Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2014, 12:32:29 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Forum Community
| |-+  Election and History Games (Moderator: Joe Republic)
| | |-+  RISK suggestions and feedback
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Print
Author Topic: RISK suggestions and feedback  (Read 12161 times)
Joe Republic
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29568
United States


View Profile
« on: January 13, 2007, 10:14:58 am »

How do you feel about the way the RISK games are run?

For example, do you like the Domination/Mission/Capital versions?  Do you think having Canada and Mexico in the game is a good idea?  Do you think they should start with a different number of battalions in each?  Do you agree with the way the regions are laid out, and the number of bonus reinforcements you get for controlling each one?  Do you agree with the player selection system I've been using?  Do you like the look of the maps?  Do you think I'm just goddamn useless at the whole thing? Cheesy

If you have any feedback at all, or any ideas or suggestions for how to improve the games, please feel free to discuss them here.  You might be surprised by how open I am to change.  Seriously, your opinions will be very helpful. Smiley
Logged
KEmperor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8535
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2007, 10:20:23 am »
Ignore

I think you have been running it very well, and it must be a lot of work keeping three separate games straight.  I prefer the classic domination version over the other variations, but others might have different preferences.

About Mexico, and especially Canada, I think they sometimes can create an imbalance in the game.  Simply because it allows you to jump all over if you control them and makes what would normally be secure areas open to attack from the other side of the map. 
Logged
farewell
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58527
India


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2007, 10:30:26 am »
Ignore

I'd like to see a few fewer initial deployments.
Logged

I may conceivably reconsider.

Knowing me it's more likely than not.
The Man From G.O.P.
TJN2024
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5431
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2007, 10:35:13 am »
Ignore

Eliminate Canada and Mexico OR split them into several regions themselves.

Your choices for deployment and territory allocation that we could vote on were quite nice.

Never again allow me to be wiped out w/o taking a turn.

Logged


We have a new Labour leader!
Joe Republic
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29568
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2007, 10:38:40 am »

I'm becoming inclined to agree on Canada and Mexico.  If a consensus starts to develop on it, I may well just remove them from further games entirely.

And thanks for the compliments too.  It is rather time consuming, but I do still enjoy doing it. Smiley
« Last Edit: January 13, 2007, 10:44:46 am by Josef Respublik »Logged
Joe Republic
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29568
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2007, 10:47:06 am »

I'd like to see a few fewer initial deployments.

In the original game, six players means 24 initial battalions each, but I increased it to a rounder 30 because we use 50 territories instead of 42.  What sort of number did you have in mind?
Logged
farewell
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58527
India


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2007, 10:50:35 am »
Ignore

I'd like to see a few fewer initial deployments.

In the original game, six players means 24 initial battalions each, but I increased it to a rounder 30 because we use 50 territories instead of 42.  What sort of number did you have in mind?
That rule is somehow missing from the German translation of the rules, so I'm used to starting with a clean map in which every territory has just one army on it.

Which isn't really preferable to what we're playing with here - the first few sets of cards get too powerful - but I do think some kind of in-between point would be optimal. Currently, the early rounds see more troops leaving the board than entering, and I think that's wrong. (In the Capital version especially... which Everett simply won by keeping her troops alive until everybody else had depleted theirs.)
Logged

I may conceivably reconsider.

Knowing me it's more likely than not.
KEmperor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8535
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2007, 10:52:01 am »
Ignore

I'd like to see a few fewer initial deployments.

In the original game, six players means 24 initial battalions each, but I increased it to a rounder 30 because we use 50 territories instead of 42.  What sort of number did you have in mind?
That rule is somehow missing from the German translation of the rules, so I'm used to starting with a clean map in which every territory has just one army on it.

Which isn't really preferable to what we're playing with here - the first few sets of cards get too powerful - but I do think some kind of in-between point would be optimal. Currently, the early rounds see more troops leaving the board than entering, and I think that's wrong. (In the Capital version especially... which Everett simply won by keeping her troops alive until everybody else had depleted theirs.)

I've never heard of that.  Unless the German version has different rules. 
Logged
farewell
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58527
India


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2007, 11:00:03 am »
Ignore

I'd like to see a few fewer initial deployments.

In the original game, six players means 24 initial battalions each, but I increased it to a rounder 30 because we use 50 territories instead of 42.  What sort of number did you have in mind?
That rule is somehow missing from the German translation of the rules, so I'm used to starting with a clean map in which every territory has just one army on it.

Which isn't really preferable to what we're playing with here - the first few sets of cards get too powerful - but I do think some kind of in-between point would be optimal. Currently, the early rounds see more troops leaving the board than entering, and I think that's wrong. (In the Capital version especially... which Everett simply won by keeping her troops alive until everybody else had depleted theirs.)

I've never heard of that.  Unless the German version has different rules. 
It seems to. They're also somewhat unclear on a number of points, so any game of Risk with strangers entails a short rules discussion before you start. I'm used to being able to determine the number of dice I defend with AFTER the attacker has rolled, for example. Others don't play that way. And there's a variant, not covered by the rules, where everybody gets deployments and then everybody gets to attack, and the starting player of these two phases rotates around the table, which I played for awhile. Also works well.
Logged

I may conceivably reconsider.

