I have a criticism

This is the correct area for this thread. I have a criticism of a fairly recent policy rules change in the game.

It used to be that if players abandoned a match, their characters' place-holder could be kicked from a match and new players invited to replace them. Though this is still technically possible in the first several days of a match, the recent change has made it impossible to refill abandoned players' nations throughout the vast majority of the course of a match.

The justification for that policy change was to help prevent wolfpacking which is the practice of bringing in allies (or multis) to gang up on your opponents in an established match. OK. I get it. I can see how this "solution" helps to prevent wolfpacking. But it only stops late-game wolfpacking which was very rare, anyway. It does nothing to prevent up-front wolfpacking by multis or lots of people (i.e., from a shared alliance) who join a match together, at it's start.

So, who does this policy help? Actually, it seems to help very few, if any. If a bunch of new players (or multis) were suspected of joining a late game, they could be reported, the GO's would check it out, and banning would ensue if needed. That was no big deal. Sure, it's a bit of detective work on the part of the staff (barely). But the policy change has thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

Case in point. In a match that I am currently playing, I am the lead player. I am winning...hands down. I was winning for most of the match and have never fallen from my first place status and I'm now about to win the game. However, there was a fierce competitor on the other side of the map (World map). This other player, along with his allies, was the only real opposition I expected to face before winning the game.

I was confident that I would still win the match, but I was looking forward to a real brawl and the fair possibility that I might not win. So, getting ready for the final BIG war, I started doing heavy and extensive spying of that player and some of his allies. What I found was very disappointing.

It turns out, that I spied the maps of that player and his allies and discovered that they (his allies) had no armies...none. My espionage of the main opponent showed also that there were many MANY lopsided trades of resources, provinces, and units for virtually nothing.

Clearly, I was dealing with a nation-pusher....a cheater. As dismayed as I was, I had to report him to the staff. Within a couple days, Doc Lep, himself confirmed it was a multi-account violator and stated that he was "wolfpacking" with multis. Consequently, he was banned.

So my main remaining opposition was eliminated from play. Sure, there was a huge army left and I went ahead and went to war and wiped out most of those forces...with too much ease. But there's no satisfaction.

I was denied my war. And the recent change in policy to prevent "wolfpacking" did nothing to prevent "wolfpacking" in this match. And I knew this match was ruined. Not because I was being denied the chance to put down the cheater (which would have been very satisfying), but because he could not be replaced by another competent player.

Those of you who know me enough know that I really love a challenge. In this case, I would have invited one of the better players from the Players League or maybe from my alliance to take up the mantle as my opponent and then, after a few days to give him time to even out his defenses and make ready, we'd duke it out and one of us would win while the other gracefully goes down .... and I'd be fine if I went down that way.

But I won't go down. I have no real opposition. I have delayed myself, taking my time to slowly go around cleaning up small AI's and taking over the main opponent's abandoned nation. But I'm going to win...and without any satisfaction.

Now, if that recent rules change were to be undone, I could've invited a replacement and played and [likely] won, and with great satisfaction. Instead, I'm winning with great sadness.

Please.....Please change the rules back to allow replacements for late-game replacements of inactive players. The reasoning for the rules change has not served it's intent and it's also led to great disappointments for me and -- potentially -- many other players.

Let abandoned players be replaced later than the first week or so of a match. That is all.