Using Undo

[Evileye_xc]

Can anyone tell me the legalities of using the Undo button during a Combat Turn?

My first couple of games I was using this but then read in the manual that in PBeM it isn't really considered Good Show. I notice my first opponent never used Undo only when my second opponent did and the playback of his turn began beeping.

So, is this acceptible play or not? I've refrained from using it since I noticed it in the book and have to say I should have realised that it can be abused to prevent bad withdrawals or Air Attacks etc. For this I apologise to Tigersqn (Notice I haven't used it in recent turns in Cuba 62) and remember I'm new to this.

:freak:

Evileye_xc

[tigersqn]

I have noticed actually. :D

I prefer not to use it myself. I figure if you make a move you didn't want to make, then you should pay the price if your opponent notices. I can understand some people wanting to use it though; I guess it gives them an advantage.

[Siberian HEAT]

I have used it about 3 or 4 times in the past year and a half...although there has been about 20 times I WISHED I could use it.

The general rule of thumb is that you can use it if you just do something wrong with the game interface (left instead of right click, or accidentally move a unit to some random spot due to a mis-click, or anything else that happens when you click one too many times).

However, if you intentionally plan to use the undo then that is most likely going to be seen as cheating.

Finally, if you do use an undo, it is good protocol to tell your opponent what happened. It shows them you are aware that undos are unfashionable, but also lets them know that what you did was not for the sake of cheating.

Good to have you on board! Keep asking those questions!

:clap:

[Polynike]

ive used it once or twice when right clicking instead of left clicking or when the pc lags and u press in real time but when the click takes effect the cursor is somewhere esle sending a red health pz korps against and inf unit def factor 10 entrenched 100% in a fortified city!!!!!!!

[Dan Neely]

I'll use undos under 3 circumstances, when I hit the wrong mouse button and give a move order when I'd meant to select a new unit. Group move when I wanted single. And when a unit I had moving through a large chunk of what I'd assumed was undefended enemy space ran into a enemy unit and then attempted to drive through it's ZOC. I always replace this move with one identical until the initial point of contact, picking a different path that would avoid contact altogether is abuse IMO.

[a white rabbit]

..only when i cock-up the button-pushing, usually "move group" errors..,

[Fading Captain]

I'm so programed to digging in units that I'll often dig in a unit on top of a bridge unconsciously when I meant for the unit to blow the bridge. Doh!!!

It's only with mistakes of this nature when I will undo, and I do try to tell my opponent why I did the undo.

I've also had to undo when the confounded cat bumps my hand or steps on the keyboard!

I generally try to treat things like chess: once you take your finger off of the mouse button the move is a done deal.

[Wolf]

Fading Captain came up with the only reason I'll use undo - the damned Cat!!! He loves jumping up and down on the keyboard whilst I am trying to play a game:hurt:

[Evileye_xc]

I hear Rommel had the same problem with his cat! Personally, my Feline Buddy gets launched from the room as soon as he even looks at my keyboard.

thanks for the help, Guys, it's been very useful. Wonder if my opponent has read it yet.

:devious:

Evileye_xc

[Wolf]

Sadly Evileye, I have six of the buggers - I think that I have cleared the room, but there is always one that I have missed waiting to leap onto the keyboard :)

[Palantir]

If I have any it's usally the mistaken "group" for "single" unit move err.

An explanation of what the "undue" was used for is always good sportsmanship.
But hearing 3-4 beeps a turn is rather suspicious. :(


Kerry :cheeky:

[Kraut]

Same as many already said I only use undos If I made errors due to the interface (digging in entire group when only the one on top was ment to dig in, accidently moving a unit when i was just clicking through a stack of units etc)

using undos to cheat would include: undoing a failed 'repair bridge' order or if disengaging from the enemy and getting hit by disengaging fire, than undoing until the unit disengages without penalty.

I guess most undos are no problem and that the cheaters probably already left the boring 2D games and are annoying the 3D shooter fans :rifle:

[Rince]

I NEVER use the undo-button and I think that is the only way it should be handled.
If something goes wrong (mouse-click or whatever), well **** happens! There could have been a misunderstanding of your orders by your subordinate general, some guy just lost his mind or some rebel-general in your ranks was a little stubborn.

