"Keep 5 Capitals for 1 round", "Hold 5 capitals for 1 round", "Own 5 Capitals for 1 round" would all be acceptable and logical.
The key phrase to avoid confusion is 'for 1 round"

Hello,

I love this map! However there is a small issue I encountered recently.

The map states the following victory condition: "Own 5 Capitals to win the game"
I believe it should be worded differently, such as: " Hold 5 Capitals for 1 round to win the game"

In my recent game, I managed to ...

Seems like a basic thing that is sorely missing..

Concise description:

If a player starts their turn, successfully attacks but runs out of time, a spoil should still be still be awarded automatically.

Specifics/Details:

I don't think I can explain it any better than above.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments ...

Game Finder search results should omit games which contain your foes

Specifics/Details:

Perhaps just add a checkbox: "Omit Foes from results"?

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

When someone on your foe list creates 100 games of the style you like, it will save a ...

Hello,

I think it would be a great idea to have a 'Dark Mode' or 'Night Mode'.
Just a simple button/link in the footer that triggers the css to show a black background and white text. (Or at least a background darker than the current white background)

Any thoughts?

When one player is far stronger than the others it is pretty obvious that all other players must attack the leader so that the game can continue. A 'no chat' game variant option will not change this.

It could be argued that many of the game variants that have been implemented on CC are 'NOT risk ...

Yes, voting would be unanimous.

If you're 100% against this idea, you would simply not check the game option.
I have a decent rank and winning percentage and I rarely use diplomacy at all. By the way, most diplomacy is fine; I just feel it spoils the game when desperate people manipulate the weak minded to gain an advantage.

Even if no one wins or loses points?

At this point (in game 10367429) I would gladly abandon the game and walk away with no points. The only thing I would gain is the ability to start a new game.

Yes I am keen for this to be a game option, ie 'disable chat'.

To explain my reasons further: it is frustrating when the game if quite balanced yet player X suggests to player Y that player Z needs to be attacked or that player A is about to win; when this clearly isn't the case. Player X has just ...

Ok – so perhaps, in no-limit games:

After 100 rounds of play, the option to vote appears.
If the vote passes, the game will continue for a further 100 rounds of play (the game ends on round 200).
If the vote does not pass, play will continue and the option to vote will only reappear after another ...

Ha! I'm not going to get drawn into a debate about US foreign policy

All I meant was that in a fairly silent game of cc, many players will only begin diplomacy (or social engineering) when they are about to lose!

I think it shows great strength and resolve to win a game without alliances, truces ...

I am keen for this too, but I wasn't sure how it could be done. But I guess disabling chat would be the way to go.

Perhaps just enable it after the game has finished to exchange pleasantries/insults.

Diplomacy is for the weak! (literally)

For games with unlimited rounds that seem like they will never end, I propose a system where the remaining players can vote to set a 'sudden death round limit'.

I am currently playing a game (10367429) where there are three players remaining and the balance of power is quite even. At the time of ...