RISK suggestions and feedback
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 09:54:13 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Election and History Games (Moderator: Dereich)
  RISK suggestions and feedback
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: RISK suggestions and feedback  (Read 16475 times)
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,028
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: January 31, 2007, 06:25:11 PM »

Which reminds me, why don't you just use a world map ala real Risk?

There's always that, but I just wanted to do something original. Smiley
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,028
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: February 01, 2007, 06:48:37 PM »

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.

Also, I wouldn't mind hearing some thoughts on Jas's suggested alterations to the reinforcement values of each region.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: February 01, 2007, 06:52:42 PM »

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 think that would be an excellent idea, as I do think it's kind of unfair that two players have to sacrifice at least one extra batallion on a ninth state that they probably have no intention of keeping.
Logged
MAS117
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,206
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: February 01, 2007, 07:12:13 PM »

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 think thats a great idea actually Joe.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: February 01, 2007, 11:58:13 PM »

Only problem I see is that is serves as a bit of a bonus for whoever goes first as they'll be easy conquests.  Two random neutral states with 5 battalions would be fairer.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,028
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: February 02, 2007, 01:21:36 PM »

I certainly see the point there, but how about a compromise of 3 battalions?  That is the average number of battalions per state at the start of the game, after all.  (25 battalions divided by 8 states = 3.125)
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: February 02, 2007, 01:52:09 PM »

But the neutrals don't get reinforcements, so either they need more battalions than average or a means of being reinforced to be competitive.

Alternative idea
How about the neutrals can't be invaded but if you turn in a set of RISK cards with them, you get the State and the 2 battalions.  While the State is untouchably neutral you get 1 less battalion for holding the rest of the States in its region.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: February 02, 2007, 01:55:07 PM »

But the neutrals don't get reinforcements, so either they need more battalions than average or a means of being reinforced to be competitive.

Alternative idea
How about the neutrals can't be invaded but if you turn in a set of RISK cards with them, you get the State and the 2 battalions.  While the State is untouchably neutral you get 1 less battalion for holding the rest of the States in its region.

If you did that, then you'd also want to make it so that New York definitely cannot be a neutral state and also that the pair cannot be Pennsylvania plus one of Delaware or New Jersey, because such a setup would be... problematic.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,028
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: February 02, 2007, 02:02:02 PM »
« Edited: February 02, 2007, 05:02:14 PM by Joebot »

But the neutrals don't get reinforcements, so either they need more battalions than average or a means of being reinforced to be competitive.

How about they start with 3, and they each get another 1 after every round?

I have to admit I'm not particularly keen on your alternative idea, I'm afraid.  Partly for the reasons Gabu gave, and also because it's another idiosyncracy that I'd have to remember and try to explain to newbies.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: February 02, 2007, 05:27:47 PM »

I certainly see the point there, but how about a compromise of 3 battalions?  That is the average number of battalions per state at the start of the game, after all.  (25 battalions divided by 8 states = 3.125)
Sounds good.

Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: February 05, 2007, 04:42:29 AM »

BTW, given that Canada and Mexico are now officially no longer involved, my comments on the regional reinforcements should be revised. The following take into consideration, primarily, the number of states per region and the number of those states that border elsewhere.

Pacific - 2
Southwest - 4
Plains - 5
South - 3
Midwest - 5
Southeast - 3
Mid-Atlantic - 3
New England - 2

Taken into consideration. Smiley  I'll keep it as it is currently for another game or two, but in the mean time, what do others think about this?

I finally looked this up. I think Jas system is an improvement, but I haven't learned this USA regions well enough yet so that I can keep it all on my head. The important point here is that the VITAL thing is the number of bordering states. This is what makes it difficult/easy to hold a region. Secondly, the regional bonus is a BONUS. If there is a bunch of states situated in a way that makes it possible to keep say 5 of them by defending only one, it would be beneficial to do so regardless of other factors. The point of regional bonuses is to make it more worthwhile to hold regions than it would otherwise be.

So, the worse region is clearly the Plains. You have to defend 6 states and get 1 for free. 1 for the price of 6 (or technically 7 for the price of 6, but whatever). No one in their right mind would ever do it if it weren't for a huge regional bonus. Thus, it is very much deserved. In the Midwest on the other hand you defend 5 states and get 4 extra. That is a much more reasonable deal. So, even though it is larger I would say the Midwest should have at the most an equal bonus to the plains. The best regions are New England and Southeast where you have 3 states to defend and 3/4 respectively as a bonus. So those two should give the smallest bonus and then the Pacific where it's 3/2. The South should have a high bonus given that it requires you to defend every state in the region. The same goes for the Southwest.

So, all-in-all, Jas's system looks pretty good. I'm not sure it would the one I'd go with, but it's an improvement. Though I'd say the Midwest and Plains gives too small a bonus, both should be at least 6, otherwise no one will go for them anymore.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: February 10, 2007, 05:38:49 PM »

I'm just throwing this out there, but maybe you could try a trial game with a limit of say... 5 attacks per turn... it would make the game last longer.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: February 11, 2007, 06:49:46 AM »

On the regional bonuses I have this suggestion: calculate the cost of of each region in the following way: 1 for each territory that cannot be attacked from the outside and a determined number (something like 2-4) for each territory that has to be defended. Then divide that number by a determined number (3-4) and that's the bonus.
Logged
Colin
ColinW
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,684
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: February 11, 2007, 11:52:10 AM »

Alright Joe I'm going to give a suggestion.

