Round Limits FYI

[L M S]

Its not the team with the most troops...its the individual PLAYER with the most troops that wins, and therefore that team wins as well, regardless if the other team has more total troops.

Total Junk way to do it IMO.

example:
Game 9923462

Maybe I understood the rules incorrectly. But, we knew there was not going to be a winner before the round limits hit so we played the final 10 rounds to come out on top of the troop count...and we did...as a team...and still lost.
This is wrong in my opinion.

[Metsfanmax]

Round Limit

With round limits, the game will automatically finish at the end of the specified round. The winner will be the surviving player with the most troops. If there is a tie, it will be broken based on the most regions. If there is still a tie, the winner is selected based on join order. When playing a round limited game with teams, the winning team will be based on highest individual troop count, not teamwide troup count. This option is great for avoiding stalemates and can add some spice to the game as the deadline approaches!

[L M S]

Its all good. It appears I just missed that part....doesnt mean I like it.

[ndrs]

Round Limit

With round limits, the game will automatically finish at the end of the specified round. The winner will be the surviving player with the most troops. If there is a tie, it will be broken based on the most regions. If there is still a tie, the winner is selected based on join order. When playing a round limited game with teams, the winning team will be based on highest individual troop count, not teamwide troup count. This option is great for avoiding stalemates and can add some spice to the game as the deadline approaches!

Seems off to me. Perhaps the easiest way to code it (?), but certainly not the fairest solution for team games...

[Metsfanmax]

I too am guessing that Lack went for the easiest solution to code rather than the most objectively fair one. That being said, you could just shuffle all your troops to one player during the last round, now that you know about it.

[Army of GOD]

That does seem like a unfortunate stipulation for team games.

[wolfpack0530]

I too am guessing that Lack went for the easiest solution to code rather than the most objectively fair one. That being said, you could just shuffle all your troops to one player during the last round, now that you know about it.

gonna see alot more unlimited fort and adjacent fort team games to combat this i think

[Namliam]

We all know that any team worth a damn plays as ONE! I, too, have misunderstood the way the limits apply. Easiest to code? That's crap, if it's the reason for this. As for any new change to the game, modifications should be made as games are played and feedback is given. Code it to count total troops by team please! That's the only way to do it in my humble opinion!

[Dibbler]

I could even see a team intentionally deadbeat their games right at the end if they knew the game was going to hit the limit. This way taking advantage of the fact that their troops and territories flip over to a team mate. If I read the description correctly, the winner is decided first on troops, so if in a quads game one team had all 4 players left and another only 1 but that player had the most troops, the team with 1 player would win.

I'm not suggesting this strategy would work every time or even most of the time, as deadbeating takes 3 rounds and you lose your deferred troops but it has some potential in some games.

[Dibbler]

I will admit this new knowledge means I won't play many games with round limits in the team format. I don't think this is the best way to decide the victory.

[Crazyirishman]

that sucks, but the vast majority of team games dont even go over 20 rounds unless its on das schloss, so I dont think it will be too much of a problem

[safariguy5]

that sucks, but the vast majority of team games dont even go over 20 rounds unless its on das schloss, so I dont think it will be too much of a problem

Definitely puts team games on larger maps like Hive or Conquer Man at a disadvantage with round limits.

[Deli]

Its all good. It appears I just missed that part....doesnt mean I like it.

I completely misunderstood the rule as well. That doesn't even make any sense to play it that way. Its a team game, the team plays as 1? Surely team total is how it should be done? As stated, just deadbeat the rest of your team, and suddenly the other player in the team gets all the troops for the final round to win? Cheap.

Didn't happen in this occassion, but if we'd have known that was the rules, then I certainly wouldn't have attacked the guy with the smaller amount of troops!

[nebsmith]

I think it could make for some interesting gameplay, everyone forting to and dropping on one team-mate and attacking the strongest members of other teams, also the blocking of fort lines between team-mates.

It adds another level to the planning needed to win.

[Evil Semp]

Hey guys

I see all these complaints about how it is decided and I can't argue with you. Why not start a suggestion rather than just complain about it?

[ljex]

Hey guys

I see all these complaints about how it is decided and I can't argue with you. Why not start a suggestion rather than just complain about it?

we have all seen how successful making a suggestion is...why bother is the better question imo

[L M S]

Hey guys

I see all these complaints about how it is decided and I can't argue with you. Why not start a suggestion rather than just complain about it?

we have all seen how successful making a suggestion is...why bother is the better question imo

Just a couple of notes:

-I realized the error was mine after MM pointed out the rules. (and made a public note of it)
-By and large the reason for my post was to bring it to players attention so they didn't make the same mistake I had made.
-I do think it is a ridiculous way to decide the winning TEAM in a team game.
-The suggestions forum is a shitting mess, full of nonsense and besides, I wanted some feedback and a discussion on the matter before hand...just to make sure my thoughts on the matter were not sideways due to the fact I had just lost a game.
-Why not just move this to suggestions instead of belittling its intent?

