to the "winner"?

I hope not, because a sit and stack strategy is the opposite of any skill as a terminator.

Sure, count me in. I love prizes.

In please

I'm having an issue on the Stalingrad map only. It is not correctly identifying the player territories when you roll over the player when the larger map is showing, but works fine on the smaller map. The map inspect is also messed up. In both cases it is highlighting as if the small map was on the ...

DESCRIPTION

Simple, the first player in any game can deploy but not attack.

REASON TO DO THIS

This would be like going last, but at least you have more troops on the board. Any way you look at it, this minimizes the advantage of deploying first, or takes the sting out of attacking last ...

I'm also sad that this is rejected. I played many many games with no dice. It was the preferred style for my group of friends. To anyone who commented without every trying it, you just don't know what your talking about. If there are software issues, that's a legitimate objection. To say the ...

The best way to end the 3 way is to weaken one opponent to the point where the other has a 50% chance to win the game. Basically you control the game and can put yourself in a 50% win position which is better than a 33% position. This doesn't necessarily mean attacking the weaker of them. Sometimes ...

but we cut each other a little more slack than we might normally.
So you didn't play as if you didn't know him. You should though.

I've played numerous games against my doubles partners, but I've always managed to keep friendship apart from the game I was playing. It's like keeping work and your ...

I guess its hard to play as if you don't know each other. The one game we played together we didn't make any agreements, but we cut each other a little more slack than we might normally. If this is within the generally accepted bounds than great.

I am playing in some doubles games with a partner that's a friend of mine and I told him I didn't think we should play together in standard games with a bunch of strangers because it could lead to outside the chatroom discussion of the game. Am I being overly concerned or is this sort of thing ...

That appears to be the last word on the subject. I have nothing else constructive to add.

Seems to be a mexican standoff with no clear majority opinion, so here's a compromise: add the following selection to the Start A Game form:

"Intensity Cubes" with the options "Classic" (current system of 3 attack dice and 2 defense dice) and "One Roll Per Army" (Axis and Allies system). The ...

I must not have specified the suggestions forum.

Oh that's right, I forgot we're dealing with people. It didn't come up on the search, but I was sure this must have been suggested before.

Concise description:

⋅ There should be a concede button that would allow you to surrender your armies.

Specifics/Details:

⋅ Instead of just missing your turns or having a game drag on you should have a surrender option. A simple concede armies button would be nice ...

So is this just a dead issue or is there any consideration for this option from anyone running this site? We have no cards options, I think no dice would be very popular. You would just put up the number of armies you want to attack with and the same number comes off the defender. You need 2 more ...

Bombardment wouldn't be any different than any other attack, its costs the attacker one army. Stalingrad is a great bombardment map, actually a great map all around. It seems the no dice option just won't get its chance. Too bad, if you played it you might be surprised how much more strategy comes ...

Yeah, I didn't think about attacking 1 vs 2 since you would normally never do that. Really the best option is the no dice option and just remove one for one.