Moderator: Community Team
Don't forget the issue of who starts. Imagine if could play a two player game like this: any territory could be conquered with a 3 and a 4. So any territory of theirs adjacent to two of yours could be taken in the first round. You'd be able to conquer one for each army you deploy. So after one turn, you'd have 1/3 more than you started with, and they'd have 1/3 less. Definitely only suitable for multiplayer games.eclecto wrote: No more chance, more like Diplomacy or chess. Well I take that back there is always the probalistic element of the cards and drop.
Probably only suitable for multiplayer games.
4myGod wrote:Pearl Harbor:
"The attack sank four U.S. Navy battleships (two of which were raised and returned to service late in the war) and damaged four more. The Japanese also sank or damaged three cruisers, three destroyers, and one minelayer, destroyed 188 aircraft, and caused personnel losses of 2,402 killed and 1,282 wounded."
"Japanese losses were minimal, at 29 aircraft and four midget submarines, with 65 servicemen killed or wounded."
jleonnn wrote:ok...right, you say that everytime
Chess gives you the same odds every time...this does not, and never will...and therefore is an nice cross between poker and chess.
brutalsleeper wrote:Kotaro wrote:.....
Be nice it's not terrible it's just fundamentally flawed.
Users browsing this forum: djelebert