Replacing leavers

Instead of having a point system that tells people how many time the person left and it wont work because people can have emergency. we should just replace the leavers...how. well here is a example: we start a WW2 game and 1 person leaves and there are 2 things we can do.

1.we can pause the game and wait for a person to join and take the place of the leaver so the joiner will have whatever money, troops and countries the leaver had. the stratz i guess we can let the joiner choose. what stratz he wants but it could be abused. anyone can join the game even a spectator. the game will continue.

2.we can let a teammate take the the control of the leavers countries, money and troops. useful in team games. so lets say USA east left instantly one of the team mates can take control everything he has and continue the game like UK gets USA west means more work of course. but what if UK dies then does usa west die.... no UK will lose all UK lands except USA west lands and be usa west player and not UK player. the probably have to vote who takes it without sending units to take the countries.

also one person posted a topic about a restart button which is useful once too many people leave.
grimm had the same idea to replace them and its sad to only see 2 comments on it

I really want this sort of thing to be implemented, well at least the first option.
It's really annoying to see a game fail because an important player left, especially when there are many spectators that could take the place.

I think the first suggestion should be implemented if not the restart button, just make an end to leave-trolling once and for all for the game's sake.

Admins just do SOMETHING. Anything.

Napisao GOD 2.0, 29.09.2013 at 22:21

1.we can pause the game and wait for a person to join and take the place of the leaver so the joiner will have whatever money, troops and countries the leaver had. the stratz i guess we can let the joiner choose. what stratz he wants but it could be abused. anyone can join the game even a spectator. the game will continue.

Good solution, but not easy to implement. I promise to seriously think about it though. We're only talking about scenarios here - with pre-defined sides, right?

Napisao Ivan, 01.10.2013 at 05:35

Napisao GOD 2.0, 29.09.2013 at 22:21

1.we can pause the game and wait for a person to join and take the place of the leaver so the joiner will have whatever money, troops and countries the leaver had. the stratz i guess we can let the joiner choose. what stratz he wants but it could be abused. anyone can join the game even a spectator. the game will continue.

Good solution, but not easy to implement. I promise to seriously think about it though. We're only talking about scenarios here - with pre-defined sides, right?

Team games as well, not normal ones though.

Napisao Ivan, 01.10.2013 at 05:35

Napisao GOD 2.0, 29.09.2013 at 22:21

1.we can pause the game and wait for a person to join and take the place of the leaver so the joiner will have whatever money, troops and countries the leaver had. the stratz i guess we can let the joiner choose. what stratz he wants but it could be abused. anyone can join the game even a spectator. the game will continue.

Good solution, but not easy to implement. I promise to seriously think about it though. We're only talking about scenarios here - with pre-defined sides, right?

That is mostly the case in scenarios where the factions are split up into teams, with each member having an important role.
One of them leaving means the team is left handicapped with just the loss of a player, and the other side have a much better chance of winning.

Support.
And as Shadow Ghost mentioned, I had made a topic on replacing leavers here:
http://fr.atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=9205

I definitely support the first option, this would make the game so much more enjoyable for everyone.

Yes I'm in!

I support first option

Both options supported, id like to add something though: the 2nd system could be very handy with multiple country control/capitol control, if east usa leaves, canada takes it over by vote between the allies (or a option defaulted by the map maker) however east usa will remain the same color, same units, same countries (depends on if stuff has been captured) and the same capital, the only changes will be a new leader and a combined bank, and if canada gets taken over, the canadian player will remain the leader of east usa, and vice versa

(main options)

2 countries ruled by 1 ruler (like a personal union was in dem old times)(and the same bank lol)

2 capitols, 2 colors

a by the scenariomaker predicided who takes over what = canada->east us, british africa->free france, east us-> canada, etc

Napisao OKELEUK, 15.10.2013 at 11:12

Both options supported, id like to add something though: the 2nd system could be very handy with multiple country control/capitol control, if east usa leaves, canada takes it over by vote between the allies (or a option defaulted by the map maker) however east usa will remain the same color, same units, same countries (depends on if stuff has been captured) and the same capital, the only changes will be a new leader and a combined bank, and if canada gets taken over, the canadian player will remain the leader of east usa, and vice versa

(main options)

2 countries ruled by 1 ruler (like a personal union was in dem old times)(and the same bank lol)

2 capitols, 2 colors

a by the scenariomaker predicided who takes over what = canada->east us, british africa->free france, east us-> canada, etc

This might be hard to implement but a reasonable idea for a team scenario(or regular game), despite that the player controlling two countries will have to administrate the extra territories in the time they have which all may not be capable of.
Also how will the economies be handled? It seems a bit odd.

Napisao Pyrrhus, 16.10.2013 at 02:50

Napisao OKELEUK, 15.10.2013 at 11:12

Both options supported, id like to add something though: the 2nd system could be very handy with multiple country control/capitol control, if east usa leaves, canada takes it over by vote between the allies (or a option defaulted by the map maker) however east usa will remain the same color, same units, same countries (depends on if stuff has been captured) and the same capital, the only changes will be a new leader and a combined bank, and if canada gets taken over, the canadian player will remain the leader of east usa, and vice versa

(main options)

2 countries ruled by 1 ruler (like a personal union was in dem old times)(and the same bank lol)

2 capitols, 2 colors

a by the scenariomaker predicided who takes over what = canada->east us, british africa->free france, east us-> canada, etc

This might be hard to implement but a reasonable idea for a team scenario(or regular game), despite that the player controlling two countries will have to administrate the extra territories in the time they have which all may not be capable of.
Also how will the economies be handled? It seems a bit odd.

Just have the money combined, like that east usa will automaticly transfer its money to the candian bank, which uses it to buy units with it