Suggestions

[Silly Knig-it]

Suggestion that we be allowed to earn at least one point in games against bots. It is so hard to find anyone who will actually complete a game and now at least two of the games "Lost Cities and Mancala" will only give me 0 points for a win. Please let me have alittle something for my effort. I keep putting up games for people to join, but most of the time they join and disappear.

[bigWham]

Suggestion that we be allowed to earn at least one point in games against bots. It is so hard to find anyone who will actually complete a game and now at least two of the games "Lost Cities and Mancala" will only give me 0 points for a win. Please let me have alittle something for my effort. I keep putting up games for people to join, but most of the time they join and disappear.

You get points from Bots in the same way as you get points from humans (unless it is your Bot). The only main reason you should get 0 points is if the Bot's score is very low compared to yours. You can see the full algorithm under Help.

[Zarkov]

In E&T, when you connect two temples with treasures, the game seems to randomly select one of the treasure to collect. Often, it picks the treasure on the new temple even if the other temple with treasure has several leaders around it. Since treasures prevent temples from being destroyed by a catastrophe, and a leader whose last adjoining temple is destroyed gets removed from the board, this is not a good move. Sometimes, treasure on a certain temple can be very valuable.

This may have been brought up before, but I suggest either to allow players to choose which treasure to collect, or at least have the game collect the treasure from the temple with less leaders in contact.

[Zarkov]

An example from a current game: The temple marked N5 used to hold a treasure. In the previous round, player Knivel annexed temple I7, and the treasure at N5 was removed instead of that at I7. Now there is nothing preventing Knivel's opponent from playing a catastrophe at N5, split off the monument and take it over.

[bigWham]

In E&T, when you connect two temples with treasures, the game seems to randomly select one of the treasure to collect. Often, it picks the treasure on the new temple even if the other temple with treasure has several leaders around it. Since treasures prevent temples from being destroyed by a catastrophe, and a leader whose last adjoining temple is destroyed gets removed from the board, this is not a good move. Sometimes, treasure on a certain temple can be very valuable.

This may have been brought up before, but I suggest either to allow players to choose which treasure to collect, or at least have the game collect the treasure from the temple with less leaders in contact.

It's true, this is a known "deficiency", and we do have it on the list to update at some point.

It does respect the specially marked treasure spots, per the rules, and always chooses from them first. However if there is a choice of non-special treasures it chooses randomly.

[Zarkov]

In E&T, when you connect two temples with treasures, the game seems to randomly select one of the treasure to collect.[…]

It's true, this is a known "deficiency", and we do have it on the list to update at some point.

It does respect the specially marked treasure spots, per the rules, and always chooses from them first. However if there is a choice of non-special treasures it chooses randomly.

Please do update this. It may be a game breaker, and it is very frustrating to see your anchor point vanish without having any control over it.

[Zarkov]

Another request: E&T has an "end turn" button, which does not mesh well with the rules. (You cannot simply end your turn and do nothing, you must make two moves plaing tiles or moving leaders.)

What the game could use instead of this, is a way to concede a game when you're hopelessly beaten and yet the game draws on for another interminable dozen rounds before the end conditions are triggered. This can easily happen with 2 players, especially when the winning player is not willing to expose himself by going after the remaining treasures and thus end the game; it is boring and painful.

In these situations, a button "concede game" would be much better than just dropping out or having to pick up treasures for x rounds yourself. Once all players except one click this button, the remaining player might have the option to accept or decline, or he might simply be declared the winner then and there.

[Zarkov]

Sorry for the deluge, but one more suggestion: In E&T, when you start a war between two large realms with multiple leaders, it's easy to get confused about where the original boundary was, forcing you to go back through the log and look for the move which started the war. The boardgame has a special unification tile for this, so you can see at one glance which tiles belong to which realm. I suggest marking the connecting tile in some way, with a unification tile or by desaturating its colour to grey tones. This would make things a bit clearer.

Also, when the program asks you to select tiles to support your leader, you have to count up the tiles already in your realm "by hand", so to speak, and then decide how many tiles you're going to add from your hand. The program could just tell you how many there are. It would smooth out gameplay without losing any interesting part of the game.

[king achilles]

Just to clarify regarding to this:

Another request: E&T has an "end turn" button, which does not mesh well with the rules. (You cannot simply end your turn and do nothing, you must make two moves plaing tiles or moving leaders.)

The rules state "The active player performs up to two actions on each turn."
Note the words "up to". In other words our understanding of the rules is that you can make 0, 1 or 2 actions per turn.

[Zarkov]

"Up to" it is; I stand corrected.