drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
Craig25 wrote:As it says, some rule versions in one of the older games gave this as an option in the rules. I suggest an option in the set up as it makes games more strategic.
der sniffter wrote:hi,
Although your suggestion is a nice idea, I am doubtfull about it; Game 1000001, I understand this game is unique. but it points out that games like those are "threated badly" by this option. In other words, how would you make difference between a player that has a balance between attacking/defending and a "stacking" player?
drunkmonkey wrote:I honestly wonder why anyone becomes a mod on this site. You're the whiniest bunch of players imaginable.
Ron Burgundy wrote:Why don't you go back to your home on Whore Island?
joshyboy, i think the idea is how to limit that others cannot stack...
still the idea has inherent flaws, slightly appealing to me, but flawed. So it needs work before it can be considered functional.
e.g. how to deal with large/ small maps.
escalating cards ect ect
jonesthecurl wrote:I like this idea. It has to be an option at game set up not a general rule, so that if people like "infinite stack" they won't start or join an "army limit" game, just as you can avoid foggy or nuclear by simply not playing them.
SirSebstar wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:I like this idea. It has to be an option at game set up not a general rule, so that if people like "infinite stack" they won't start or join an "army limit" game, just as you can avoid foggy or nuclear by simply not playing them.
obviously. but still correct. Option only.
Der sniffter, you add the same as I did, escalating? or is that your only concern?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users