I joined this sight anticipating real-time games, and later came to this forum to suggest them. I was glad to see that this idea was quite popular within this topic. Having read all of the messages it seems to me that there are two distinct types of player here.

1. Those that want an involved, highly strategic and non-interactive game - and are happy to come and have their turn once or twice a day/week.

2. Those that are after a fast, real-time game with short turn times so that you don't get bored waiting for other players to take their turn. Obviously interactive screen updates are difficult to implement, but surely a player joining this type of game should commit to taking 2 minutes to at least START their turn. I presume from admin's reluctance that it is much harder to add timers to check whether the player is still actively involved in their turn, so perhaps a total of 5 minutes to complete the turn once started would be easier to implement (At least other players aren't waiting for someone that has given up and walked away).

Other points:

In a short game, lack of time to think of strategies can be considered part of the challenge of the game - is it is in lightning/speed/whatever chess. If your game only lasts half an hour or so, then you probably care a little less about a silly error than if the game has been going for 6 months.

Talking of a total time limit for all of a player's turns so that they can take longer when they want to (as mentioned previously):
Perhaps if players are given some number of minutes for each turn - with any unused time being added to their quota for use later. This avoids the problem of long games being destroyed when all players eventually run out of time. For instance, all players start with a total of 10 minutes to use for the whole game and have 2-3 extra minutes added every time they take a turn.

As for the weekend issue - at least as a start, create (another - yeah, I know) game option so that the game simply doesn't time out over weekends (ie between Friday noon and Monday noon... there are a few timezone issues, but even if you Americanized (sic :) it to start with (presuming this is the target market) then it sounds like you would help out quite a few members this way.

Thumbs up to Ajax chat, and big thumbs up to interactive, real-time play - but as a web developer I understand that this would be a big step.

Mostly though, it was obvious reading the messages that there are two distinct types of player here, and it would be silly not to recognise this and allow both to have what they want.

Wow, that was long - sorry :)

I'm very excited about the prospect of real-time play, but this could take a while. I would probably become more addicted to real-time play than I currently am to non-interactive play. Anyway, if you haven't played non-interactively much, I give this reply:

If you are in 20+ games, you can check in a lot more than twice a day and expect to have turns. Most regulars use the site in this many-games-at-once fashion.

Yup, 20 to 30 seems about the sweet spot for normal games. Enough so you'll have turns to take a few times a day, but not too many to swamp you.

Although be careful when the tourny system is live. I made the mistake on TOS (as Risky calls it =) of joining like 30 tournaments in addition to my regular games. I'm STILL having new games starting from tournies I joined a year ago, it makes it a lot tougher to regulate how many active games you have.

Child Invites: Not what you're thinking, Pedobear.

It might be nice if people invited to private games could invite more people to the private game. Give the option as a toggle to the initial host to allow it or not.

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but I would like the ability to change my chosen color after I have joined a game (but before the game starts obviously). Maybe team too for team games, but I foresee that as being more iffy.

Vataro wrote: I don't know if this has been mentioned, but I would like the ability to change my chosen color after I have joined a game (but before the game starts obviously). Maybe team too for team games, but I foresee that as being more iffy.

I think the only current way to change your player color before a game starts is to leave the game & then rejoin it.  Are you wanting a way to change colors without having to leave & rejoin the game?  (just asking for clarification since I'd like this feature too!)

When you're viewing a game that hasn't started, your current rank for that particular board is displayed right below the list of players.  Is there is way to get your other stats (played/won/percentage) so as to compare those stats as well as rank to the other players who've joined already?

Here's a picture of what I'm thinking.

Yes Step, I'd prefer to be able to do it without having to leave the game. =)

Good idea thanks Step - I've added that info.

Vataro - sorry that's the only way to do it at present, I don't really see any downside of doing it that way?

tom wrote: Good idea thanks Step - I've added that info.

I like it!  But I think something's wrong with the stats now.  (I'll post it in the bugs thread, though.)

tom wrote: Good idea thanks Step - I've added that info.

Vataro - sorry that's the only way to do it at present, I don't really see any downside of doing it that way?

It's annoying! =P

Seriously though, the main reason is that I work under the assumption of not being able to rejoin games after leaving them... If it's a problem then don't worry about it. Just something I thought I'd mention.