[Evil Semp]

Hey guys

I see all these complaints about how it is decided and I can't argue with you. Why not start a suggestion rather than just complain about it?

we have all seen how successful making a suggestion is...why bother is the better question imo

Just a couple of notes:

-I realized the error was mine after MM pointed out the rules. (and made a public note of it)
-By and large the reason for my post was to bring it to players attention so they didn't make the same mistake I had made.
-I do think it is a ridiculous way to decide the winning TEAM in a team game.
-The suggestions forum is a shitting mess, full of nonsense and besides, I wanted some feedback and a discussion on the matter before hand...just to make sure my thoughts on the matter were not sideways due to the fact I had just lost a game.
-Why not just move this to suggestions instead of belittling its intent?

I was not questioning you and I don't disagree. I wasn't belittling its intent but if you want it changed it would have a better chance in suggestions. I didn't move it because I can't move threads unless they are in C&A.

[L M S]

Hey guys

I see all these complaints about how it is decided and I can't argue with you. Why not start a suggestion rather than just complain about it?

we have all seen how successful making a suggestion is...why bother is the better question imo

Just a couple of notes:

-I realized the error was mine after MM pointed out the rules. (and made a public note of it)
-By and large the reason for my post was to bring it to players attention so they didn't make the same mistake I had made.
-I do think it is a ridiculous way to decide the winning TEAM in a team game.
-The suggestions forum is a shitting mess, full of nonsense and besides, I wanted some feedback and a discussion on the matter before hand...just to make sure my thoughts on the matter were not sideways due to the fact I had just lost a game.
-Why not just move this to suggestions instead of belittling its intent?

I was not questioning you and I don't disagree. I wasn't belittling its intent but if you want it changed it would have a better chance in suggestions. I didn't move it because I can't move threads unless they are in C&A.

Understood kind sir. Thank you for clarifying for me.

[Kabanellas]

It makes no sense when it comes to team games - Largest team should obviously win.

[Robinette]

I think it could make for some interesting gameplay, everyone forting to and dropping on one team-mate and attacking the strongest members of other teams, also the blocking of fort lines between team-mates.

It adds another level to the planning needed to win.

i don't know much about team games, that is for sure...

But i am Shocked, SHOCKED I SAY,
that there has been only 1 comment recognizing the positive side of this...
the opportunity for an interesting game play,
combined with the extra level of strategy required to win the end-game.

Why not embrace it?
as nebsmith said "everyone forting to and dropping on one team-mate and attacking the strongest members of other teams, also the blocking of fort lines between team-mates".

[L M S]

I think it could make for some interesting gameplay, everyone forting to and dropping on one team-mate and attacking the strongest members of other teams, also the blocking of fort lines between team-mates.

It adds another level to the planning needed to win.

i don't know much about team games, that is for sure...

But i am Shocked, SHOCKED I SAY,
that there has been only 1 comment recognizing the positive side of this...
the opportunity for an interesting game play,
combined with the extra level of strategy required to win the end-game.

Why not embrace it?
as nebsmith said "everyone forting to and dropping on one team-mate and attacking the strongest members of other teams, also the blocking of fort lines between team-mates".

Name anything that would be interesting about it, cause right now all that has been written about how interesting it would be is how games are played anyway.

[Evil Semp]

I think it could make for some interesting gameplay, everyone forting to and dropping on one team-mate and attacking the strongest members of other teams, also the blocking of fort lines between team-mates.

It adds another level to the planning needed to win.

i don't know much about team games, that is for sure...

But i am Shocked, SHOCKED I SAY,
that there has been only 1 comment recognizing the positive side of this...
the opportunity for an interesting game play,
combined with the extra level of strategy required to win the end-game.

Why not embrace it?
as nebsmith said "everyone forting to and dropping on one team-mate and attacking the strongest members of other teams, also the blocking of fort lines between team-mates".

Isn't that the strategy of AOR2 or City Mogul? Except now there is a time limit.

[Agent 86]

Pirlo has started a suggestion thread to try and get this changed. I'm with LMS on this one, team = 1 player ( everyone working together for a common goal ) on every map..so team troops is the obvious way to a win on limited rounds.

my 2 cents worth,

86

[Commander9]

I will admit this new knowledge means I won't play many games with round limits in the team format. I don't think this is the best way to decide the victory.

This. Thanks but no thanks.