why not take your turn and just not attack anyone?
You've been here since last June and you don't know that when you have 5 cards it forces you to cash?

Anyway, I think I've done this once or twice when I first started, I don't remember how it turned out though.

you could do a no attack turn ...

i currently mostly avoid team games. i would start playing them if there was a random seed option!

some of these teams look like one person with multiple accounts...

everywhere116 wrote:I noticed they mostly happen with experienced players. Is there a reason for that?

good players prioritize winning the game.

poorer players focus on improving their situation. often this costs them the overall game. i see this a lot more in the big world map.

always attack the guy who misses turns. he doesn't get the troop/continent bonuses multiplied if he doesn't have the troops/continents.

plus, even if he had them on the first missed turn, the application still doesn't give him any credit for them if he's lost them.

sometimes i will choose not to attack just so that i CAN be last...

What do you guys do? I wonder if I am coming off a little heavy handed with the suicide talk and I am ticking people off. Maybe I should be a little more subtle?

i'll play straight by attacking the big player, but not so much that he'll take me down and be equal up with the other player (since ...

Good that we have a new powerful server, because we exceeded 20000 armies on the map. If someone decides to auto-attack, we will need the full capacity of the server.

my guess is that the server would have no problems handling 20,000 armies attacking each other. computers are good for this ...

i'm in!

I've never missed a turn on purpose, but I do live a somewhat busy life, so I've missed one here and there.

And if my armies get doubled because people failed to take down one of my continents while I was away, I'll certainly use the bigger stack to my advantage.

I think a good equalizer would ...

i think it's a good idea.

also, there are cases when you don't want to take your opponents territory, so having a limit on how many armies you kill would be nice too.

no. i play at work, so the less time it takes me to make my moves, the less chance i'll get spotted.

I'd love the option to have an "advance attack" button where the application assumes that i'll transfer all my attacking armies to a conquered territory.

I could save time and play even more games!

I find that I often don't leave feedback because once a game is over, I've lost interest in doing so. I'd have to go to the ended game, and scroll through the messages and my latest moves before being eliminated to figure out what happened in the game.

However, during a good game, I sometimes ...

i actually think one of us should do the tutorial since it doesn't require lack's programming skills. all you need is some cut and paste and html knowledge.

i nominate dcowboys055.

a simple javascript alert verification would alleviate this problem.

however, although i've made this mistake, i've long since learned my lesson and haven't done it in quite a while.

and just 'cause a guy's a newb, doesn't mean he's a poor player. and just 'cause he's played a lot of games doesn't mean he knows what he's doin'.

but if you do get stuck with a deadbeat, then yeah, it's pretty unfair.

perhaps if there was a "dump game" button and all players press it who are ...

i don't see how this could help.

people with good self control don't need this.

people with poor self control will just change the maximum whenever they feel like it.

the other players have nice connecting strings, too. i'd say it's still say it's much too early to determine a winner.

I've noticed that a lot of the "top" players play primarily team games.

It's definitely an advantage to have a good teammate in those games. But it isn't necessarily an accurate indication of your skill level since you might not have such a good rank if you had a poorer partner.

So we should ...

sorry lack. i just saw the "war fog" link and that's very similar to what i suggested. you can close this poll.

Would it be an interesting option to have games where the army counts were hidden until the actual attack phase?

It would add more strategy to the game, in a "diplomacy" sort of way.

Pedronicus wrote:
I have, of now, enforced a maxium game limit of 20 games to stop me from getting in further trouble with "'er indoors".

another option is to stick to sequential games and preferrable ones with several players. you'll be able to maintain far more games.

yeah, it doesn't seem right if you are able to "not lose" a terminator game by being a deadbeat.

maybe terminator games shouldn't drop players for missing 3 turns?