after several - less than 50 games, i know - the selection of the secret allies countries at them beginning seems almost random, without any effort to make it really balanced. is there any plan to change it, and take into account more tactical attributes of the countries (how easy to block it, is there beach to use naval transport etc...)

with the current selection method it could cause a great disadvantage in the beginning..sometimes frustrating

Here are some ideas from way back in the day:

http://massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=390

thanks, but, will be any changes?? its frustrating having disadvantages - other than my capabilities - already at the begining...at least a game mode, with fixed startpos on every map..

is there any ongoing development regarding this??

I think fixed starting positions is the most easily way to implement it. As a player i d love to see a mode where every player can choose a country one by one, starting with the bigest or smallest secret army countries.
Ok ... secret allies woundt be that secret anymore ... but i think it adds a interessting option to the game.

playing first is already an advantage, it should not supported with lucky positioned secret allies - of course, its not easy to determine the strategic values of each region, but there are thousands of matches to analyze it..

fixed startpos sounds good to. or at least an option to avoid the current selection methods..

anyway, is there any chance, that this could change in the (near) future?
(at least as a game setting option?)

other than this, i love the game...

while a person does get stuck with bad positions from time to time, I think if you look at the record of the top players you will find that, based on their win/loss record, they usually find a way to prevail no matter what the situation. If you play a few games with Pitor, Aghpue and a few others, you will quickly find that no matter what layout you start with, after a few turns you will start thinking that your layout was really bad:)

you are right, but i'm sure it should be changed to be fair and square (at least more than now - i cant see the point, why is it so bad, if nobody has the advantage already at the beginning - if so, than the lower rated should have - , and it's a real disadvantage until medium sized maps..
- on large maps, i use to realize my bad moves later than on small ones..

i dont think, having secret allies selection method as a game option is such a bad idea...but i'm afraid nobody wants to change it .)

The system we now have simply generates a random pattern of countries for each player. Sometimes one will have an advantage but most of the time the layout is fairly even and the advantage is generated by the skill of the players. You speak of "fair and square" but how would this be determined? What you are asking would require the computer to make a judgement and what would this judgement be based on? To make a judgement of "fairness" the computer would have to assume a certain progression of disclousers, troop choice and attack patterns for each player and how would it do that? We each play differently and you may look at a map and think you have drawn a bad layout while i, given the same layout, may think it fair or that the advantage belongs to me. It is this randomness that makes this game so challanging and fun.

another point about each player being able to choose his own secret allies. How would you do this and have the allies secret? If you were unable to choose a country would you not just assume that it belongs to your opponent? Or, are you asking for a "risk" type deployment where all countries are deployed and known by all players?

You are right, its hard to calculate the relative values of the countries, and it depends on so many aspect, but randmness should not be so important factor in the games ( if you play as a trial player w/o seatransfer it has more impact...)

as for randomness, method should avoid placing secret allies in a group for one side and scattered for the other etc. there are aspects with should considered. imho. more than dumb random placement. if someone need handicap, it should be an option. as the risk placement method, as u mentioned...so, having such option would not kill the fun...

Hey Eischel,just choose for high density when you send challenges then you'll have pretty much the situation you want to have.

Dear eischel

Has put at all in an arrangement of confidential allies:)
I had recently 2 games with you. In both games you have absolutely illiterately played. And on the Butterfly you in general have allowed to call in on 6 course on all your territories:) and to win not battling at all.
I validly concern to all players. But to me it seems to you it is necessary to write not so actively in a forum. And is better ask strong players to send you the most interesting replay And analyze them, instead of simply look as a picture:)
And still I advise to play with very low for FNU. It though as that will help you.
Once again I shall repeat, that I validly concern to all players. Therefore I ask to not take offence:)

Dear Shadow_D,

i'm glad being beaten by _better_(or worse) players, of course i've learned much from those defeats you've kindly mentioned ..but, my primary concern is about the almost-random secret allies selection method, not being beaten, dont get me wrong..Regardless being good or bad player, having balanced starting position never ruins the fun...at least for me.

maybe more game modes to choose from, or handicaps, anything

about writing to forum instead of learing from better players: i'd like to have answers independently of my humiliating defeats...

is there any rule - other than maybe nobody cares about it - against to add SA selection method option to games?

looking forward for my next defeat