I had something else in mind. Instead of being totally anonymous, you know who's in the game just not what color they are. In that sense, you can still play with your friends, invitation should still work. And you also get the benefits of anonymity.

I don't know what team farming is, so I can't ...

Woodruff wrote:Why wouldn't you want to see the chat? Particularly given that you'll have to rate people potentially based on that chat.

I meant private chat. e.g. note to self and team chat. Anything that's public should remain public.

Woodruff wrote:I'd also, of course, like to find out "who was who" once the game was complete, as well.

I agree with this. Just like the fog games, once the anonymous games are over, all the info should be available (minus the chat?).

Nobody else is interested in this?

This feature is like 6 years in the making and counting

Here's another (old) thread about the same feature: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=73179&p=1902158

(Bumped because it was posted before the new suggestion process)

Hang on. So whats the point in having cards then? If theyre all the damn same value. Just dont use em!
We have ourselves a winner. *Ding Ding Ding*. Densest bloke on the site...
Maybe you guys didn't read the whole thread, but they're not "all the damn same value."

And for the name calling

I support this!

I haven't been here in a while, but for some older discussions on a similar thread: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6681

i'll give it a shot

And we are actively discouraging frivolous reports.

I don't read the C&A section that often. But my brother was one of the victims. He was reported and got banned. Later he was cleared, but by then he had lost interest in coming back here.

How are you guys discouraging the frivolous reports?

I just came up with this suggestion independently and for a different reason . Good thing I did a search before posting it as a new topic

Anyway, I propose the same idea: add an option for anonymous game type where it shows you who is in the game, but you can't tell which color they are until the ...

Count me in for shooting

The solution is simple, really. If we add the House Rules (simple text description of the game you're creating), both sides win. If you like politics and deals, you can state them there. If you don't like them, just write "no alliances". That way people will know exactly what type of games they're ...

gp24176281 wrote:It might work, but how do u set the points?

Agree with PLAYER57832, they would be set like any other game types. Here's how they calculate the points.

max is gr8 wrote:What about a game where your opponent is real doubles yet you are 1 player acting as two armies.

Mr_Adams wrote:so you could have something like 4 players with 2 armies each, right?

Concept wise, both are possible. But they largely depend on how this is implemented. But from the look of it, this suggestion is being ignored

so you think it would be ok to give someone a neg for breaking the house rules for the game, as decided by the creator.

would it not also be ok to give someone a neg for revealing army sizes and location in a FoW game as the creator of that particular game has decided his 'house rule' is that that ...

I'm one of those that is all for deals/truces/alliances. And I agree with Chemefreak about the FOW and "all is fair in love and war".

With that said, I like more options also. And might I suggest something similar: instead of having a separate option for deal/no_deal, just add a game title and/or ...

in true FoW: -
i should not know two distant armies i can not see fought.
i should not know that player a is receiving a bonus if i can not see every territory required to get that bonus.
i should know the names of any territory i just lost.
i should know the names of territories that change ...

maybe SOME sort of different card type would be interesting.. if someone could think of something good enough that is... i just dont think this is the type

I made this topic back in 2006 , but since then I've put some thoughts into the card bonus issue. You can find the latest incarnation of it ...

Can an admin tell us whether this is marked as

"To-do"
"Pending" or
"Rejected" ?

ummm i will be ur friend .. and i will play with u team games... but ur idea makes no sense to me ! sorry bro!
Haha, thanks! But i play a lot of team games with my friends. And we win most of them. Sometimes I wonder how we would do against each other with our different strategies.

If you want ...

the best solution would be if the other person could simply take the turn of that person...but im pretty sure thats complicated
If you like that idea, check this thread out: 2-player "team" games .
It's about a new game type that is similar to what you suggested (1 player playing multiple colors ...

Any official word on this suggestion? To-do, pending, or rejected?

My only point is it would be nice to have the bob features w/o having to have the addon script, for MANY reasons, only one of which is all the bugs we see from time to time.
I agree with her also. There are a lot of scripts around, but CC should incorporate some of the neat features they have ...

Just wanted to add that with this game type (1 person controlling multiple colors), you can have lots of different/interesting game play such as

* 2 players, 4 colors (2 colors each)
* 2 players, 6 colors (3 colors each)
* 2 players, 8 colors (4 colors each)

* 3 players, 6 colors (2 colors ...

I like it. I'm up for anything that lowers the luck factor. Though only as options, because more options = better