Modify the Capitol game it's way too short, first off, and usually seems to become one sided very quickly. Either stop playing capitol, I never really liked the idea of having different games beside domination, or raise the amount of capitols needed to win to four or possibly even 5 in order to make the games last a little longer and try to cut down on early advantage.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: February 11, 2007, 12:22:46 PM »

One possibility would be to add the rule from Castle RISK that attacks on a capital can only be made with 2 battalions instead of 3.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: February 11, 2007, 05:14:50 PM »

Or to include the rule I've seen for capitols which states that if you lose your capital you lose every territory in that region to that opponent. That may make people play a little more defensively.
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: February 12, 2007, 07:46:42 AM »

Or to include the rule I've seen for capitols which states that if you lose your capital you lose every territory in that region to that opponent. That may make people play a little more defensively.
^^^^^
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: February 15, 2007, 02:04:58 PM »

Or to include the rule I've seen for capitols which states that if you lose your capital you lose every territory in that region to that opponent. That may make people play a little more defensively.

Might be a potential source of a lack of fairness, though, because the guy who makes Maine his capital will have much, much less to worry about than the guy who is forced to make his capital in the Plains or in the Midwest.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,028
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: February 15, 2007, 08:38:25 PM »

Sorry for delays in replying to orders; I'm having quite a tiring week thus far.  I have several hours of physio each day, and seem to have little energy left over.  I'll give the recent suggestions in this thread the proper attention at the weekend.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: February 16, 2007, 09:29:59 AM »

Or to include the rule I've seen for capitols which states that if you lose your capital you lose every territory in that region to that opponent. That may make people play a little more defensively.

Might be a potential source of a lack of fairness, though, because the guy who makes Maine his capital will have much, much less to worry about than the guy who is forced to make his capital in the Plains or in the Midwest.

Forced? Rational individuals always have a choice Gabu. They always do.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: February 18, 2007, 08:20:28 PM »

Or to include the rule I've seen for capitols which states that if you lose your capital you lose every territory in that region to that opponent. That may make people play a little more defensively.

Might be a potential source of a lack of fairness, though, because the guy who makes Maine his capital will have much, much less to worry about than the guy who is forced to make his capital in the Plains or in the Midwest.

Forced? Rational individuals always have a choice Gabu. They always do.

Not everyone can get allocated a state that is as naturally impervious to invasion as Maine.  You'll get a Maine capital, a Florida capital, and a capital in either Alaska or Hawaii, and after that, the remaining three players will be at a completely and utterly unavoidable disadvantage.
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: February 18, 2007, 10:39:41 PM »

Or to include the rule I've seen for capitols which states that if you lose your capital you lose every territory in that region to that opponent. That may make people play a little more defensively.

Might be a potential source of a lack of fairness, though, because the guy who makes Maine his capital will have much, much less to worry about than the guy who is forced to make his capital in the Plains or in the Midwest.

Forced? Rational individuals always have a choice Gabu. They always do.

Not everyone can get allocated a state that is as naturally impervious to invasion as Maine.  You'll get a Maine capital, a Florida capital, and a capital in either Alaska or Hawaii, and after that, the remaining three players will be at a completely and utterly unavoidable disadvantage.

Add in a Cuba part of the map for capital...just so no capital is 100% safe. Maybe a Russia part too, to expand the number of vulnerable angles.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: February 20, 2007, 06:30:25 AM »

Or to include the rule I've seen for capitols which states that if you lose your capital you lose every territory in that region to that opponent. That may make people play a little more defensively.

Might be a potential source of a lack of fairness, though, because the guy who makes Maine his capital will have much, much less to worry about than the guy who is forced to make his capital in the Plains or in the Midwest.

Forced? Rational individuals always have a choice Gabu. They always do.

Not everyone can get allocated a state that is as naturally impervious to invasion as Maine.  You'll get a Maine capital, a Florida capital, and a capital in either Alaska or Hawaii, and after that, the remaining three players will be at a completely and utterly unavoidable disadvantage.

Well, actually, in my version of Capital Risk the capitals are secret from the other players. So that would avoid that. Those with the safest capitals would have the disadvantage of everyone knowing which state was their capital.

But, really, there are unfairness in the allocation anyway, I'm not convinced that this is worse than any other unfairness. Though I guess it's true that Soulty, Ernest and Colin have survived longest thanks to better capitals in the current game.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: February 23, 2007, 09:20:43 PM »

It would be awesome to get a game of sametime risk going.

I could try this.  Would we be using the rules with the interesting colored dice?  (I presume you're talking about the version in Risk II for the PC... because I haven't played any sametime variant in real life Tongue)

I'm also thinking of coming up with some "secret RISK" variant.  With secret capitols and such.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: March 09, 2007, 04:31:49 PM »

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 11 queries.