At first blush, I loved the idea. Imposing a turn limit is a great way to avoid those endless "reinforce and hold" games with no RISK (or even Fixed value Risk). CC is very responsive to players needs.
But there were several ways to do it. Determine the winner by number of territories held, by the bonus received or by number of men. Someone chose number of men, but I really think one of the alternatives (or a combination) might have been better.
Now as the clock approaches midnight in a multi-player game, everyone is trying to avoid attacking anyone else. It's pretty clear who's NOT gonna win, and any player who recognizes that fact can determine the winner by attacking the leading rival. So the temptation to suicide is going to be very strong, and the ultimate reward goes to the player who didn't piss anyone off. That tends to minimize strategy over diplomacy, and players who know each other will be far more likely to cooperate "in the end game" then they are now.
But if the primary factor was territories or bonuses, it's different (and I think better). The player who is strategic enough to barricade themselves off from multiple attackers, while racing around and ensuring no one else has a higher territory count, or bonus count, probably deserves to win. The downside is that it offers a real disadvantage to the guy that goes first.
I suspect the optimum way would be to choose the winner based upon several factors.
Total number of bonuses
Total number of territories (factors different if different number of territories in the variant)
The remaining number of men
It might be more complex to figure out, but that is GOOD because it gives a player several ways to win, the point weighing reflects the actual strategy considerations, the special suicide end game strategy is minimized, and it would provide several strategies for winning as the turn clock ticked down, instead of only one.
Is the current "end value" computation of this new variant written in stone?