Yes more that. The problem with waiting is that it then has a knock on
effect on other players waiting to set-up in a game. My (rough) estimate
for a 2950 game is with 5 players wanting only one nation that it would
take an additional 3 weeks to set-up that particular game. If then that
develops into players say only picking WW or Corsair for 2950 then
basically say goodbye to 1/4 of our player base for that game - that's bad
for us and you guys.RD: The only way around this is for players to realise that they need to be a bit flexible. Some players are NEVER going to get to play WW whatever system you use. By all means keep putting WW as your first choice and hope you get lucky but if you want to be sure of getting a game, give some other choices too. Isn't playing the game more important than WHAT you play?
Not for some players - some players specifically only want certain nations. 
Some guys will only play in variant games, some only in normal games, or in 1000 only.
RD: Here's an example of what I meant. Say you have a 2950 game ready to start, except nobody has picked up Rhun Easterlings.
*** How do I know that's the case? It takes until I have all 25 nations before I can organise the game efficiently. Sometimes I can roughly allocate nations.
You put it on the FS, you put it on the list, weeks roll by and still nobody wants it. Every fortnight that goes by, you are losing potential turnfees. So my suggestion is that after, say, four weeks, you offer an incentive of, say, 2 free turns to anyone who snaps it up. If this has the desired result - and I do understand it's an if not a certainty - the game starts and the turnfees start rolling in. Yes, for the first month you're only collecting 24 turnsfees instead of 25, but surely that is better than collecting zero turnfees from that game whilst waiting for Rhun to be picked up in the usual course of events?
*** In this specific example you are correct. Normally this would not happen though - it's a very rare event.
Clint
