Given the current pointing system where players lose more points against lower ranked opponents, competitive players are forced to play with high point opponents
No, competitive players try their best to win every game. Score sluts are the ones that are forced to (choose to) only play with other ...

I don't really like DiM's idea for a freestyle solution. Freestyle is awesome because you're guaranteed a turn every day in each of your games. With DiM's idea, 1 round could take as long as 48 hours to complete.
One round would only take 48 hours if YOU take 24 hours to take your turn also, so if ...

No one wants to scroll horizontally. Fortunately you don't have to now and you won't have to with this suggestion either.
Actually, I do have to scroll horizontally. On world 2.1 the end of the player names are off the screen. I don't mind that because I don't look at the player names very much ...

Well, I'm glad everybody understand now. How about adding another stage at the beginning of a turn if someone has any missed turn armies. In this stage they would have to place their armies before they attack, but the armies wouldn't show up on the board until after the end their turn.

Deployment is different from Fortification. Deployment, no matter what the fortification is set to, can be split up however you want anytime you want. Therefore, making a second deployment stage wouldn't have any bearing on the fortification setting. This is getting ridiculous. It does have an ...

For large maps, I'd rather scroll vertically than horizontally, so I don't want this to become standard, but it is easy to do with greasemonkey, just use document.getElementById and copy the form over.

I believe the suggested idea is a second deployment stage. That wouldn't have any effect on the fortification.
Wrong. It has a huge effect on limited fortification. Aeriel Attack just explained why a second deployment stage is directly linked to fortification. I will explain it in my own words ...

I don't consider the dice very important at all. You can't change them and knowing them doesn't change anything (except for people that believe previous rolls affect future rolls).

This is an OK solution in games with unlimited fortification, but a terrible idea for games with limited fortification.

Aren't the voting options a little repetitive? 1 is equivalent to 4 and 2 is equivalent to 5

pancakemix wrote:Sometimes that can be used strategically, though. Ex: I have 1 card, green has 3, and I'm about to lose. I can choose to do as much damage as possible, but not end my turn, he only gets 4 cards, and can't trade.

Why do you care who wins if its not you?

How about letting the creator choose the value of the set of cards? Then it could be adjust according to the map and personal preference

Great job with the map, I like the view a lot. It's unique, and isn't too cluttered.

I have a few suggested changes. I apologize for not reading the entire thread, so if these changes have already been discussed, just ignore the rest of this post.

1) The Richmond continent has too few territories ...

Thanks for clearing it up.

Wisse wrote:look to the last map update in this thread he already fixed it...

The last map update doesn't have a borneo border...

Simply the fact that it's such a big discussion means that it is a problem. If there are so many people making the same mistake that there are 500mil threads about this then maybe something should be done to make it more clear.

The border line is very hard to notice if you're not looking for it ...

GODDAMNIT GET RID OF THE LINE FROM SUMATRA TO BRUNEI. IT MAKES THE PLAYERS BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN ATTACK ONE ANOTHER!!!
There is no line from Sumatra to Brunei. The line goes from Sumatra to Central-Indonesia!!!!!
Brunei is the big island to the left of Central-Indonesia, right? I definitely see a ...

It wouldn't let me attack from brunei to sumatra.

Just the same way a jury believes the prosecution when they say they have indisputable evidence that the defendant killed the victim but refuses to show it in court.

Ok, I believe you then.

JTKALLTHEWAY wrote:Nuke is keeping me alive in this game for some reason, he thinks it's funny.

I think it's funny as well.

The Collection wrote:

hobojjr wrote: I think there is a problem with your algorithm or something......

it's called hacking. you will come to find that most of the people here do that a lot.

Do you have any proof or significant evidance, or are you just throwing out random accusations?

Maybe you can post the algorithm for public review. Or run it 100000 times and post the results.

I'm sure, however, that the dice are fine. People just remember when they have bad luck. They don't remember all the times when they get great luck. Besides, if the dice are bad, they're bad for ...