[GP] [Rules] Eliminate Deferred Troops

[Metsfanmax]

Actually, I did prove my point, and your argument helped me to prove my point. If they would have reinforced the SA border, then those armies would have been put into play and could be attacked by the opponent(s). By deferring the troops, the player-who-misses protects those troops.

What you've failed to demonstrate is why it is a bad thing that those troops are "protected." If you lost that 4-on-2 battle, then it wouldn't have mattered if it was instead 4-on-6, because you still wouldn't have broken the bonus. If you won the 4-on-2 battle, then they don't get their bonus next turn, and there's a clear example of how missing your turn leaves you at a disadvantage.

"Let me know how that happens for players who take their turns, and you will have demonstrated for me that the deferred troops provides an equitable position for all players involved. If you cannot find an example of how the players-who-takes-their-turns can hold armies in a position where they are not in play and those same armies can then be distributed onto the map at the end of a subsequent turn, then you must recognize that deferred troops does not offer an equal position for all players in any game."

I simply don't understand how you think there is some form of inequity here. You seem to draw on two major complaints:

1) The troops are protected

I concede that this is true - obviously you cannot attack troops that are not on the board. However, in the majority of circumstances this will be a boon to the player-who-took-his-turn, because the opponent missed a troop drop, and it's a great chance to break a continent bonus and otherwise mess with their strategy. I will also concede that one can come up with a few examples where the protection of troops can actually be advantageous (against a player who doesn't correctly calculate for that). But you cannot use those few as justification for banning the entirety of deferred troops, because that creates a much more major inequity than the one you believe exists now. That's ultimately the problem I have with the argument made here. Proponents of this suggestion are exaggerating the few circumstances where deferred troops can be taken advantage of, when in reality it is probably the case that the advantage exists, in less than 10% of games. Thus you're willing to essentially destroy the winning chances of a player in 90% of these games, because in the small minority of cases, they'll gain an advantage from the missed turn (and even then, I still believe that if you prepare for it correctly, the advantage is removed). That is a lack of equity in much larger scale than what you're discussing here.

2) The troops can be placed where the opponent wants

Well... I don't see the issue with this. They could have placed those troops where they wanted to if they had actually taken their turn. The fact that they place them next turn means you have one more turn to prepare for their drop, and figure out where the troops are going. If you're at all good at the game, you'll know where they're going to drop the troops, so the fact that they can place them where they want is irrelevant, since you should be able to plan accordingly if you're actually paying attention.

[Queen_Herpes]

What you've failed to demonstrate is why it is a bad thing that those troops are "protected." If you lost that 4-on-2 battle, then it wouldn't have mattered if it was instead 4-on-6, because you still wouldn't have broken the bonus. If you won the 4-on-2 battle, then they don't get their bonus next turn, and there's a clear example of how missing your turn leaves you at a disadvantage.

Being breakable is not a reason to be able to hold over protected troops. There should be a penalty, not a reward, for missing your turn. I concede that the missers should not completely lose those troops, but can you concede that those troops should be put into play?

"Let me know how that happens for players who take their turns, and you will have demonstrated for me that the deferred troops provides an equitable position for all players involved. If you cannot find an example of how the players-who-takes-their-turns can hold armies in a position where they are not in play and those same armies can then be distributed onto the map at the end of a subsequent turn, then you must recognize that deferred troops does not offer an equal position for all players in any game."

I simply don't understand how you think there is some form of inequity here. You seem to draw on two major complaints:

1) The troops are protected

I concede that this is true - obviously you cannot attack troops that are not on the board. However, in the majority of circumstances this will be a boon to the player-who-took-his-turn, because the opponent missed a troop drop, and it's a great chance to break a continent bonus and otherwise mess with their strategy. I will also concede that one can come up with a few examples where the protection of troops can actually be advantageous (against a player who doesn't correctly calculate for that). But you cannot use those few as justification for banning the entirety of deferred troops, because that creates a much more major inequity than the one you believe exists now. That's ultimately the problem I have with the argument made here. Proponents of this suggestion are exaggerating the few circumstances where deferred troops can be taken advantage of, when in reality it is probably the case that the advantage exists, in less than 10% of games. Thus you're willing to essentially destroy the winning chances of a player in 90% of these games, because in the small minority of cases, they'll gain an advantage from the missed turn (and even then, I still believe that if you prepare for it correctly, the advantage is removed). That is a lack of equity in much larger scale than what you're discussing here.