Knowing me it's more likely than not.
Јas
Jas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9693
Malawi


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2007, 01:15:16 pm »
Ignore

I'm in favour of keeping Canada and Mexico in the game, but the size of the Neutral Army should probably be increased (particularly in Canada).

I like the way you're running the different game styles, but I'll wait and see what the various missions you chose were before commenting further on that. If Canada was to be split up, it should probably no longer be neutral but regionalised like the general map. (In such a scenario, it may be best to play without Mexico at all).

I think the regional reinforcement bonus for the New England and Southeast are one too high, given their levels of defensiveness. For the same reason the Plains is probably one too low.

Anyway, you've done a great job running the games and I certainly won't complain if no changes whatsoever are made. Smiley

And there's a variant, not covered by the rules, where everybody gets deployments and then everybody gets to attack, and the starting player of these two phases rotates around the table, which I played for awhile. Also works well.

This sounds similar to the variant released on the 'Risk II' computer game called 'Same-Time Risk' (which is the prefered rule format when I play with friends). It allows all players to issue orders simultaneously - therefore eliminating the significant disadvantage of being the last player to get a turn.
Logged

Funny 'cause it's true:
Very few people seriously allow facts to affect their opinions.

Joe Republic
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29568
United States


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2007, 01:27:15 pm »

I'd like to see a few fewer initial deployments.

In the original game, six players means 24 initial battalions each, but I increased it to a rounder 30 because we use 50 territories instead of 42.  What sort of number did you have in mind?
That rule is somehow missing from the German translation of the rules, so I'm used to starting with a clean map in which every territory has just one army on it.

Which isn't really preferable to what we're playing with here - the first few sets of cards get too powerful - but I do think some kind of in-between point would be optimal. Currently, the early rounds see more troops leaving the board than entering, and I think that's wrong. (In the Capital version especially... which Everett simply won by keeping her troops alive until everybody else had depleted theirs.)

Perhaps if 30 is too high, we could go back down to 24 initial deployments?  I wouldn't want to go too low for the reasons you've given.

Everybody else is free to comment on this.
Logged
Joe Republic
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29568
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2007, 01:41:33 pm »

I'm in favour of keeping Canada and Mexico in the game, but the size of the Neutral Army should probably be increased (particularly in Canada).

This is the other option I'm thinking over, instead of removing them entirely.  I may create a poll on this at some point.


If Canada was to be split up, it should probably no longer be neutral but regionalised like the general map. (In such a scenario, it may be best to play without Mexico at all).

I'm not too keen on that idea to be honest, because it would just make the number of territories too unfeasibly high.  I'd also need to redraw the map itself, which would be rather a lot of effort.


I think the regional reinforcement bonus for the New England and Southeast are one too high, given their levels of defensiveness. For the same reason the Plains is probably one too low.

Certainly a fair point.  The numbers I came up with for the regional reinforcements were arbitrary of course, but I tried to consider as many factors as I could before doing so.  I may well take your advice on those suggested changes.


And there's a variant, not covered by the rules, where everybody gets deployments and then everybody gets to attack, and the starting player of these two phases rotates around the table, which I played for awhile. Also works well.

This sounds similar to the variant released on the 'Risk II' computer game called 'Same-Time Risk' (which is the prefered rule format when I play with friends). It allows all players to issue orders simultaneously - therefore eliminating the significant disadvantage of being the last player to get a turn.

I briefly mulled over such a version, but it seems a little unfeasible for an internet forum.  (I'm just thinking about how 'border clashes', 'spoils of war' and 'surge attacks' would work on here, and it just seems too complicated.)

As you've probably noticed, I 'borrowed' the Capital version from the RISK II computer game. Wink
Logged
Јas
Jas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9693
Malawi


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2007, 01:48:25 pm »
Ignore

This sounds similar to the variant released on the 'Risk II' computer game called 'Same-Time Risk' (which is the prefered rule format when I play with friends). It allows all players to issue orders simultaneously - therefore eliminating the significant disadvantage of being the last player to get a turn.

I briefly mulled over such a version, but it seems a little unfeasible for an internet forum.  (I'm just thinking about how 'border clashes', 'spoils of war' and 'surge attacks' would work on here, and it just seems too complicated.)

It's fair to say that some adaptations would be required, e.g. in a border clash, both dice throws are considered attacking and so no any tie is discounted (instead of resulting in an attacking loss).

But yeah, it may need too much extra effort to work properly.

As you've probably noticed, I 'borrowed' the Capital version from the RISK II computer game. Wink

Yep, it's a game I'm too familiar with.
Logged

Funny 'cause it's true:
Very few people seriously allow facts to affect their opinions.

