der sniffter wrote:
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?
If a player just stacks at some point they will reach the upper limit of armies, and they could just sit taking zero reinfocements hoping the other players will kill each other off. If this doesn't happen an active player will gain more territories and the reinfocements to replace losses and their position will improve while the stacking players won't. at some point the player stacking will have to make a move or lose.
and while "move or lose" may eventually be the case in a game with unlimited stacking. With total troop limits the point is reached sooner and players who stay out of any fight hoping to mop up are going to have fewer troops, than in an unlimited game, to try this.
I am in a number of games that are down to 3 players and an attack that significantly weakens 1 player, probably hands the game to the 3rd player. I think that with limited troop numbers attacking becomes more likley because the player not attacked has less chance to sweep the board.