Good point, however, you are recognizing that there is a benefit to the deferred troops. That benefit should be weighed down. 10% of the time? Not true. 100% of the time those deferred troops are not attackable. In addition, the player is awarded an opportunity to place those troops wherever they want to on the battlefield. There should be a penalty for missing a turn. For all the "good" reasons that exist for missing a turn, there is a "good" reason that someone else was wasting their time waiting fo yo ass to take your turn. It is decidely uncasual to make a player wait for there turn.

2) The troops can be placed where the opponent wants

Well... I don't see the issue with this. They could have placed those troops where they wanted to if they had actually taken their turn. The fact that they place them next turn means you have one more turn to prepare for their drop, and figure out where the troops are going. If you're at all good at the game, you'll know where they're going to drop the troops, so the fact that they can place them where they want is irrelevant, since you should be able to plan accordingly if you're actually paying attention.

Again, i appreciate your effort, but, I'm sorry. Try playing Indochina, Benelux, or Chinese Checkers just to name a few, just a few of the maps whose territories are so spread out that a player can deploy those deferred troops on one end of the map or the other and require the opponents to have to chase them around the map. You say "if you're any good at the game, you'll know where they're going to drop the troops" and I say that is hargwarsh. Try this in fog. I just played a speed Europe foggy game 1v1 no spoils today against a player who intentionally missed turns to attempt to gain the advantage. Did I win? Yes, but I must concede that the victory has less to do with my ability to determine where he would deploy and where his troops would be than it had to do with the luck of the dice. At one point, he dropped 6 armies (after two missed turns) on a territory he had conquered with 3 armies already sitting on it. So he had a stack of nine armies smack in the middle of the Russian bonus. I had a chance to attack him 9v9 and won. By miracle. Had I not done that, he easily would have gained the advantage in the game. Oh, and did I mention I sat there waiting through 7 missed turns? That's 35 minutes of waiting that I had to do. Do I get ar eward for that? Nope. Did he get a reward? No, in this game, I happened to win, but this player is a lieutenant and plays 94% of his turns and plays speed predominantly. Am I trying to punish this player by supporting this suggestion? No. Am I trying to take away the benefit of deferred troops? Absolutely. Shouldn't be there.

I have stated and proven that there is a special benefit awarded via the deferred troops. No other player gets those special benefits. Limit the beneficial award, penalize the player for a missed turn (without giving away the farm), and move on. Its so straightforward that the detractors to this suggestion even concede that the benefits exist.

[Metsfanmax]

Being breakable is not a reason to be able to hold over protected troops. There should be a penalty, not a reward, for missing your turn. I concede that the missers should not completely lose those troops, but can you concede that those troops should be put into play?

Of course there shouldn't be a reward for missing one's turn, but I don't think a penalty is warranted either, since people generally don't miss turns intentionally. Allowing your opponent to go twice in a row is a penalty enough.

Good point, however, you are recognizing that there is a benefit to the deferred troops. That benefit should be weighed down. 10% of the time? Not true. 100% of the time those deferred troops are not attackable. In addition, the player is awarded an opportunity to place those troops wherever they want to on the battlefield. There should be a penalty for missing a turn. For all the "good" reasons that exist for missing a turn, there is a "good" reason that someone else was wasting their time waiting fo yo ass to take your turn. It is decidely uncasual to make a player wait for there turn.

I'm not recognizing that there is a benefit to the deferred troops. I am recognizing that players can take advantage of this against unwary players, or people who fail to adequately take the effect into account. I agree that it is unfortunate that people have to wait while turns are missed. But most people have attendance between 97-100%, so I think they should be forgiven for the few turns they do miss... punishing them for an honest mistake once in a while just seems so infantile to me.

Again, i appreciate your effort, but, I'm sorry. Try playing Indochina, Benelux, or Chinese Checkers just to name a few, just a few of the maps whose territories are so spread out that a player can deploy those deferred troops on one end of the map or the other and require the opponents to have to chase them around the map. You say "if you're any good at the game, you'll know where they're going to drop the troops" and I say that is hargwarsh. Try this in fog. I just played a speed Europe foggy game 1v1 no spoils today against a player who intentionally missed turns to attempt to gain the advantage. Did I win? Yes, but I must concede that the victory has less to do with my ability to determine where he would deploy and where his troops would be than it had to do with the luck of the dice. At one point, he dropped 6 armies (after two missed turns) on a territory he had conquered with 3 armies already sitting on it. So he had a stack of nine armies smack in the middle of the Russian bonus. I had a chance to attack him 9v9 and won. By miracle. Had I not done that, he easily would have gained the advantage in the game. Oh, and did I mention I sat there waiting through 7 missed turns? That's 35 minutes of waiting that I had to do. Do I get ar eward for that? Nope. Did he get a reward? No, in this game, I happened to win, but this player is a lieutenant and plays 94% of his turns and plays speed predominantly. Am I trying to punish this player by supporting this suggestion? No. Am I trying to take away the benefit of deferred troops? Absolutely. Shouldn't be there.

