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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Joe Republic]

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

Well I guess it's an option worth considering.  Perhaps once the regular Capital version has become exhausted, we could try that variant for a while.

[Joe Republic]

2.Only 5 people per game so that each can start with an equal ten states.

This may become an option once it becomes difficult to find players willing to play.  Until then, I'm inclined to open each game to the maximum of six players.

[Joe Republic]

As you've probably already seen, I've started a poll on the Canada and Mexico issue.  Please head over there and vote in it.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=51907.0

[Joe Republic]

So it's been decided that Canada and Mexico will no longer be a feature.  Goodbye to them.

Also, based on feedback here, I've reduced the number of initial battalions from 30 to 25, and I've also adjusted the values of the regions as well.

I'm still mulling over a possible battalion limit for states at any given time, and may well create a poll on it in future.

[Joe Republic]

Maybe giving preference to people who have never participated before (now this has nothing to do with ME. It would be far from mind to suggest things that would primarily benefit ME.)

This was always the case until the last time, when only two people signed up.  See this post for how it was supposed to work last time, and for an idea of how it's worked every time before then.

[Joe Republic]

What do you guys think of the charming yet wholly redundant and inaccurate compass featured in the new map?

[Joe Republic]

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

[Joe Republic]

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.   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 think the Pacific should be good for a billion reinforcements because it's just that great a place.

DONE

[Joe Republic]

Any chance we can get a european map?

I've been casually working on one, actually.  Little progress so far, but it's certainly in the works already.

[Joe Republic]

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.

[Joe Republic]

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.

[Joe Republic]

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)

[Joe Republic]

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.

[Joe Republic]

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.

[Joe Republic]

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

[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.