Of course there are excuses for using it rightly, but instead of asking myself if my opponent was tricking on me I would rather have him stand in for his error, or his cat's!

Whenever I hear the beep, the battle is over...:dead:

end of message

[Ssudukh Tlakota]

:D Undo Button? What's an Undo Button? :D

[Evileye_xc]

OK, I think I understand the 'House rules' on Undo now. So here's another question in a similar vein....

I've made all my moves and carried out all my attacks. Hopefully I've kicked some Enemy Butt.

My turn is over and I save it for sending to my opponent.

BUT.... the game will still allow me to make Aircraft attacks, Destroy Bridges, Board transports etc. then it offers me to save again.

So, the question is, is this acceptable play? Can I make use these additional orders and then re-save and send it off to my opponent?

I don't think I've done this, as it didn't seem right to do so, but am I missing a useful part of my turn here?

Evileye_xc :freak:

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by Evileye_xc
OK, I think I understand the 'House rules' on Undo now. So here's another question in a similar vein....

I've made all my moves and carried out all my attacks. Hopefully I've kicked some Enemy Butt.

My turn is over and I save it for sending to my opponent.

BUT.... the game will still allow me to make Aircraft attacks, Destroy Bridges, Board transports etc. then it offers me to save again.

So, the question is, is this acceptable play? Can I make use these additional orders and then re-save and send it off to my opponent?

I don't think I've done this, as it didn't seem right to do so, but am I missing a useful part of my turn here?

Evileye_xc :freak:


A definate no on this one. Being able to move your units after the turn ends is a bug. your turns ended due to failing a proficiency check, it's over.

[Kraut]

nop, the above mentioned is not allowed.

It _might_ be usefull if both opponents agree on this before starting the game but in general you have to do all these things before your turn ends.

In scenarios with a weekly turn cycle allowing your opponent to continue his turn if he had an early turn ending is an example. Otherwise one would assume that an entire army was unable to do anything for several days.. not very likely. But you have to discuss this with your opponent before you start a new scenario.

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by Kraut
nop, the above mentioned is not allowed.

It _might_ be usefull if both opponents agree on this before starting the game but in general you have to do all these things before your turn ends.

In scenarios with a weekly turn cycle allowing your opponent to continue his turn if he had an early turn ending is an example. Otherwise one would assume that an entire army was unable to do anything for several days.. not very likely. But you have to discuss this with your opponent before you start a new scenario.

IF you wanted to do that though, wouldn't it be easier to change hte force proficiency to 100% in the editor and then let the game handle it for you?

[Kraut]

if it is that easy.. why not. But if the scenario handles different armys/nations the scenario designer would most likely choose to assign different proficiency to them. I don't know exactly how TOAW determins whether a turn ends early but it will most likely happen in any longer scenario.

In WW1 scenarios or even some WW2 scenarios these early turn endings might be wanted to indicate chaos, bad intelligence or simply slow descision making. But in a say WP vs NATO scenario it is highly unlikely that the entire NATO forces stop moving for days because they get no new orders ;)

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by Kraut
if it is that easy.. why not. But if the scenario handles different armys/nations the scenario designer would most likely choose to assign different proficiency to them. I don't know exactly how TOAW determins whether a turn ends early but it will most likely happen in any longer scenario.

It is that easy. When Force Prof is set to 100% for both sides, there´s no chance for failed prof checks. This doesn´t eliminate head-banging, burn-turning attacks though.

[LaPalice]

I thought that thing was there for a player who wanted to take a look at his turn a last time when this one ended just after an attack round. For example you may desire to look the effects of a fight on your units, their equipment, their supply, proficiency… In TOAW 1 you wasn’t able to see which of your units advanced after the fight (or only with difficulties) if the turn ended just after an attack round.
But trying to do something after the end of your turn should be forbidden.

La Palice.

[Dan Neely]

looking is fine. the problem is that you can also issue orders and carry out additional attacks.