Your argument is nonexistent here. Your opponent missed two turns in a row. If you were playing correctly, his 9 troops in the middle of the bonus should be irrelevant, because he's not going to have 9 troops on every entry into the continent, and you'll be able to break his bonus the next turn - again, if you prepare correctly. I refuse to accept that because you couldn't predict that he might try to gain a continent with his deferred troops, we should get rid of deferred troops. Then again, if people are in general not capable of planning for these (obvious) tactics, perhaps we should protect people from being preyed upon...

More importantly, surely you accept that this occurs in the minority of situations. Most people don't intentionally deadbeat to try to gain an advantage, so you're letting a few rotten apples spoil the bunch. That's the real issue here. Even if we all concede that there's an obvious benefit to the deferred troops in some cases, the fact remains that you're forcing all the innocent people into lost positions because the few guilty ones are gaining stronger positions.

[Queen_Herpes]

More importantly, surely you accept that this occurs in the minority of situations. Most people don't intentionally deadbeat to try to gain an advantage, so you're letting a few rotten apples spoil the bunch. That's the real issue here. Even if we all concede that there's an obvious benefit to the deferred troops in some cases, the fact remains that you're forcing all the innocent people into lost positions because the few guilty ones are gaining stronger positions.

No, I do not accept that this happens in the minority of situations. I can think of 5 games where this has happened in a game where I was a player just in the past two weeks. The more I think about it, the more I recall more and more games. I'm not going to spend the time to pull up the game numbers, so don't ask. Some notables include a 1v1v1 game where the other honorable player and I decided (in game chat, mind you...no one can get me on secret diplomacy) to just attack the guy who was missing turns on purpose. We then had a fairly good game from that point forward once the offender was eliminated. Bottom line: It happens, it is a loophole and it needs to be shut. I'm not trying to shut this loophole because of the intentional abusers, I'm trying to shut it so that any player who misses a turn doesn't get awarded an unfair advantage. The advantage awarded to players who miss turns is massive. Those troops need to be put into play right away without prejudice. There is no need to protect those troops from attack. Put them in play. The only way to put them in play is to drop them randomly. Might make players think twice about joining a speed game when they've got a stomache ache. Might make players think twice before joining a speed game when they are cooking dinner. Perhaps a player whose contractions are five minutes apart might not start that speed game nor any casual games. Perhaps a player who is going on vacation might not start that casual gmae 5 days before the vacation starts. Perchance a player who has more important things to do might not play that speed game. It is the right thing to do for the opponents.

Don't support players who make other players wait!

[MichelSableheart]

@Queen Herpes: You are aware that the amount of deferred troops is determined based on the amount of troops you would get at the beginning of the turn you take, not at the beginning of the turn you miss? If, for example, a player who holds south america misses a turn, and South America is broken, not only does he has two troops less to deploy, the amount of deferred troops he gets is also reduced by two (whereas he would have gotten the bonus if he hadn't missed his turn). In that sense, the deferred troops can be attacked, and the player is already penalized for missing his turns.

Furthermore, the fact that those troops can't be attacked is not an issue. If, for example, a player would have gotten 8 troops, and assuming that your dice would be good enough to take out those 8 troops, now your dice are good enough to take out 8 different troops. The only situation where it might matter is if you take out an entire section of the board which you would also have taken out if he deployed there. But in that case the situation is exactly the same as if he didn't deploy his troops there in the first place.

I do admit that the later placement is an advantage. If you are bordering the player missing turns on multiple borders in a relatively stalemated game, the player missing his turn effectively deployed on all borders, simply because you cannot put your troops opposite to his unless you miss a turn yourself.

There are certainly advantages to the player who misses turns. However, I believe that most of the time, those advantages don't weigh up to the disadvantages of not being able to grab a spoil, not being able to break a bonus and getting less troops then you would have because your bonusses were broken/territories were grabbed. Feel free to argue that there are certain combinations of board situation and game settings where it's advantegeous for a player to miss a turn. However, don't argue that the player missing a turn always gets a massive advantage.

