RISK suggestions and feedback

[Joe Republic]

Once the current games of Capital and Domination are over, I'm putting all RISK games on temporary hiatus.

[Hatman]

Once the current games of Capital and Domination are over, I'm putting all RISK games on temporary hiatus.

Lazy

[Gustaf]

Once the current games of Capital and Domination are over, I'm putting all RISK games on temporary hiatus.

Noooooo...

If you're tired of certain people not reading the rules, etc just ban them!

[Vasall des Midas]

Yeah, but you'll start a game of Mission before those two are over, right?

Right?

[Gustaf]

With Canada out of the game, I'd really like to see a Maine - Florida link. Maybe instead of the pointless Maine - Massachusetts link you currently got.

It's not pointless. Every state should border at least two other states. Otherwise, Maine would be a dead end. You may note that there are no such dead ends in the original Risk game.

And, damn it Joe, the Mission and Capitals games were the ones I was really looking forward to! Domination was supposed to be a mere stepping stone...

[Platypus]

What do you guys think of leaving aside two (randomly decided) states at the beginning of each game, populated by only 1 neutral battalion each?  The idea would be so that all six players start with an equal eight states.  The states would of course still be part of the game; they just wouldn't be controlled by a player at the beginning.

I fully support it.

[Vasall des Midas]

With Canada out of the game, I'd really like to see a Maine - Florida link. Maybe instead of the pointless Maine - Massachusetts link you currently got.

It's not pointless. Every state should border at least two other states. Otherwise, Maine would be a dead end. You may note that there are no such dead ends in the original Risk game.

And, damn it Joe, the Mission and Capitals games were the ones I was really looking forward to! Domination was supposed to be a mere stepping stone...

It becomes pointless if Maine borders Florida.

[Joe Republic]

Once the current games of Capital and Domination are over, I'm putting all RISK games on temporary hiatus.

Noooooo...

If you're tired of certain people not reading the rules, etc just ban them!

Oh no, that's only a minor annoyance.  I still enjoy running these games, but I'm just going through a little burnout.  I'll be starting it up again only a couple weeks after the current ones finish.

[Gustaf]

Once the current games of Capital and Domination are over, I'm putting all RISK games on temporary hiatus.

Noooooo...

If you're tired of certain people not reading the rules, etc just ban them!

Oh no, that's only a minor annoyance.  I still enjoy running these games, but I'm just going through a little burnout.  I'll be starting it up again only a couple weeks after the current ones finish.

Now, that is a good man. No worries then. I'll try and win my game asap, promise.

[Vosem]

Africa would be lots of fun. (especially getting everyone to memorize all those countries)

Exactly

Can we play the next game on the Africa map?

[Vasall des Midas]

Well if we're bumping this fatherbuggerer...

Apropos of (not quite) nothing, and obviously too late for this game,

A set of cards can be: three infantrymen (worth four extra battalions); three cavalry (worth six extra battalions); three cannons (worth eight extra battalions); or one of each (worth ten extra battalions)

is exactly wrong. One of each should be worth least as it's mathematically twice as likely to achieve with three cards than three of a kind - or six times more likely than each individual three-of-a-kind combination. (Not including the wildcards in the maths here, and assuming there are identical numbers of the three types of card.) 2/9th chance of getting one of each, 1/9th for three of a kind. 1/27th for each individual three-of-a-kind. And 2/3rd chance of having a pair and a single, of course.

That's what the rules of the real-life game have always said they're worth.

So? Still makes it all (ie 10) or nothing with some random seldomly occurring in-between steps... that the "must trade in at 5" rule forces you to use if you have them (and thus destroy your chances at the 10). I'm pretty sure that it's an actual design flaw - that they didn't do the math when they wrote it up. It should be changed. One each should be worth 4 in the next game. (No reason not to maintain the order of the three types of unit.)