[LaPalice]

Yes, it’s true. And that don’t work if you play against the PO. Playing after the end of your turn would be denying one of the principal characteristics of the TOAW system.
If I’m not wrong someone said in another thread that if your opponent played after the end of his turn, you could hear the same sound as for “Undo” during the replay.

There is a scenario, Kaiserschlacht (TOAW 1), where the Germans have a 100 % force proficiency. Your attacks don’t eat any round ! Your turn seems without end. There are only your heavy losses which can force you to stop your turn.

La Palice.

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by LaPalice
If I’m not wrong someone said in another thread that if your opponent played after the end of his turn, you could hear the same sound as for “Undo” during the replay.


You can. When the save pbm for your opponent dialog comes up, a turn end record is written to the replay. If you continue playing after that, the warning buzz will sound.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by LaPalice
There is a scenario, Kaiserschlacht (TOAW 1), where the Germans have a 100 % force proficiency. Your attacks don’t eat any round ! Your turn seems without end.

If I´m not drunk again ( :alien: ) , this is not possible. Force prof affects only the "dice roll" after a round of combats. If it is 100% there will be no failed prof checks, but attacks will `eat´ the turn normally.

[JAMiAM]

If the attacks are not eating any rounds, you are likely benefitting from a positive shock modifier and/or very high movement rates. As the Sheik said, the force prof % won't influence how much of the turn goes by with each series of attacks.

[LaPalice]

Yes, now I understand my mistake.

I’m going to try to describe the situation which made me thought what I said.
I move three German divisions adjacent to a British one. The first div spends 2 MPs, the two other 3 MPs (for a movement allowance of 17). Then I launch an attack, which begins at the second round if I’m not wrong. And yes, it’s real, after the attack, all the units have now 14 MPs. It’s if I launch other attacks (those three divisions against the British one) that none MP is lost by the units. The two little “square” in “Time Expanded” remain the same. And it was certainly because of that I believed and said the attacks didn’t eat any round. And that can work only if you don’t attack with other unit having spent more MPs than the first ones.

I wish that my explanation isn’t too confused. It seems not very clear.

La Palice.

[RhinoBones]

This is a great topic, so I’ll toss in my opinion of the Undo button and this “extra” end of turn business.

I have always played with that annoying sound turned off, therefore, anyone who wants to use Undo and the extra turn on me, go for it. Not only will I not know about it, but I also don’t care. My personal philosophy is, if the game allows it, expect it to be used and play accordingly. Player beware. So, if anybody wants to use it against me, fine, I’m an open target.

I play a few games at a time strictly for fun and use of these features will not dampen my enjoyment in the least. I’m sure that for those who play in tournaments and for ladder points this is not acceptable . . . but then, I don’t go in for that side of the sport. To me it’s just fun and escape from the daily grind. Tournaments and ladders are played to specific sets of rules (this is good) designed to provide a standard during the conduct of the games, but for those of us who have a less exacting agenda, I suggest that the rules be relaxed.

I do however have strong feelings about the “extra move” at the completion of a turn. I’m all for it. I have a difficult time rationalizing why a unit which attacks at the end of a turn is not permitted to make the best defensive position possible. Example, units attack at minimum loss and subsequently move into the vacated hex . . . and then for entire enemy move that unit does “not” take the opportunity to dig in, issue orders and adjust the loss bias!! This just doesn’t happen in the real world. Even if the enemy launches an immediate counter attack (immediate, as in a couple of hours of their retreat) there is always time for the defenders to find/make cover and issue basic orders.

If ever a new patch issued, I hope it includes the option to dig in and adjust bias at the end of the turn. Do it in a way so that the kludge of using Quit, Save, Cancel is not necessary.

I guess I’ve probably opened myself up to total abuse . . .

Regards, RhinoBones

[Siberian HEAT]

Originally posted by Stevo

I do however have strong feelings about the “extra move” at the completion of a turn. I’m all for it.
I guess I’ve probably opened myself up to total abuse . . .