[Woodruff]

Ulimately, Woodruff, you recognized that JefJef was correct in describing the unfair position in team games. I tend to think that if it is unfair in one game on the site, then it is going to be unfair in other games as well.

That is absolutely not true. It doesn't even follow logically, given the VAST differences in some of the types of gameplay.

I have stated and proven that there is a special benefit awarded via the deferred troops.

You keep saying things like this, but you haven't done so at all. The situation is no different at all than if the missed-turn player had deployed and logged out EXCEPT that they have the disadvantage of not being able to defend their current territories as well.

[Queen_Herpes]

@Queen Herpes: You are aware that the amount of deferred troops is determined based on the amount of troops you would get at the beginning of the turn you take, not at the beginning of the turn you miss? If, for example, a player who holds south america misses a turn, and South America is broken, not only does he has two troops less to deploy, the amount of deferred troops he gets is also reduced by two (whereas he would have gotten the bonus if he hadn't missed his turn).

Yes, I understand this.

In that sense, the deferred troops can be attacked, and the player is already penalized for missing his turns.

Not true. The deferred troops, though their total can be reduced, are not touchable. The randomness of the dice also does not guarantee that the total can be reduced. No matter how much opponents reduce the total, there will still be troops that get dropped ont he battlefield that were not subject to the dice.

Furthermore, the fact that those troops can't be attacked is not an issue. If, for example, a player would have gotten 8 troops, and assuming that your dice would be good enough to take out those 8 troops, now your dice are good enough to take out 8 different troops. The only situation where it might matter is if you take out an entire section of the board which you would also have taken out if he deployed there. But in that case the situation is exactly the same as if he didn't deploy his troops there in the first place.

Not true. If a player with a missed turn has 16 troops on a territory adjacent to the next opponent, and the next opponent attacks the stack of 16 and eliminates all 16, hooray! Now if the player who missed hadn't missed and had instead dropped his 7 troops onto the stack of 16, leaving 23, there is nothing to say that the next opponent wouldn't have also eliminated the additional 7 troops. Those 7 troops went unmolested and untested, untried and unfried, unknown and unsown. Without having those troops on the battlefield, there is no possible way to determine what "would" have happened. What we do know, is that those deferred troops are protected from attack.

I do admit that the later placement is an advantage. If you are bordering the player missing turns on multiple borders in a relatively stalemated game, the player missing his turn effectively deployed on all borders, simply because you cannot put your troops opposite to his unless you miss a turn yourself.

If you recognize this benefit, please recognize that removing that benefit is a necessity.

There are certainly advantages to the player who misses turns. However, I believe that most of the time, those advantages don't weigh up to the disadvantages of not being able to grab a spoil,

Spoils are a meaningless disadvantage in a no spoils game and arguably almost as meaningless in a nuclear spoils game.

not being able to break a bonus and getting less troops then you would have because your bonusses were broken/territories were grabbed.

This can happen on any turn, what is not able to happen is that the deferrede troops are not able to be attacked and possibly eliminated.

Feel free to argue that there are certain combinations of board situation and game settings where it's advantegeous for a player to miss a turn. However, don't argue that the player missing a turn always gets a massive advantage.

I appreciate your desire to control my arguments, but why would you offer combinations of board situations that offer disadvantages (spoils, breaking bonuses) and then ask me to not rebut?

The missed turn is a massive advantage because:
-deferred troops are not attackable, while their number can be reduced, there will always be an amount of troops that are not subject to the whims of the dice. No other player gets an opportunity like this anywhere on this site.
-the deferred troops can be placed strategically at the end of a turn, a benefit no other player is afforded.

The missed turn causes other players to:
-wait
-change strategy to account for the placement of said benefits

If a missed turn causes other players to change strategy, then it is a strategic move to miss a turn. This loophole needs to be shut.

[Metsfanmax]

Not true. The deferred troops, though their total can be reduced, are not touchable. The randomness of the dice also does not guarantee that the total can be reduced. No matter how much opponents reduce the total, there will still be troops that get dropped ont he battlefield that were not subject to the dice.

Not true. If a player with a missed turn has 16 troops on a territory adjacent to the next opponent, and the next opponent attacks the stack of 16 and eliminates all 16, hooray! Now if the player who missed hadn't missed and had instead dropped his 7 troops onto the stack of 16, leaving 23, there is nothing to say that the next opponent wouldn't have also eliminated the additional 7 troops. Those 7 troops went unmolested and untested, untried and unfried, unknown and unsown. Without having those troops on the battlefield, there is no possible way to determine what "would" have happened. What we do know, is that those deferred troops are protected from attack.

