This section covers enhancements to the WarGear game engine so generally it's quite involved as it requires updating the Designer, Player and back end server code.

Must capture territory to get a card rule setting
Special Cards (spy for Fog, return to attack, airlift etc)
Allow player selection of capital(s) during Territory Select phase
Map Maker defined genres (World Map, Hordes Map, Movie Theme Map)
Speed Turn Based Selection which the Map Designer allows a certain number of Territories to be taken each Turn. So you could set it to 3 and each person would get to select 3 territories in a Turn Based fashion, would go faster but still create something kind of new.
Allow team continent bonuses
Team elimination bonuses
Producer countries - can only place units on same country
Team card transfers
Starting scenario - set initial units to place and assign teams to scenario positions (e.g. for A&A)
Built in Hordes type bonus system
Win conditions - First player to reach specific territory
Win conditions - First to x units
Win conditions - First to control more than x% of the territories

I would like a way to get out of games that are not going anywhere that does not depend on anyone else.

There are two games with no autoboot that are waiting now 7-8 days, and I can imagine in a month they will be at 37-38 days =]

I think after 7 days you should be allowed to just leave the game and have it be like you never entered it.

The host of the game can direct boot players after 3x the boot time. For premium members this is 6x the boot time as they get twice as long without being booted.

So you want something like an abandon option which drops you out of the game if the wait time exceeds a certain value?

Or a direct player (non-host) boot that allows you to boot a player after a certain amount of time without anyone else voting?

I can think of a few situations that need to be covered somehow:

1. For a 'normal' case where one player in a game goes awol and just never comes back to take their turn. For autoboot games it's not an issue. For non-autoboot games the host boot at timeX is good. The vote to boot is OK too. These two don't quite cover it though, in cases where it's the host that went awol, or when one other player doesn't know about or just won't click the Vote to Boot button.

2. A case where a person is perverse enough to hold a game hostage by waiting to take their turn until right before the boot time (any type of boot).

So to cover case 1. either option you mentioned would be OK, ideally both would be best. Some games might not even be worth playing if a person drops out half-way through, so if I had a choice to direct-boot them or just leave the game I might choose to just leave.

Case 2 doesn't come up all that much, but when it does it's really really (REALLY!) frustrating. Something like a cumulative time-over counter would be awesome. Something like, you need to have played X turns, and after that if you are over 2x normal turn time you open yourself up to be boot voted.. 2.5x over and you open yourself up to direct boot.

Obviously all of these values are off the top of my head rough estimates and could be different for premium/non-premium.

I'd really like something where you have to conquer all of one are before you can move on to the next area.  Right now I accomplish this by putting a huge penalty bonus for not doing it the way I want you to but a full feature would be much better.

Plus people will just bitch at you that you "allowed" them to do something that was bad for them.

Have Dev games that you have been invited to show up as needing you to take your turn. I wouldn't have even noticed that I had been invited to this game had I not checked my e-mail (semi-rare) and saw that I had an invite e-mail.

This may also apply to other games you are invited to, but I don't know since I haven't been invited to many others, so I don't remember.

I would like some sort of option to allow a "slaughter-rule" effect such that the odds of losing units drop dramatically as the difference between the number of attacking units and the number of defending units increases. For example, 10 v 10 you would have normal odds of losing units on the attack, but for the case of 10 v 1 it would be much more unlikely that the player with 10 would lose any units.

Perhaps an algorithm for weighting the sides of the dice based on the magnitude of your army? Bigger armies are more likely to roll 5's and 6's, smaller armies more likely to roll 1's and 2's?

Just an idea for a cool toggle-able gameplay feature.

where would a suggestion go about having a 'cards available for turn in' thing pop up, not just you HAVE to turn in box?

Electric Monk wrote:

Have Dev games that you have been invited to show up as needing you to take your turn. I wouldn't have even noticed that I had been invited to this game had I not checked my e-mail (semi-rare) and saw that I had an invite e-mail.

I was just mentioning this somewhere else yesterday. Agree 100%.

small tweak on the cards page, well two actually.

1 - when trading in can you get the color of the card button to change more dramatically? right now it goes from a dark grey to a 10% lighter grey (i'm guessing but thats what it seems like) so i can barely tell if/which card i have selected.

2 - group like cards together? i have in a couple games card #1,#2,#1,#3,#2...

I have an idea that would be fun for castle type scenario boards, like Cumberdale's My Kingdom.
Envision this : Being able to capture certain territories from a "bank/treasury"... instead of investing in men, you invest in technologies. So I spend my men on capturing the "advanced stone mason technology territory"... now all my castles and forts get +1 on defense.
So this would expand on some things like Koprulu sector, where if you get the crystal overlord territory, all your crystals on the map are worth more. But now you can get new kinds of benefits other than more troops (increased attack range, defenses or offenses). Would allow people to specialize in offense or defense strategies, or help with detailed scenario based games! Im sure it would be a lot of work, but it would be cool. Basically board makers would have to say it sounds worth the investment of programming time.

That would definitely be very cool... would turn it almost into RTS style gameplay.

tom wrote: That would definitely be very cool... would turn it almost into RTS style gameplay.

Turn-based Strategy, I think you mean. You're heading into the realm of making this Civilization Lite Online.

That's not criticism, just observation. At this moment in time, all I have to say is that if you start down that path, be prepared with a new site infrastructure, as you'll need to clearly distinguish whether a map is RISK, RISK+ (most of what we have now), or otherwise.

Yes fair point Cram.

Could you add in a "You haven't fortified" notice, or an option to add it, or an option to have 1 minimum fortification option. I have a game where it's absolutely necessary that you fortify at the end of your turn, which is sometimes hard to remember...

tom wrote:

...

Producer countries - can only place units on same country...

 

I think that "spawning territories" would be better than this.  In other words, a one territory continent that provides a bonus that is automatically placed in the one continent territory.  This could be negative or positive.

It would be nice if you could quote a post, delete some text, and then leave the text box. It would only allow me to write in the quote box after I deleted the parts I wasn't quoting.

Edward Nygma wrote: It would be nice if you could quote a post, delete some text, and then leave the text box. It would only allow me to write in the quote box after I deleted the parts I wasn't quoting.

You can, but I think you have to add some lines below the quote box (by hitting Enter is what I mean) before you go delete the text in the Quote.  Kinda wacky, and I too would like to see it easier.

The quote function (well, doing anything more complex than a straight quote once + type response) in these forums is pretty poor. I have to go in and use the html editor every time, and that's not simple either.