Phobia wrote:He clearly hasn't heard of add ons such as Greasemonkey if you use Firefox. And I think he needs to update his review, there are card counters now...
I think you can also (with the basic greasemonkey script at least - roberts one I think has some compatibility issues) get Trixie or somesuch to make it work on IE as well
Grand Strategy is a complete rip off of this website. I remember when the guy who made it, cheekily made a topic here and advertised his website to us.
Im going a little off topic but the guy is full of himself. Dr. Elsahn Honarary.
He wrote a risk book and is trying to sell posters that say total diplomacy. The smuck even has his own site explaining his Doctorate degree. He's a doctor in robotics so he decide to put Dr. Elsahn Honarary on his book.
His polls for his products say Do you want more products or would you want to but any ?
All voted no
Just read some of this guys blog stuff on his site.
RobinJ wrote:I loved your comments wicked, especially this bit:
We also have a great forum community. Unfortunately, the moderators tend to be on the immature side and power abusers. But, if there is something wrong (bad feedback, inappropriate posts, ect.) they will fix it.
I don't think that was wicked… Last page she said:
wicked wrote:thanks to the jerk who used my name.
In heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine... You got your things, and I've got mine.
RobinJ wrote:I loved your comments wicked, especially this bit:
We also have a great forum community. Unfortunately, the moderators tend to be on the immature side and power abusers. But, if there is something wrong (bad feedback, inappropriate posts, ect.) they will fix it.
I don't think that was wicked… Last page she said:
wicked wrote:thanks to the jerk who used my name.
Yeh just noticed that...
nmhunate wrote:Speak English... It is the language that God wrote the bible in.
why? i have tried several other risk websites and found them nothing compared to CC hence why i paid my money to join this site and have been a constant member for so long whereas i was never willing to pay money nor really play on any others, they all suck and CC rocks. thats all there is to it.
I agree that this reviewer sounds biased against CC, but there are some valid points:
1) Map: CC has some of the most gorgeous maps, no doubt, but the Classic map is one of the 5 that I won't play because I can't bear to look at it. If you are basing your review on what the RISK map looks like, CC takes a valid hit. (No offense meant to the artist here, it's just too bright and difficult for me to read.)
2) Army Display: The reason I found the CC greasemonkey scripts is because I was desperately looking for something to make the numbers more readable. It turns out that there are scripts that make this site a joy to use, but it is a valid complaint that the built-in interface (as any non-Firefox user will encounter) is lack-ing. <rim-shot>
I understand that there is always an endless to-do list, and Lack is reasonably concentrating on other things since there are greasemonkey scripts to handle UI, but it's not shocking that a reviewer would note the issues.
There is a space for people to comment on the reviews, and I think we should add a well-crafted, polite correction.
Sparqs wrote:I agree that this reviewer sounds biased against CC, but there are some valid points:
1) Map: CC has some of the most gorgeous maps, no doubt, but the Classic map is one of the 5 that I won't play because I can't bear to look at it. If you are basing your review on what the RISK map looks like, CC takes a valid hit. (No offense meant to the artist here, it's just too bright and difficult for me to read.)
2) Army Display: The reason I found the CC greasemonkey scripts is because I was desperately looking for something to make the numbers more readable. It turns out that there are scripts that make this site a joy to use, but it is a valid complaint that the built-in interface (as any non-Firefox user will encounter) is lack-ing. <rim-shot>
I understand that there is always an endless to-do list, and Lack is reasonably concentrating on other things since there are greasemonkey scripts to handle UI, but it's not shocking that a reviewer would note the issues.
There is a space for people to comment on the reviews, and I think we should add a well-crafted, polite correction.
You joined 3 days ago....
"You have undertaken to cheat me. I won't sue you, for the law is too slow. I'll ruin you." -- Cornelius Vanderbilt
Sparqs wrote:I agree that this reviewer sounds biased against CC, but there are some valid points:
1) Map: CC has some of the most gorgeous maps, no doubt, but the Classic map is one of the 5 that I won't play because I can't bear to look at it. If you are basing your review on what the RISK map looks like, CC takes a valid hit. (No offense meant to the artist here, it's just too bright and difficult for me to read.)
2) Army Display: The reason I found the CC greasemonkey scripts is because I was desperately looking for something to make the numbers more readable. It turns out that there are scripts that make this site a joy to use, but it is a valid complaint that the built-in interface (as any non-Firefox user will encounter) is lack-ing. <rim-shot>
I understand that there is always an endless to-do list, and Lack is reasonably concentrating on other things since there are greasemonkey scripts to handle UI, but it's not shocking that a reviewer would note the issues.
There is a space for people to comment on the reviews, and I think we should add a well-crafted, polite correction.