[Rules] Distribute deadbeat's armies to active players

[hunny]

I think that if you buy the premium membership then when you create a game then there should be an option where you can either share the army out evenly and randomly ( of a person who has missed three goes) or turn there armry into nutual territory?

[Rascal_boi]

yeah that sounds like quite a good idea, i would buy a premium just for that

[qeee1]

... too much randomness. Deadbeats are already an unknown quantity. With random distribution of their lands... it would destroy most strategy.

[pevanelagas]

I don't think so..


Well, it would sorta mess up strategy, but no one said you had to do anything with those lands..



I think- it would definately turn games around..- If someone is losing in trying to get say.. N.A, but there is a deadbeat in Africa, then he may have a chance to try taking that instead.

etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.


I support it, but.. No one said you had to choose the option anyways

(I think free people should get it to..., but thats just me)


(if free people had it, there is a chance that their games would last longer.. wich leads to A. a want and need to be able to have unlimited games, wich means more revenue for the game.)

[Hoff]

I dont really understand what you are suggesting.

[qeee1]

Yeah, took me a while to make sense of it too.

What I think is being suggested is that when a deadbeat drops out, instead of their lands going neutral, they get randomly divided up amongst the remaining players.

[ZawBanjito]

Even when translated, it still makes no sense. Why? Who cares?

EDIT: Also, the OP is a stinking deceiver. There IS NO site called http://www.gaymanbilly.org! hunny just leads people on.

[UTGreen]

Everybody keeps wanting these different options that you can add to games, but the variety of this game is primarily inherent in the opponents and in the strategies they use and in the agonizing over the roll of the dice.

No one has ever said, "Can we play chess, but I want the option to play a game where the queen can also move like a knight & pawns can attack backwards diagonally & every time a bishop takes a knight you get a second turn and ..."

Risk is a fun game, and while some variations make for interesting play and have some precedent in official rules, just because you think of something that might be cute to try doesn't mean Lack should tack the option onto the game. Stop trying to Coke II my game for want of "more choices."

For this specific "new feature" what if there's only one territory owned, who'd get it? Or what if there's 16 armies in a newly neutral territory? Should they be given to the random lotto drawer? These are questions that should be debated and understood through a conversation in this forum before just putting up a poll with some barely novel idea--presuming you don't want 2 of 3 people calling your idea stupid. Of course I still wouldn't vote for it.