Regards, RhinoBones

Noting that you only play for relaxation I won't give you "total abuse" LOL. :cheeky:

However, the problem with your philosophy of "the turn" is that you are looking at it as if it has a discrete end. Side 1 stops their attack, digs in, maybe checks their canteens, talks to HQ, etc...then passes the turn chit over to their opponent. In reality there is no end of turn...but there is a fluid transition to of the initiative over to the opponent.

Thus, what you call a failure of a unit to dig in after its attack, is in reality a counterattack occurring at almost the same instant. The time the turn ends (whether it is at 90% or 10% of combat rounds expended) represents that shift. If you play on past the end of turn you are effectively saying "hold the war while I do some last minute bookkeeping before you attack me again."

In game terms, the end of turn is usually decided by luck (roll of the dice)...and this is a factor we all accept as part of the give and take of warfare. It is as if at the end the first half of a soccer game the whistle blows, but one of the teams keeps moving the ball forward in "free" time...and when the second half begins the ball starts well inside the enemy territory. No one would put up with that! In the same way, by playing after the turn ends, you are taking away some of the advantages of your opponent by having you fail your dice roll.

Not saying your way is wrong as I respect everyone's right to play and enjoy this game the way they see fit. I enjoy this game every time I play it, even when I want to pull my hair out when I fail a proficiency check after only a single combat round! I know that on the other side of the table there is another bloke pulling his hair out when he fails his check. Then in shared misery we continue the battle...

:whlchr:

[Palantir]

Or in total mystery and confusion, eh HEAT!

Kerry :cheeky:

[Siberian HEAT]

Originally posted by Kerry
Or in total mystery and confusion, eh HEAT!

Kerry :cheeky:

Amen. Kerry and I are playing Tobruk 41 by D. McBride and using the house rules. It makes for an interesting game...not viewing the replays and turning off hex ownership. Units can be anywhere in your lines and you open up turns and wonder where your units went!

LOL Rommel has his Panzers' engines running...but still not ready to fully commit. Got to wait for the DAK counterattack green light :love:

No undos used in this game!

[Dan Neely]

I just finished thrashing tigersqn in Tobruk as the Brits, I aggressively occupied peaks and managed to avoid any unpleasent surprises. If you hadn't noticed, the brit dummy HQ can enter dunes to occupy a peak that would be otherwise unaccessable By the end of turn 12, I'd shattered DAK and captured 100 BIV points. Had the game continued elements of 4 italian divs might've escaped, Trieste and the 3 divs on the eastern part of the tobruk ring. With the possible exceptions of a few arty batteries, none of the italian corp level assets at most a single german arty bn could've escaped.

I still think only getting partial credit for winning a scenario well before the sceduled end turn is unfair, but that's a rant for annother thread.

[antoni34]

Never used it myself :p

Glad to suffer the results of my cock ups !!!

[RhinoBones]

Originally posted by Siberian HEAT
In reality there is no end of turn...but there is a fluid transition to of the initiative over to the opponent.


I think this is the critical point where we go our separate paths.

Just as it is in chess or checkers, TOAW is a game of action and reaction. The game is by definition, “turn based”. You move, I move to counter your move, you move to counter my counter move, and so the game is played. Whenever I see a dozen units travel 50 kilometers to converge on a former attacking unit, I have a problem understanding that the counter attackers were actually moving before the unit launched it’s attack and ended up defenseless for half a week. We can philosophize that the counter attacking units they were actually in a state of “fluid transition” but we both know that they were actually moving as a reaction to the enemy move in order to take advantage of a vulnerability. Move, counter move. This is the way TOAW was designed to be played and so we enjoy it for what it is. I think we should accept the game and recognize the limitations.

I would also like to make a prediction. Matrix has announced that later this year Battlefields is expected to be marketed. With the introduction of Battlefields, I expect that we will see a sharp decline in TOAW activity. (Start making a graph of the weekly posting to this forum) There will be two reasons why Battlefields will drain TOAW activity, 1) just because it is new and 2) because it offers the single most improvement over TOAW, i.e. it is played in the WEGO format. Unlike the rationalized WEGO system we use in TOAW, it is a true WEGO system and it will capture the attention of the TOAW players guild.

