Ditocoaf wrote:You're not serious, are you?
(etc. etc. etc)
But then again, why are we even commenting here? This will never pass, so it's just one more thread cluttering up suggs+bugs, forcing all the good suggestions to page 2.
That's hardly a fair statement Dito, I respectfully accept that you don't agree with me but I made a valid suggestion to the map that
was factually based, and I defend my right as a CC member (premium even) to post it on this forum. Please tell me why was that wrong?
Anyway that said...Your spiel about how the risk map is different from a real world map is irrelevant. The whole idea of risk is that it mimics real events no? even if it makes things difficult. Fog of war for instance- I can't stand it and frankly it irritates me when i accidentally join a game with it on... but it's realistic. The World 2.1 map has strategic countries that don't contribute to area bonuses, and in some of the WWII maps some countries can't be conquered and are logistically hard to hold/reach. But that's the
idea. Neutrality for Greenland is a great way of resolving the US border problem- despite your oh so penetrating argument that "That's not part of the game". So why not this small change to the classic map? Believe me a fairy will not die.