Idk why there are so many people hacking the game right now, but there are clearly a lot of known ways to hack it, why haven’t they been patched?

I’m not a dev, just generally asking because these instances date back years, and it’s getting crazy now I’m at master rank.

3 games I’ve lost due to the losing player restarting the game this week. Only this time they froze everyone out too? Get a job fr

Just played a classic fixed with you. I was orange. Turn 1, you opened a path for me to sweep my troops into SA, and we were homies all the way through... right up until you stacked on me. White shouldn't have fed me pink by taking europe thereby handing me NA.

No hard feelings. It was the right play.

I appreciate you playing for first, unlike purple who could've gone into me after killing white to try to balance the game, but instead hit you a bit and turtled.

If white hadn't fed, I would've loved to see how you and I worked the alliance, and think it would've been an interesting 1v1.

Truly, gg, wp.

@lucy
This is beyond frustrating.
Playing Capitals with Fog of War- I’m convinced other players are paranoid.

3 slow roll situations in a row.

18 vs 23 on my cap, slow rolled me and won with 6 troops remaining

10 vs 10 on my cap, the attacker won with 4 remaining

6 v 6 on cap, attacker won with 3 remaining, then I hit back next round 6 v 3 and lost all my troops lol

I understand there is an element of randomness, but it just feels a bit random and unfair when slow rolling, really ruins the experience. Just free wins with no skill or strategic merit.

After having played the new system (automatic flagging for botting out) for a while, it feels much better. Specifically, if someone bots out, instead of ranking where their bot finishes, they rank where they were when they flagged.

Previously when I was dead lost but there were still player bots in the game, I would usually stick it out hoping that the winning player would kill the bots first. Now I can just surrender saving a lot of time. It also all but eliminates the bot-out strategy which though maybe rare was super annoying.

It feels much more like chess now where you can just resign at any point if you're losing.

Not even joking I must of tried this over 100 times but finally the British force has been squashed. Here’s my tips

1. I put my first stack in Greenland which keeps the main stack in Iceland for a good portion of the first half.
   
2. I put my second stack in Brazil and used that to continuously break Africa and Europe.
   
3. After breaking I was sure to take out a few smaller stacks in each continent too, this forces the AI to constantly split off their larger stacks to retake.
   
4. Decent size stacks were left in China and India to stop the AI from taking Australia which I pulled from North America.
   
5. Middle East was a good minor stack to ensure you can resupply Africa from Asia.
   
6. Eventually the AI will move in North America but as long as you hold Alaska and Venezuela you will be OK.
   
7. Keep breaking continents and wait for 10 card trades.

Good luck!

This is the fourth game this week where I end up second, and the player stops attacking even though they've already won. So I learned what stalling means. Would like to know how effective reporting players for stalling is, since the game logs are there.

The only difference between low level fixed caps only GMs and masters is the willingness to turtle and grab #2 in a losing situation. I got to GM that way and honestly, the title isn't worth it. I have a lot more fun floating between expert and master, playing in a way that's fun, then doing that.

This is the basic map and basic, fixed settings.

Is it just me or are the majority of people annoyingly passive lately? Like wayyyy more than normal? Is it cause everyone is trying to conserve their troops and get to GM?

I like playing in 6 person lobbies but by the time everyone has settled into their territories, nobody attacks and it ends up being a stalemate that can go on for eternity. I rather be targeted than wait 2 hours staring at the same colors of continents.

Like no one will attacks the open end of Europe, Africa is set on one point and no one ever breaks, America will be open on 2 sides and nobody breaks. I’ve even tried with no allies and it’s the same issue.

AIC for feeling this way and just lack patience or are other people starting to get pissed off my a full 6 people, turtle match…?

he has 8 troops, he is well defended. IT WAS DONE TO A BOT

Obtained on mobile playing predominantly meta settings with expo.

What the actual f is going on with dice rolls, a blitz on a capital should never end positive for one thing. I see people slam a 10 on 10 and not only win but only lose a few troops.