The turn based format is the TOAW Achilles heel. No matter how much we enjoy TOAW, it cannot compete with a true WEGO game system that is comparative in scope and nature. The WEGO system is more realistic and enjoyable to play. To prove the point, we know that TOAW scenario designers are actively designing scenarios for Battlefields. Where does that leave TOAW?

So, to make this post circular, I endorse the extra end of turn move. I also endorse the use of the Undo key within the limitations noted in earlier postings. I endorse the extra turn business because I believe it helps to make the game more realistic and I endorse the Undo because we all make mistakes.

In the mean time, I’m working on a rather grandiose scenario and I hope I haven’t turned off any prospective play testers with my heretical philosophy.

Best Regards, RhinoBones

[JAMiAM]

Originally posted by Stevo
Just as it is in chess or checkers, TOAW is a game of action and reaction. The game is by definition, “turn based”. You move, I move to counter your move, you move to counter my counter move, and so the game is played. Whenever I see a dozen units travel 50 kilometers to converge on a former attacking unit, I have a problem understanding that the counter attackers were actually moving before the unit launched it’s attack and ended up defenseless for half a week. We can philosophize that the counter attacking units they were actually in a state of “fluid transition” but we both know that they were actually moving as a reaction to the enemy move in order to take advantage of a vulnerability. Move, counter move. This is the way TOAW was designed to be played and so we enjoy it for what it is. I think we should accept the game and recognize the limitations.

Until we don our cammies, grab our guns and go chasing each other in the woods, we will have to accept a certain level of abstraction in the games that we play. HEAT very eloquently states the abstraction of TOAW, in recreating the action of real-life operational combat. Yes, the game is turn-based, and yes, there is the element of action-reaction. However, over the course of the game, a well-designed scenario played between two players of roughly equivalent skill will produce historically plausible results.

Originally posted by Stevo
I would also like to make a prediction. Matrix has announced that later this year Battlefields is expected to be marketed. With the introduction of Battlefields, I expect that we will see a sharp decline in TOAW activity. (Start making a graph of the weekly posting to this forum) There will be two reasons why Battlefields will drain TOAW activity, 1) just because it is new...

Similar predictions were made for another one of Matrix's undertakings. However, even Gary Grigsby's name hasn't helped with unseating TOAW from its position as the best operational level computer game on the market. You could make a graph comparing the forum activity of the two games here (UV vs TOAW), if you wish. However, currently the tally is 83 for UV against a combined total of 5489 for TOAW. The 1.5% that UV represents is not even considered "statistically significant".

Originally posted by Stevo
and 2) because it offers the single most improvement over TOAW, i.e. it is played in the WEGO format. Unlike the rationalized WEGO system we use in TOAW, it is a true WEGO system and it will capture the attention of the TOAW players guild.

The turn based format is the TOAW Achilles heel. No matter how much we enjoy TOAW, it cannot compete with a true WEGO game system that is comparative in scope and nature.

Perhaps it will capture the attention of the "TOAW players guild"...perhaps not. The proof will be in the pudding. However, I beg to offer a difference of opinion with regard to your argument that WEGO is inherently better than IGO/UGO.

IMO, a much worse vulnerability exists with WEGO games - a lack of a capable AI. Even in a contest between two human players, the AI will still be called upon to make decisions, many of them, each and every turn. Name one game that can be said to have a competently programmed AI. If you can name an example that didn't require millions of dollars to produce (DeepBlue in Chess, for example) or was based upon an extremely limited variety of possible moves (i.e. simplistic game system), then I would guess that you are simply not playing the game anywhere close to its potential. Unfortunately, as players become more adept with any game system, they also come to the realization that only other human players will adequately challenge them. A very common complaint of competent players - industrywide - is the absence of "intelligent" AI.