True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26622
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 13, 2007, 02:38:12 pm »
Ignore

I agree that Canada is a problem, simply because it borders so many other territories,  11 in all.  However if you remove Canada you'll need to either redraw the Regions or reduce the New England bonus because it becomes so easy to defend.  Another possibility besides splitting Canada or giving it more armies is to allow it to use what it has more effectively.  Allow the Canadians to use 3 or 4 dice on defense.  You might also make the Canadians revolting. I.e, at the start of each players turn, if they hold Canada, it suffers from a 1 to 3 battallion attack from the Free Canadian forces.

Mexico borders few enough states to not be a problem, as all it does is serve as a California to Texas shortcut.

Also, if you want to prevent another Everett style blitzkrieg in a game of Capital Risk, you could add the rule variant of a 12 battalion limit per territory.
Logged

Daily Reflections on the Revised Common Lectionary

Bible thumping kept to a minimum unless you go to sleep!
The below comic stars me!
KEmperor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8535
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2007, 03:26:31 pm »
Ignore

You might also make the Canadians revolting.

He doesn't have to, they already are.
Logged
Joe Republic
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29568
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2007, 04:21:34 pm »

Allow the Canadians to use 3 or 4 dice on defense.  You might also make the Canadians revolting. I.e, at the start of each players turn, if they hold Canada, it suffers from a 1 to 3 battallion attack from the Free Canadian forces.

These are certainly possibilities.  I'll add them to the poll I intend to create once we've had some more suggestions.


Also, if you want to prevent another Everett style blitzkrieg in a game of Capital Risk, you could add the rule variant of a 12 battalion limit per territory.

And that's not a bad idea at all.
Logged
Speed of Sound
LiberalPA
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12849
United States


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: January 13, 2007, 04:32:04 pm »
Ignore

About Mexico, and especially Canada, I think they sometimes can create an imbalance in the game.  Simply because it allows you to jump all over if you control them and makes what would normally be secure areas open to attack from the other side of the map. 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Logged

“The meaning of life is not to be discovered only after death in some hidden, mysterious realm; on the contrary, it can be found by eating the succulent fruit of the Tree of Life and by living in the here and now as fully and creatively as we can”

~~~~Dr. Paul Kurtz (1925-2012)
Hatman
EarlAW
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19685
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.97, S: -6.00


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 13, 2007, 05:26:43 pm »
Ignore

I say keep Canada and Mexico.

But, what would most be interesting is a different map. How about Africa?
Logged

http://canadianelectionatlas.blogspot.com

Follow me on Twitter @EarlWashburn
farewell
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58527
India


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: January 13, 2007, 05:31:41 pm »
Ignore

How about just the Mexican states? Grin
Logged

I may conceivably reconsider.

Knowing me it's more likely than not.
Hatman
EarlAW
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19685
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.97, S: -6.00


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: January 13, 2007, 05:35:03 pm »
Ignore

How about just the Mexican states? Grin

No, I don't know them off by heart like I do African countries Wink

Or even better... Pacific Island countries! (just for Gabu)
Logged

http://canadianelectionatlas.blogspot.com

Follow me on Twitter @EarlWashburn
farewell
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58527
India


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: January 13, 2007, 05:36:13 pm »
Ignore

How about just the Mexican states? Grin

No, I don't know them off by heart like I do African countries Wink

Or even better... Pacific Island countries! (just for Gabu)
Only if we don't allow attacks across water.
Logged

I may conceivably reconsider.

Knowing me it's more likely than not.
Joe Republic
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29568
United States


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: January 13, 2007, 05:43:08 pm »

I may do an occasional alternative continent such as Africa or Europe in the future, perhaps after one of the USA variants has run its course.
Logged
KEmperor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8535
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

View Profile
« Reply #22 on: January 13, 2007, 05:43:33 pm »
Ignore

How about just the Mexican states? Grin

No, I don't know them off by heart like I do African countries Wink

Or even better... Pacific Island countries! (just for Gabu)
Only if we don't allow attacks across water.

It's called Risk, not Safety.
Logged
ilikeverin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15236
Timor-Leste


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: January 13, 2007, 06:00:58 pm »
Ignore

How about Secret Capital RISK, as you jokingly proposed earlier?  Where you only learn your opponents' capitals when you conquer them?

It would be like Risk + Stratego Smiley
Logged

Chief Judicial Officer of the Most Serene Republic of the Midwest, registered in the State of Joy, in Atlasia
Recognized National Treasure of Atlasia
Everett
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3585


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: January 13, 2007, 06:12:00 pm »
Ignore

I propose putting more armies in Canada/Mexico. Or maybe just Mexico; the Canadian navy supposedly has just two rowboats so taking over shouldn't be that difficult.

I must admit that launching a massive attack from a mysteriously ignored state with thirty battalions was quite hilarious albeit extremely cheap. The fact that I kept dumping ridiculously large numbers of troops in Washington instead of attacking other states probably should have raised some concerns because several enemy capitals also bordered Canada. I took over the Pacific mostly for my own personal amusement.
Logged

"People aren't people. They're just political positions."
- Lucas

It's a shame natural selection doesn't seem to apply to threads.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines