RISK suggestions and feedback

[Joe Republic]

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?

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.

[KEmperor]

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. 

[Vasall des Midas]

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

[The Man From G.O.P.]

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.

[Joe Republic]

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.

[Joe Republic]

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?

[Vasall des Midas]

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.)

[KEmperor]

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. 

[Vasall des Midas]

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.

[Јas]

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.

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.

[Joe Republic]

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.

[Joe Republic]

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.

[Јas]

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.

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

[True Federalist]

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.

[KEmperor]

You might also make the Canadians revolting.

He doesn't have to, they already are.

[Joe Republic]

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.

[Speed of Sound]

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. 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Hatman]

I say keep Canada and Mexico.

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

[Vasall des Midas]

How about just the Mexican states?

[Hatman]

How about just the Mexican states?

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

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

[Vasall des Midas]

How about just the Mexican states?

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

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

Only if we don't allow attacks across water.

[Joe Republic]

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.

[KEmperor]

How about just the Mexican states?

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

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

Only if we don't allow attacks across water.

It's called Risk, not Safety.

[ilikeverin]

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

[Everett]

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.