You still have not done much other than repeat your assertion that those troops are untouchable. It's true, but what's the big deal? Your implication that there is a resulting disadvantage to the person-who-didn't-miss is without justification, because although that person could not attack the other person's deferred troops for one round, the person who missed their turn also could not attack your deployed troops for one round (the round they missed ). Therefore each player is disadvantaged, and you have not yet in any way demonstrated that the disadvantage that comes to the player who missed their turn is outweighed by the disadvantage that comes to the player who didn't.

[Woodruff]

In that sense, the deferred troops can be attacked, and the player is already penalized for missing his turns.

Not true. The deferred troops, though their total can be reduced, are not touchable.

Not touchable and completely useless for a turn.

The randomness of the dice also does not guarantee that the total can be reduced.

The randomness of the dice also does not guarantee that ANY attack will be successful.

No matter how much opponents reduce the total, there will still be troops that get dropped on the battlefield that were not subject to the dice.

Yes, troops that were useless for an entire turn.

Furthermore, the fact that those troops can't be attacked is not an issue. If, for example, a player would have gotten 8 troops, and assuming that your dice would be good enough to take out those 8 troops, now your dice are good enough to take out 8 different troops. The only situation where it might matter is if you take out an entire section of the board which you would also have taken out if he deployed there. But in that case the situation is exactly the same as if he didn't deploy his troops there in the first place.

Not true. If a player with a missed turn has 16 troops on a territory adjacent to the next opponent, and the next opponent attacks the stack of 16 and eliminates all 16, hooray! Now if the player who missed hadn't missed and had instead dropped his 7 troops onto the stack of 16, leaving 23, there is nothing to say that the next opponent wouldn't have also eliminated the additional 7 troops. Those 7 troops went unmolested and untested, untried and unfried, unknown and unsown. Without having those troops on the battlefield, there is no possible way to determine what "would" have happened.

Exactly...as with ANY attack, there is no possible way to determine what "would" have happened prior to it happening. Thus, there is no way of knowing if those 7 troops would have helped or harmed...just like any other attack.

What we do know, is that those deferred troops are protected from attack.

And that while they are protected from attack, they are also entirely useless for an entire turn.

not being able to break a bonus and getting less troops then you would have because your bonusses were broken/territories were grabbed.

This can happen on any turn, what is not able to happen is that the deferrede troops are not able to be attacked and possibly eliminated.[/quote]

And at the same time, those "unable to be attacked" troops are useless for defense, as they do not exist.

The missed turn is a massive advantage because:
-deferred troops are not attackable, while their number can be reduced, there will always be an amount of troops that are not subject to the whims of the dice. No other player gets an opportunity like this anywhere on this site.
-the deferred troops can be placed strategically at the end of a turn, a benefit no other player is afforded.

It quite simply is nowhere near a "massive advantage". Simple statistics make a farce of your argument. Your statement about the deferred troops not being attackable is overwhelmed by the fact that those same troops are non-existent for defense. If someone's defense is so strong that they don't need those troops, then any advantage gained from them being deployed later clearly is not a "massive advantage". While those deferred troops can be placed strategically at the end of the turn, this is NO DIFFERENT AT ALL than someone deploying those troops and ending their turn immediately.

[yeti_c]

I disagree with this subject - I actually think that Continent held during a missed turn should yield their bonus...

Missing a turn is NEVER a bonus in any game ever...

C.

[Darwins_Bane]

I'll just throw my two cents in again. If I were to deploy all of my troops on a single territ that you border on, and then let my turn run out....no cards, no reinforce nothing, that is the maximum troops i can deploy if i were to miss a turn. with all the cons of not getting a card, not attacking or doing anything. i can deploy them anywhere. therefore if someone misses a turn, they will in all likelyhood have even less troops to deploy. yes they can deploy them anywhere, but everyone can already do that.

[Metsfanmax]

I disagree with this subject - I actually think that Continent held during a missed turn should yield their bonus...

I agree with this, but it seems like players are already upset about deferred troops - no need to cause additional drama by making the fictitious advantage even larger

[Kabanellas]

Though I can find reasons in both points of view, I must say that I’m inclined to vote for the ‘getting rid of deferred troops’ option.

It’s a bit frustrating, especially in ‘adjacent’ reinforcements game, to see a player take that really strategic spot and then drop a big fat stack over there.

[Darwins_Bane]

Though I can find reasons in both points of view, I must say that I’m inclined to vote for the ‘getting rid of deferred troops’ option.

