check the announcements. that problem was fixed last night.

Oops! Sorry, it was a late night!

You're getting screwed by the system when the system allows your partner to screw you.

And anyways, what do you have against correcting the problem, significant or not? If it's too difficult to program, or if there are more pressing matters, that's one thing, but why insist on not improving the ...

Yeah, but it still looks like 8/18 people still think it shouldn't even be an option . It makes me wonder how many of them actually read my initial post.

Well, that's true, but I don't see any reason to ignore a significant problem just because the old system works when you play with reliable people. Just because you can work around it doesn't mean there aren't going to be lots of people who get screwed by the system, and unless there are ...

About these things, the single thing maybe I would agree was, if there is an your territory adjacent to one partner deadbeat territory, automatic fortification of the troops, with the last 1 army becoming neutral, as the armies in a country without any places to fortify.


uhh... what?

The ...

The one issue I can think of is that two or more people would try for the same goal. For instance, there's a possibility that up to four players could all try to take Australia and as a result they'd all kill each other. But I think this is actually a good thing. It could add another element of ...

Does anyone else think it might be a little more fair if it alternated bettween teams?

I agree, that would be much more fair, being one of those casual players that doesn't want to make the effort to take advantage of the unbalance.

Hmmm, not really alike the real life board game, since you can see the opponents troops in real life.

But how would it work? Any place with 1 army in the begginning? So, the first player could deploy and attack "1" armies? To it work better, so in the deployment turn no one can really play until ...

Thanks for the support! I'll set it up as a poll too. I've seen some other people do that.

That would increase the abuse potential. In addition to the continent problem, the deadbeat could have only one army on each territory and then not only has one player gained a continent with no losses, but he's gotten a 2 point bonus for each territory he gained for free.

well i'm just thinking... what if you and your partener were split on a continent... if it is played like it should be... one person fortifies his armys to the other and you still have to attack to get the territories... risking your armies...

all of a sudden if one person deadbeats... his ...

Hi! I'm new here, so forgive me if this has been brought up before or if I did something stupid. I was thinking that there might be a better way to handle the placement of the armies at the beginning of the game. Having exactly 3 armies on each territory may save time with the setup, but it creates ...