choosing countries and initial set up.

[negoeien]

Indeed maybe you have a bad placement from the beginning but that doesn't neccisarely means that you don't haVe a slim chance to win. Why are there people with more then 2000 points. All because of luck? I don't think so. By the way if you can pick your countries the game would go slow and with six players there are at least two who go for aussi or south america, another point is that dices don't get influenced by placements. You still can have bad luck on the dices and loose even if you placed your armies following a certain "strategy". It's just part of the game. Well that's just my opinion, I'm glad the way it is.

[nyg5680]

and wut happens if ur not all there at the same time or who ever places first gets better placement so if u hafta place last well its better it just bein random and if they randomly choose who places first its still random anyway and if you all have too put 1 territory down and than it goes in order well it will take weeks

[Rogi]

You all just backed my opinion.
And no dan,i'm not getting too exited. Just the way i discuss things.
The fact is it would take too long for that.
And when i play board risk i like to shuffle the cards so that everyone has been dealt with random countries. Again the random thing appears...

[Nous-irons]

Look Rogi, I know it's random. When I open my game and I find that my countries are all close together which allows me to go after a continent faster and easier, vs when my countries that I'm given are spaced out all over the map making it more difficult. Your right, sometimes it's to my benefit, but I don't like it when I'm lucky to start either. Especially when you play unlimited and all your countries are connected allowing you to place all your armies on one country. By the way, on the board game you can either choose countries one by one, each players takes his/her turn or you can shuffle the cards and deal them out and whatever card you get you get. I play that each player takes his turn choosing.
Anyway, I checked it out NYG 5860, and you are right. It has been suggested before. Thanks for letting me know.

War isn't fair. The game is about dealing with what you've got: again, politics is a larger factor in large games especially. Your plan is really too infeasible, unless again, we're playing RT.

[RobinJ]

I know that in the board game you get to deploy your own armies but I actually prefer it when countries are given out randomly. It's more fun if you have to try to capture a continent than it is when you start off with one from the beginning. Besides, think about how much time it would take to sort all that out. If I could find a way, i would suggest making games quicker rather than slower.

[Twill]

OK first a few things:

a) this should really have been in the suggestions forum
b) please dont double post, it's what the edit button is for, really
c) "chill winston" just a site, just a discussion, be civil, please

This has been suggested and discussed many times.
The general consensus has been that it would be far too time consuming and down right annoying to have people place their armies one at a time.
Some suggestions have been to randomly allocate armies rather than evenly distributing them - but that would lead to more luck vs. skill rather than more
others have included just having people place all their armies at once, without seeing where others have deployed theirs then revealing it all at once, much like "diplomacy" the game.
The problem is not the coding, Lack could whip that up in a second, the problem is implementation. If you can come up with a good, efficient way to implement placement of armies from a gameplay standpoint, it could be done from a coding standpoint. that I can promise you.

Hope that answers some questions
Twill

[Rogi]

LOL like the "chill winston" comment.