I officially played my last game of capitals when in the span of the same round i saw someone 15 on 10 cap slam losing 3 and me slamming a 93% lost all and they kept more than half their troops

I tend to set up my own games because I think it helps control collaborators. Anyway, sometimes I'll wait 5 or 10 minutes for a six-person game and one person might come in and then disappear. After a while I assume that I got routed to a server that is not very active, so I quit the game and relaunch thinking i might get better server. And my perception is that often the game I set up there fills quickly. Is this a totally off-base way to think about this issue?

Do you play more or fewer than 40% of games with people that understand the basics?

I love playing the good thoughtful games, win or lose but I am so jaded joining lobby after lobby with just genuine cretins that have seemingly no desire to win just blast, you can compensate for that if there's one or two, there very very very rarely is one or two.

Collabers on top which is another boring repetitive conversation. Fundamentally I'm sick of most people. this could be such a great game if nor for the absolute stains that populate it.

Yeah yeah waah waah.

Still the case.

It's been a long journey but I finally made it to grandmaster.

This is purely hypothetical, I do not think it suits my playstyle.

As a child I played loads of the boardgame Risk. But I always wondered about a tactic, if it would be unsportsmanlike or fair game.

Lets say: you play a game of risk with your 2 mates. they are doing really well and clearly having a bigger army than you, with no improvement for yourself in sight.

You are in a corner. You have quite an army, beeing close to one of your opponents, but you know that every turn they will clearly get more troops than you.

So bold move: you tell the opponent you've got your army next to that if he/she does not attack the other opponent the next turn, you will attack him. If you would attack, the result would be surely not have yourself win, but absolutely reduce the chances of the person you're blackmailing. His/her turn, nothing happened. So now it is your turn again.

Here you need to make a choice, you can attack the person you just gave the ultimatum, knowing that you will not survive it, and will leave the game earlier although your chances of winning would get slimmer every round anyways. But it might be a little petty, basicly ruining the game for yourself and the other player guaranteeing the win to the 3rd player. However, by doing so, for any future games of risk, they will know your threats are real.

So question is: is it fair to make the move to attack and ruin your own and someone else game. Or is it bad sportmanship

Dear lord, this feels like a weird question. Once again, I dont think I would play this way, but for the last 20 years this question has been doing tetris in my mind.

My friends and I have been playing a lot of risk lately and have come into the issue of an attacker rolling too many die.

We have three options:

1. Everyone rerolls

2. Remove the highest die from the offending player

3. If the non-offending player was to win then that stands, otherwise everyone rerolls

My friend argues that if the non-offending player were to win even with the offending roll then it is unfair to reroll at all since they would have won.

I think its better for everyone to reroll since its an invalid roll.

What do you think???

Just played a game with players from a certain region of the world. I was hesitant because in the past when there's more than one they're likely to suicide and or ally. This time, I didn't kick one of them out. Sure enough, the 2 players from this particular region allied and suicided. Anyone guess which region they were from?

Or the better question is why was I not diligent with my settings before starting a game. Earlier tonight there were not enough games happening and I cleared my setting to see what else was available. Then a game was hosted that actually fit my usual settings and I joined. I played the game and then took a break. I came back forgot I had cleared them saw a game for a map I liked and joined. It was set to true random and for this game that translated to the worst roll’s possible. I tried rolling one die at a time but that took up to much time. I’m sure the GM players may have learned this lesson long ago and now I have still nowhere near GM. Anyways for those that haven’t learned it check your settings don’t get comfortable.

Have bot cap rolls changed? I’ve never seen an 11 v 9 attempted before.

Oops: Rolls*

I played domination in early 2000s and recently discovered this game. I play FFA 6 people, only on classic world map.

Now im in Master and I feel people just turtle up, really afraid of being the aggresor. I really enjoy when the game is complicated and everyone is trying to sabotage for each other, in a clever way of course.

Are there any other modes/maps I should check out that rewards aggresive gameplay? Where there is less turtling? :)

I was recently eliminated in the third round. Was I targeted, or can this happen by chance?