It’s a bit frustrating, especially in ‘adjacent’ reinforcements game, to see a player take that really strategic spot and then drop a big fat stack over there.

If you killed him while he missed his turn he wouldnt have anything to deploy.

[jefjef]

Though I can find reasons in both points of view, I must say that I’m inclined to vote for the ‘getting rid of deferred troops’ option.

It’s a bit frustrating, especially in ‘adjacent’ reinforcements game, to see a player take that really strategic spot and then drop a big fat stack over there.

If you killed him while he missed his turn he wouldnt have anything to deploy.

We all know that the random cubes always allow that.

Incredible that people so adamantly defend missing turns and delaying games etc...

[Darwins_Bane]

Though I can find reasons in both points of view, I must say that I’m inclined to vote for the ‘getting rid of deferred troops’ option.

It’s a bit frustrating, especially in ‘adjacent’ reinforcements game, to see a player take that really strategic spot and then drop a big fat stack over there.

If you killed him while he missed his turn he wouldnt have anything to deploy.

We all know that the random cubes always allow that.

Incredible that people so adamantly defend missing turns and delaying games etc...

k then would you care to give a couple examples of where missing a turn clearly gave an advantage?

[MrBenn]

Let's go back to when the troops weren't deferred but got stacked up at the beginning of the turn taken after the missed turns. Then people would REALLY complain!

[Queen_Herpes]

Let's go back to when the troops weren't deferred but got stacked up at the beginning of the turn taken after the missed turns. Then people would REALLY complain!

Are you advocating returning to that position or _______________?

I cannot believe so many people support the concept of missing turns and making other players wait.

[Metsfanmax]

I cannot believe so many people support the concept of missing turns and making other players wait.

It is this kind of narrow-mindedness which has caused all of the problems in the thread. I don't support people missing turns, and I imagine most of the other people here don't. However, I also don't support explicitly punishing people for missing their turns. Missing your turn is punishment enough - face it, if missing your turn were generally an optimal strategy, wouldn't people do it a lot more often?

You're only making your position worse by making ad hominem attacks against us, instead of arguing for the one thing anybody ever wanted you to. No one is arguing that in some cases, people have taken advantage of deferred troops. What we're saying is that if you want to punish the players in the 90% of games where they end up losing, or at least being in a much worse position, because of their missed turn, you have to actually demonstrate that the threat from deferred troops is grave enough. Repeating examples of how deferred troops can be taken advantage of is not the same thing =/

[Tammerlane]

miss turn, lose troops. seems simple enough to me...i've lost too many games where someone misses a turn or two and some new bee nukes me only to get his clock cleaned when the dirty player returns.

[Incandenza]

You know, I can't even believe I'm going to get involved in this, but there are some seriously disingenuous arguments being made here. Let's have a look at a couple, shall we?

I cannot believe so many people support the concept of missing turns and making other players wait.

Making other players wait? Is that your argument now? I thought this was all about how missing a turn is a better strategic option than taking the turn, which is simply not true, save in extremely isolated circumstances. If it's just about time, then that's a pretty weak argument.

I just played a speed Europe foggy game 1v1 no spoils today against a player who intentionally missed turns to attempt to gain the advantage. Did I win? Yes, but I must concede that the victory has less to do with my ability to determine where he would deploy and where his troops would be than it had to do with the luck of the dice.

Would that game happen to be Game 7338299? Because I've looked through the log, and it bears little resemblance to what you've described.

First off, red's first two missed turns were in Round 10 (20-12 terit count in your favor) and Round 11 (24-8 for you), so I'd characterize those missed turns as catastrophically bad for his chances in the game, which went from barely winnable to basically over.

At one point, he dropped 6 armies (after two missed turns) on a territory he had conquered with 3 armies already sitting on it. So he had a stack of nine armies smack in the middle of the Russian bonus. I had a chance to attack him 9v9 and won. By miracle. Had I not done that, he easily would have gained the advantage in the game.

Untrue. He did indeed drop his deferred 6 into Moscow, but you then dropped 9 into St. Pete, so at a minimum you had a 10 there (and possible more, since you forted one to St. Pete the previous turn). But even if you'd bricked, you still had basically zero chance of losing, since at the beginning of your turn you held a 27-6 terit advantage. If you'd gone 0-8, then he went something like 12-0, I dunno, maybe he'd have a chance (tho much much less of one than if he'd just played his turns), but I don't think using the possibility of a one-in-a-million shot is doing your argument any favors.