This is where turn-based games generally have an advantage over WEGO, or RTS games. By limiting the range of possible actions that an AI is called upon to process, it limits the amount of mistakes it will invariably make. Us gamers are notorious for wanting perfect AI, and being micro-managing control freaks. We can accept combat results based on some mathematical probabilistic functions (provided some semblence to reality, of course), but we cannot accept that our game was lost becasue the "damned AI went and moved my Panzer battalion right past the advancing US infantry regiments and got itself surrounded! What was it thinking? Why didn't it pull back/hold/counterattack when it saw the enemy approach like *I* wanted it to?"

Originally posted by Stevo
To prove the point, we know that TOAW scenario designers are actively designing scenarios for Battlefields. Where does that leave TOAW?

I'm sorry, but I had to laugh out loud at this one. It doesn't prove any point other than that some designers are willing to give a new system a try. I'm certainly not saying that TOAW is perfect, and I will in all likelihood buy, and try out Battlefields when it comes out. I'll even hope that it does a better job than TOAW at recreating operational warfare. However, it will take a mighty big pair of feet to fill those comfy old shoes that Norm left us, so long ago...

[Siberian HEAT]

Originally posted by Stevo



In the mean time, I’m working on a rather grandiose scenario and I hope I haven’t turned off any prospective play testers with my heretical philosophy.

Best Regards, RhinoBones

LOL, heretic or not you are entitled to your opinion, which is neither right nor wrong. We all play these games because we love them, and having a variety of play-styles is what this place is all about. In the same vein, don't hold anything against old school blokes such as myself who sits with his well thumbed TOAW manual propped against his monitor!

As for Battlefields, or any game for that matter, I seriously hope someone produces something better than TOAW because as we all know the system has flaws. However, I will be a tough sell on the WEGO system because as Jamiam states there is just too much the AI can get wrong. But, perhaps AI will surprise us all...

I am open to change, as long as I can summon the same level of excitement I get playing good old TOAW. :love:

[RhinoBones]

Originally posted by Siberian HEAT
. . . there is just too much the AI can get wrong . . .

Good point. No, make that excelent point.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Jam, there are over 36,000 posts about UV at the Matrix Games forum, only SPWAW has more...

[Stauffenberg]

Originally posted by Stevo

The turn based format is the TOAW Achilles heel. No matter how much we enjoy TOAW, it cannot compete with a true WEGO game system that is comparative in scope and nature. The WEGO system is more realistic and enjoyable to play.


Yes, well, ahem: do you usually work every night? Are most armies night-fighting every night? If not, well then gosh their movement is "turn based". Or let's try another argument: are divisional commanders getting instantaneous reports about all developments? Is there a lag in what happens, their finding out about it, and then reacting? If so the whole dynamic is rather "I go/you go". Likewise units do not move continuously but have command-control, fatigue, and fuel limitations. They stop, pause, whatever, and the caesura in the action again makes it "turn based" as the other side will likely not have to pause exactly when you do. Their are many issues one could raise as devil's advocate with wego systems as well, but in any case Battlefields has a far more intensive focus that TOAW, and at a scale where Wego should shine. 1 km per hex/btn/8 hour turns means you can forget about doing a DnO type project, we are talking intensive battles fought over 100 sq km or less on the average.

I guess what I am saying is that they are two very different species, approaching conflict simulation in very different ways. I'm sure I'll be playing out both in my 90s.



D.

[Bob Cross]

Considering all the covert ways to cheat that we’ve uncovered, I think we should at least try to avoid the overt ones. What does it tell your opponent about your attitude about covert cheating if you are indifferent to his hearing the cheat buzzer going off in his playback?

And I remain to be convinced that WEGO is better than IGO/UGO for a TOAW-scale game system. I would expect it to cause more problems than it fixed.

The main problem is how can you know what you want your forces to do after they've engaged the enemy until you know what the results of that engagement are going to be? Unless you are John Bell Hood, you won't proceed on to Nashville as planned after your army has been crushed at Franklin. To avoid that problem you need a microscopic turn length. And that is usually appropriate only for small-scale actions.

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by Bob Cross
Considering all the covert ways to cheat that we’ve uncovered, I think we should at least try to avoid the overt ones. What does it tell your opponent about your attitude about covert cheating if you are indifferent to his hearing the cheat buzzer going off in his playback?


