I believe that the way the coding works, an open game won't show up for you if you're in it. So, changing this would require messing with the fundamental site code, not just the code for a variant and Oli tends to shy away from those changes. A more practical issue though is that an eliminated player would bring their own knowledge and emotions into the game. For example, say a player is Austria and gets destroyed by Italy. Then France CDs. If the now-eliminated player took over France, they would take the position with a bunch of angst towards Italy. So, their opinions would already be clouded. Or, other players' opinions of the new France would be influenced by what they thought of Austria.

It's a great idea, but I don't think it would work.

done it in the face to face board game many times when someone is eliminated but still watching while someone else has to leave or gets too drunk

I was afraid of that, coding-wise. As for the prejudicial elements... I think a player who knows the current game and its dynamics would be better than a CD for sure, or even a new player who has to come in with no alliances or pre-knowledge of serial stabbers in the game, at least in some situations.

It would be a REALLY sneaky thing to do in an anonymous game, though. No one would know if you were a new player or a reborn power. How fun would THAT be?

Imagine how the game would shift. Using your example, gman: Austria falls. Archduke lost-his-crown skips across the alps and assumes control of a disorganized and leaderless france. Yes, he might decide to seek revenge against the Italians (who possible is out of position for war with France, thanks to the recently concluded war with Austria). He might, however seek to secretly ally with Italy to stab the French ally England, who would be blindsided by such a betrayal/change in tactics.

I see a lot of potential here...

Definitely could work.

Bias?

The replacement player would then have too much information. He would know all of the communication he had originally had with everyone else and all the communication the position he took over had. That would give him a distinct and unfair advantage no matter how strong or weak the take over position.

Agreed with YCHTT.

I agree with YCHTT.

I agree with YCHTT. A player should not be allowed to play, even in different times, two different Countries in the same game. As far as I know, now this can happen if you CD a country and someone takes it over. From that time on, the system considers you out of the game, so you can take over any country is in CD, even if it's not the one you had once.

I also *grudgingly* agree with YCHTT.

I(without reading the thread or knowing what I am agreeing with, only doing so because it seems like everyone is, although normally i would do the opposite of what Diplomat does, in this case i guess i could ungrudgingly agree with YCHTT) agree with YCHTT.

I see your point YCHTT, but would you rather have a known reliable player get a second chance in the game with a slight info advantage or have a CD zombie nation ripe for the picking by all the lucky neighbors. The second scenario seems to me to create much more unfairness.

after reading, I again agree

agree with YCHTT, everyone else is doing it...

Given the two choices, I'd take the inactive nation where i and everyone else can predict the actions thereof versus a nation with God-like knowledge.

and don't forget that if you let a player back in, not only will he have all the old comms, but he may also be pretty unhappy with anyone that he feels dealt with him unfairly (stab), basically, what stops them from just rejoining as a different country to get revenge on the guy that killed him the first time?

Why not have a vengeful rejoin? Then he'd be as predictable at the inactive nation.A wise player rejoining would change tactics completely.

I still don't see that having the communications logs from a CD'd nation would be all that much of an advantage... knowing past plans and/or alliances is worth little and all future plans were made null by the CD. It'd be a little like knowing everything about geography right before the discovery that the earth wasn't flat. Not really useful knowledge anymore.

Not true. You could potentially see plots against your former nation and gain psychological/political insight that would't otherwise be accessible.

Shep is right. There could be even a sort of metagaming. A player should take over a country with his mind clean and with the only goal to do the best he can for that country.

Slightly different example. Time ago I was playing a full-press Anon WWIV. At one point, on the other side of the map, a 9-10 SCs country CDed. So a neighbour asked, on the Global, if they could look for a replacement on the Forum. But a few minutes later another neighbour announced he already asked to a friend, via PM, to take over that country. Really? Can I call a friend of mine to replace my CDed neighbour?

All right. I concede. It is possible that this option would invite unfair advantage...

Although since it's probably impossible, the whole thing is moot.

Anyone want to talk about how much the hate/love starting on an island (e.g. England) and why?

*they