But here's my favorite part:
2010-07-20 15:35:50 - Queen_Herpes missed a turn

Maybe you have a better game to use as an example, because this one fails to bolster your point.

People miss turns. Connection problems, real life issues, whatever, it happens. The current system is punitive enough. Are there rare times where someone might conceivably take advantage? Sure. But not nearly often enough to jettison the system.

[Queen_Herpes]

you have to actually demonstrate that the threat from deferred troops is grave enough.

In adjacent no spoils, while chasing a pseudo-deadbeater around the map to eliminate him (and I can stop saying "or her" as I'm one of probably 3 women on this site, so we're talking about a guy here and everywhere) the pseudo-deadbeater returns to just be a guy who misses two turns and returns. He drops his armies on the far end of the map (relative to my stack that was attempting to get him. What does this do? Gives The Misser a chance at victory OR prolongs the game. I'm going to have a tough time adjacently forting my stack in that direction to counter his (at minimum) army of 6. Is that a grave enough threat? To me, yes. If the threat wasn't grave, though, why argue in favor of maintaining the deferred bonus?

In doubles, well, jefjef's example offers some evidence of "grave enough." Take a listen...

Well YES. If missing a turn losses you the game than what the hell is wrong with that. Take the turn. Stop delaying it and taking advantage of it.

8 man dubs 2.1 no spoils game. 1 on each of the other teams all missed a turn in a 1 round period.

Pink graces us with his presence just now and 2010-07-19 20:16:43 - jkbodog received 17 deferred troops for missing 1 rounds

My team does not see him at all so ya can't cry "You shoulda broke him" But he's dropping a 34 stack somewhere.

Deferred needs to go and end this crap. Take the turns or find a sitter or lose the troops.

EDIT: He just dropped 34 on a one his partner had on my partners border. His partner goes before my partner. It's a fucking cheap strategy that does get utilized to the deadbeats advantage. Since the other teams all missed turns I even wonder if there is some S/D going on. The other 3 teams are at "peace" with each other...

Preceding example was a casual game, but I haven't explicitly explained the annoying faculties behind allowing players to miss two turns then drop a stack on the board in speed. Take away any argument about whether or not it will result in a victory for The Misser. Just count the time wasted by the other opponents sitting through 10 minutes of missed turns! Its really unfair to then add to the misery of the wait to have to deal with troops that are shat upon the board somewhere. Especially since is usually means at least 10 more minutes of missed turns. I get it that life happens, but I play so much speed and see so many players that miss a lot of turns and it is annoying. Annoying enough that there are a lot of people posting in here about that fact only.

And to Woodruff, my apologies, I took the following quote from page one of this discussion...

That being said, I AM of the opinion that this suggestion would be valid for SPEED games, simply due to the time wasted sitting around waiting for someone to take their turn. In my view, speed games do not fall under the purview of "casual gaming" as the site employs it.

...and stretched it to mean you supported JefJef's example in team games by saying:

Ultimately, Woodruff, you recognized that JefJef was correct in describing the unfair position in team games. I tend to think that if it is unfair in one game on the site, then it is going to be unfair in other games as well.

I should have gone back to the quote, sorry about that. I was (gasp) wrong.

I stand by my statement that the deferment is a special benefit.

I cannot believe so many people support the concept of missing turns and making other players wait.

Making other players wait? Is that your argument now? I thought this was all about how missing a turn is a better strategic option than taking the turn, which is simply not true, save in extremely isolated circumstances. If it's just about time, then that's a pretty weak argument.

I am also concerned about time spent in a speed game. Is it wrong to be concerned about more than one aspect of missed turns?

Speaking of the annoyance of the missed turns...here is my response to Incandenza:

I just played a speed Europe foggy game 1v1 no spoils today against a player who intentionally missed turns to attempt to gain the advantage. Did I win? Yes, but I must concede that the victory has less to do with my ability to determine where he would deploy and where his troops would be than it had to do with the luck of the dice.

Would that game happen to be Game 7338299? Because I've looked through the log, and it bears little resemblance to what you've described.

I'll spare myself and everyone going line-by-line in your argument. At the time of his first missed turns, he had armies of 2 that were visible to me around the map, two armies of 3 visible and one army of 4. All of my territories were armies of one. The presumption was that his army count was higher than mine. Although my territory count was higher, my dice were not successful enough against his armies of two. I attacked his weakest positions that also meant gaining stronger fortified positions and potential for gaining a bonus.