Vataro wrote: It's annoying! =P

 

Seriously though, the main reason is that I work under the assumption of not being able to rejoin games after leaving them... If it's a problem then don't worry about it. Just something I thought I'd mention.

I've only done it once where I left the game to change my color & was able to rejoin without any problems.

I know clicking the red X icon in the Hide column removes those games from the game queue but can they be unhidden if they haven't gone live yet?

I think it would be cool to be able to do since there have been times when I've accidentally clicked the X on games I was actually wanting to join because I got click-happy. ={

I would like to be able to search my game list for messages in games, maybe a drop down menu option: "Games with new messages" or simply "New Messages".

Alpha wrote: I would like to be able to search my game list for messages in games, maybe a drop down menu option: "Games with new messages" or simply "New Messages".

LOL  I JUST posted this exact suggestion in this thread!  Good idea Alpha!

I went looking for such a suggestion and couldn't find it, glad someone else wants it.

Maybe you should be able to sort the list by "Hidden" as if it were a game title, so if you accidentally hide a game, you can go find it. Along the same lines, you could sort your "My Games" page by Messages just like sorting by board title, or date started by clicking the little message icon.

I would love to see a feature that lets you allocate bonus armies only to the "continent" from which they are attributed.  So if you are awarded two bonus armies for controlling Australia, you must place at least two armies in Australia.  I always thought it makes no sense that by creating peace and prosperity and a higher birth-rate in Australia, you are allowed to take their youth and force them to fight for Greenland. Not to mention, ..how did you get them there?

A somewhat similar but simpler option to code might be to designate certain territories as barren and others as a birthplace (or point of origin).  You may place bonus armies only in the latter of these.  This could create some very interesting scenarios where if you don't occupy one of these territories, you will not be able to place any armies, effectively causing your forces to die as a result of attrition.  Implementation: As you create territories you have a button that makes the territory barren. Placing bonus armies there is verboten. 

Some Additional thoughts on these ideas: 

Allocate bonus armies only to the "continent" from which they are attributed. 

 This could be a popular feature with most any "standard" board.  The concept of not being able to easily allocate troops to isolated positions applies to many "reenactment" type situations.  Remember, your basic multiplier bonus or minimum bonus armies would still have unrestricted placement options. Implementation seems like it might be tricky, but that's not my problem..

Designate certain territories as barren and others as a birthplace (or point of origin).  You may place bonus armies only in the latter of these.  

This shouldn't be that hard to implement; it's just a button, right? (..said M57, who knows next to nothing about coding), but it opens up a new genre of design possibilities.  Imagine a Spy vs. Spy board where you could only place your armies on the spies and deploy them from there (for instance with 3 or 4 fortifies per turn).

M57 wrote:

I always thought it makes no sense that by creating peace and prosperity and a higher birth-rate in Australia, you are allowed to take their youth and force them to fight for Greenland. Not to mention, ..how did you get them there?

The question, "How did we get here?" is probably asked by every soldier fighting on foreign ground, but this is a matter for governments to answer and not for soldiers to worry about.

M57 wrote:

Some Additional thoughts on these ideas: 

Allocate bonus armies only to the "continent" from which they are attributed. 

 This could be a popular feature with most any "standard" board.  The concept of not being able to easily allocate troops to isolated positions applies to many "reenactment" type situations.  Remember, your basic multiplier bonus or minimum bonus armies would still have unrestricted placement options. Implementation seems like it might be tricky, but that's not my problem..

Designate certain territories as barren and others as a birthplace (or point of origin).  You may place bonus armies only in the latter of these.  

This shouldn't be that hard to implement; it's just a button, right? (..said M57, who knows next to nothing about coding), but it opens up a new genre of design possibilities.  Imagine a Spy vs. Spy board where you could only place your armies on the spies and deploy them from there (for instance with 3 or 4 fortifies per turn).

EN and I talked about something similar (cant find the thread) we talked about having spawning and cannibal territories

Spawning Territories: would grant you a predefined number of troops automatically allocated on that a specific territory

Cannibal Territories: would automatically decrease troops on a set territory by a predetermined amount each turn

there was a bunch more but like i said i cant find the thread :/