Having been burned once I have taken to spot checking, and paying close attention if I see something that just doesn't look right. But honestly, newbies not withstanding, if someone wants to cheat they can do it without being caught so I don't worry that much about it.

[Evileye_xc]

So, now I've mastered use of Undo, and now know that one shouldn't make additional attacks after your initial save at the end of your turn.

In a similar vein...... How long should I wait after sending off my most recent turn before I get concerned about my opponent? Is there any regulation of people who quit a scenario half way thru?
And if so how would I prove that a game had been started then not completed?

When I figure out all of these little inconsistencies I demand the title Warfare HQ Barrackroom Lawyer!

Evileye :freak:

[Chuck?]

Originally posted by Bob Cross
What does it tell your opponent about your attitude about covert cheating if you are indifferent to his hearing the cheat buzzer going off in his playback?

This reminds of the time I played a new player and they were using around 10 undos a turn. I wasn't doing any undos myself so they had no idea I could hear each one. Eventually I had to inform them of this feature as it was getting out of hand.:devious:

[Chuck?]

Originally posted by Evileye_xc
How long should I wait after sending off my most recent turn before I get concerned about my opponent?

My rule of thumb is to base it how often you regularly play turns. If you play once a day then if two days go by something might be wrong. If you play once a week then wait two weeks.

[Stauffenberg]

Originally posted by Evileye_xc
Is there any regulation of people who quit a scenario half way thru?

Evileye :freak:

The last I heard they are sent to their rooms and confined to playing RISK for a year.

D.

[JAMiAM]

Originally posted by Stauffenberg

The last I heard they are sent to their rooms and confined to playing RISK for a year.
D.

...the boardgame...solo...on a waterbed...with a roomful of cats...

[Dan Neely]

Originally posted by Chuck


My rule of thumb is to base it how often you regularly play turns. If you play once a day then if two days go by something might be wrong. If you play once a week then wait two weeks.

that only works if your opponent has a fairly consistent turnaround rate. my rate of EA turns againt kraut has varried from 3-4 per day, to a week+ between depending on how busy I'm am with school.

PS kraut: Monday. I promise.

PPS famous last words. :nofear:

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by JAMiAM


...the boardgame...solo...on a waterbed...with a roomful of cats...

So that´s what you have been doing lately... Where´s my freaking turn of Götter! :bounce:

[JAMiAM]

Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti


So that´s what you have been doing lately... Where´s my freaking turn of Götter! :bounce:

LoL...keep your pants on, bouncy boy. Sorry, but I've been too busy in the General Discussion forum and squandering what little brainpower I have left there, instead of the more challenging proposition of destroying AGC against a real opponent. Now 15 days into a 20 day workweek, and the boredom is a much worse killer of initiative than the exhaustion. Or, is the latter caused by the former...hmmn?

In any case, I'll be getting back to it today. Thanks for the prod.

[Stauffenberg]

Originally posted by JAMiAM


...the boardgame...solo...on a waterbed...with a roomful of cats...

There's a computer-version of RISK? That has to be the lamest idea I've heard so far this year. I hope they have 3-D graphics to render all the colourful little cubes at least.

D.

[Mantis]

Originally posted by Dan Neely


that only works if your opponent has a fairly consistent turnaround rate. my rate of EA turns againt kraut has varried from 3-4 per day, to a week+ between depending on how busy I'm am with school.

PS kraut: Monday. I promise.

PPS famous last words. :nofear:

HEH!! I'm quite amazed at your restraint in mentioning our games... ;)

Dan & I had days of 8, 10, maybe a dozen turns/day. Then my cable would be under repair for a month, or my system exploded, or life hit me in the face... :cheeky:

At least I'm a known quantity. tho!!

:banana:

[Mantis]

Originally posted by Stauffenberg


There's a computer-version of RISK? That has to be the lamest idea I've heard so far this year. I hope they have 3-D graphics to render all the colourful little cubes at least.

D.

Simultaneous Risk was a neat idea... Would only work with a PC, unless you wrote down all your moves