At one point, he dropped 6 armies (after two missed turns) on a territory he had conquered with 3 armies already sitting on it. So he had a stack of nine armies smack in the middle of the Russian bonus. I had a chance to attack him 9v9 and won. By miracle. Had I not done that, he easily would have gained the advantage in the game.

I'm glad you brought up my missed turn. I had allotted a reasonable amount of time to play that game. However, reasonable went to unreasonable when he started missing turns. Once I had gained the slight territory advantage, I fully expected either deadbeating or this action and had to amend my strategy accordingly. So why did I miss a turn? Because my internet connection was lost. I did get a benefit from that missed turn, though. And I feel as though it helped me to win. A different result might have come about if my troops were scattered.

I’m sure you can understand that in writing these novels of responses, I have to redact somewhere. But I appreciate you taking the time to look up that game and encourage me to include the information that helps prove my point. Had my troops been scattered, I probably wouldn’t have won.

Thank you for walking right into that one, I was hoping someone would.

[jrh_cardinal]

QH, that doesn't even make sense. If you don't want your troops to be scattered, don't scatter them. I support this suggestion because I feel that missed turns shuldn't happen and when you miss a turn something bad should happen to you, and deferred troops often are not bad. I do not agree with what you just said. What's the difference of deploying on the same spot for 2 turns in a row rather than missing a turn then doing it all on the same turn? If your opponent hadn't missed his turn right after you missed yours, he would have been able to exploit the fact that your troops were all 1s (<--- you said that), and you would have ended up with a smaller deploy. How does that help you?

So yes, I guess that sequence as a whole may have helped you, but only because he missed his turn right after you missed your turn.

Thank you for walking right into that one, Inca was hoping you would

[Queen_Herpes]

QH, that doesn't even make sense. If you don't want your troops to be scattered, don't scatter them. I support this suggestion because I feel that missed turns shuldn't happen and when you miss a turn something bad should happen to you, and deferred troops often are not bad. I do not agree with what you just said. What's the difference of deploying on the same spot for 2 turns in a row rather than missing a turn then doing it all on the same turn? If your opponent hadn't missed his turn right after you missed yours, he would have been able to exploit the fact that your troops were all 1s (<--- you said that), and you would have ended up with a smaller deploy. How does that help you?

So yes, I guess that sequence as a whole may have helped you, but only because he missed his turn right after you missed your turn.

Thank you for walking right into that one, Inca was hoping you would

?

You support the suggestion. Ok. What will happen to the deferred troops, then? Will they be scattered at the end of the missed turn, or simply never awarded? I think you'll have a harder time arguing that the armies should never be awarded.

[BoganGod]

I don't agree that missing turns gives people an advantage, in the vast majority of cases it does not. Skimmed through the arguement to date. Incandenza insightful as always, your wasting your time though bro, no one has bothered to even attempt to refute your well ordered logical arguements, instead they have kept on beating the same tired beat on the drum. Empty vessels and volume anyone? Queen_Herpes one of the only "3 or so" woman on site????? Jeez I thought Queen_Herpes was a bloke like becky the blondie...... Acts like becky but without the humour.

Back to topic. One case I think of that missing a turn would give an advantage to the misser. A 8player esc game, where the person missing a turn is on 5cards, and must cash first. Assuming that everyone else has 5cards and takes their turns, would make the set worth 25 not 4..... Though the chance of someone with five cards missing a turn and surviving...

I think how things stand is fine, not perfect, but fine. Miss a turn in a card game, you miss a card, on a conquest map/or a map with auto deploy, you miss your auto deploy. Someone shaves a few territories off you, you have less defered troops than you would have. Yes its a right pain in the arse when people miss turns, but real life does exist, sometimes people can't take turns, not everyone is lucky enough to be in a well run clan with a roster of sitters. Suck it up and deal with it kids, don't think the rules should be changed on this one. Frankly if people are not smart enough to take advantage of someone missing a turn then.... Then sad to say they aren't smart enough to be reading this.

I'm a patient man except for when I'm playing speed. I have the time, SO HERE IS A CHALLENGE FOLKS - Anyone that believes that missing turns gives you an advantage. I'm happy to play you 1vs1 random, seq, esc/flat, unlim. You promise faithfully to miss 2 out of the first 5turns. See who wins........

Note to all the baying crazy masses out there, I'm not defending people missing turns, I am pointing out that a) in vast majority of cases does not give them an advantage b) There are already punitive measures in place c) Just rate people accordingly d) If your freemium and missed turns by opponents are cutting down on your game time, buy premium!