I've considered this, and realised that its pretty much perfect the way it is.

With bigger boards with the same number of players, there'd just be more time waiting around before the decent action started. Less action, and longer game means less fun.

With bigger boards and a larger number of players, you're just asking for pre-truces, and the game would go significantly slower. It *could* work if you cut the turn time in half (at least), and then you could perhaps support 9, 11 or even 13 players on a board.

Could be an awesome experiment, there'd be interesting truce patterns - you could see three way alliances, and it would be a far more social orientated game.

A far more socially oriented game? Are you serious? This is one of the most socially oriented games I've ever played.

You play the same people day after day. You know who just got married, who broke up with their boyfriend, or something as simple as who really enjoys Belgian beer (Devos-). I don't see how it can get any more social than that.

Gasp...maybe you could actually use the chat sometime?

Well you managed to completely miss the point. Give yourself a pat on the back.

My point is with more people, you'll see a more competitive social game. A logical conclusion. Not who gets married, etc, I mean entirely in terms of the game. Different truce strategies, deals, plots. Maybe I used the wrong term, but the idea still is conveyed within the context.

However, this affects the end game. The way it is now, usually 3 (maybe 4) contest at the end. The one with the most territories has the most leverage and eventually should win (barring unlucky strings of rolls), but I feel with a bigger board, the leverage of having 3-4 more territories is lost.

This would make the end game MUCH longer IMO. However, it does have the plus of making a fairer game start, as people can scurry quickly into different areas and build up and leave less up to chance of your initial rolls and dice layout.