Adjacent Attacks

[Ditocoaf]

Man, things get buried really fast in this forum. This has to be one of the better suggestions I've seen in a while, so I'd like to bring it to the front.

However, could I propose a change? I'd like the idea to be simplified as just:
Newly conquered territories cannot attack.
It's simpler to explain (and therefore more likely to be accepted as a game option), and it's not too different from what you have currently. Conquering multiple times from the same territory is rare enough that this doesn't really effect the game much. And in fact, because it's so rare, I think it would be interesting to see if people do it more once the "new territory" limitation is put in place. The rule would still stop people from snaking around to conquer an entire continent in a turn, and if they want to expand in multiple directions, they'll have to spread out their force from a single territory.

[n00blet]

Newly conquered territories cannot attack.

hmm.....that was one of the things i was toying with while thinking of this idea. i wasn't sure which one would be better....but i suppose that would be easier to explain. I'll edit the suggestion....again lol

[Ditocoaf]

bump for one of the better ideas to grace these pages in a while.

[n00blet]

if we could get more people to vote....it'd be cool.....especially if they voted yes

[Richard Hand]

I'm all for this idea.
It adds an extra level of strategy, for those looking for more challenge. (the randomness of dice, just isn't enough strategy sometimes)
Again to reiterate Ditocoaf's point, it would be an option to play, not a requirement, so don't worry it will slow things down too much, as you don't have to play.

I like the idea of a territory being able to attack multiple countries, but conquered terits not being able to attack further.

I would like to add a suggestion from same time risk, where you can do surge attacks. In same time risk, you could plan a move so if you take a territory and move x number of troops into, you can have the option(once per turn) of having all the remaining troops in the newly conquered terit continue on into another territory. You don't get control of the dice on the second half of the surge, so you would have to commit all troops from the newly conquered village in a battle to the death in the surge attack.

A attacks B, wins, moves 10 troops from A into B, B then attacks C till death or victory.(the number of troops moved from A to B would need to be decided before any dice are rolled.)

If this surge was properly limited (once per turn, or perhaps with cards{maybe cards get you a surge instead of troops?}) it would add an additional layer of strategy and speed up the process as you can take 2 in one turn.


Make sense? Tough, I explained it as best as I could.

[kerntheconkerer]

Its ok but too far fetched from RISK which this site is based on..

[Ditocoaf]

Its ok but too far fetched from RISK which this site is based on..

Do you mean Richard Hand's idea, or the OP? Because the suggestion of this thread seems pretty simple to me... conquered territs can't attack that turn. Much less game-changing than, say, the Assassin variation.

[lancehoch]

Well, actually assassin is slightly based off of the real life board game. If you play with secret missions, some of the missions say eliminate all of the red armies or blue armies. So assassin does not really change the game all that much. Not being allowed to attack from a conquered territory would slow all games to a halt. Imagine Feudal Wars and AOR with this setting.

[n00blet]

Well, actually assassin is slightly based off of the real life board game. If you play with secret missions, some of the missions say eliminate all of the red armies or blue armies. So assassin does not really change the game all that much. Not being allowed to attack from a conquered territory would slow all games to a halt. Imagine Feudal Wars and AOR with this setting.

i actually had big maps like feudal war in mind with this setting. it would not slow games to a halt...rather, people would just need to develop radically different strategies. instead of setting up line of territories to conquer through, people would need to surround the intended victim. choke points would be of greater value, and positioning one's troops would be key.

Its ok but too far fetched from RISK which this site is based on..

i don't really understand how it's too far fetched....this is a just a new game type that will instigate new strategies. a truly far fetched idea, but one that i support, is that of "zombie neutral territories" (which has been passed and is under work as we speak)

[Bones2484]

i actually had big maps like feudal war in mind with this setting. it would not slow games to a halt...rather, people would just need to develop radically different strategies. instead of setting up line of territories to conquer through, people would need to surround the intended victim. choke points would be of greater value, and positioning one's troops would be key.

Huh? The bombardment would make it impossible to ever get to a castle with such slow movement. It would take you at least 3-4 turns to get to a castle once you've broken into hostile territory and by the time you got there you'd have no armies left...

[Ditocoaf]

i actually had big maps like feudal war in mind with this setting. it would not slow games to a halt...rather, people would just need to develop radically different strategies. instead of setting up line of territories to conquer through, people would need to surround the intended victim. choke points would be of greater value, and positioning one's troops would be key.

Huh? The bombardment would make it impossible to ever get to a castle with such slow movement. It would take you at least 3-4 turns to get to a castle once you've broken into hostile territory and by the time you got there you'd have no armies left...

Which makes it a little more realistic, actually. If a castle can bombard the surrounding area, it's a long, hard trek to get near it. It's just as hard for everybody.

[Thezzaruz]

It's just as hard for everybody.

Grind to a halt you mean...

[Ditocoaf]

It's just as hard for everybody.

Grind to a halt you mean...

People say the same about no-cards games, yet lots of other people still play them.

And perhaps this wouldn't work as well on Feudal War... well, most settings don't work as well with every map.

[n00blet]

It's just as hard for everybody.

Grind to a halt you mean...

People say the same about no-cards games, yet lots of other people still play them.

And perhaps this wouldn't work as well on Feudal War... well, most settings don't work as well with every map.

i don't understand how people think it would grind a game to a halt. it wouldn't grind games to a halt any more than having escalating cards on a huge map. once people get into their positions and the cards get high enough, its a stalemate. no one wants to attack. THAT is a game grinding to halt.
adjacent attacks would just slow the play down and force people to be strategic in different ways from any other variation of risk on this website.

i actually had big maps like feudal war in mind with this setting. it would not slow games to a halt...rather, people would just need to develop radically different strategies. instead of setting up line of territories to conquer through, people would need to surround the intended victim. choke points would be of greater value, and positioning one's troops would be key.

Huh? The bombardment would make it impossible to ever get to a castle with such slow movement. It would take you at least 3-4 turns to get to a castle once you've broken into hostile territory and by the time you got there you'd have no armies left...

bombardment is not some sort of all-powerful attack. take into account that the castle only gets +5 on it every turn, and with the other players deployment, if you have them boxed into their realm only +6 more, at most. all it would require is just more careful decision-making when considering breaking into someone's realm. if someone builds up a big enough army, they would be able to take down the castle within 3 or 4 turns, depending on the size of the realm.

[Richard Hand]

Its ok but too far fetched from RISK which this site is based on..

Well, same time risk is from RISK so it can't be that far fetched.

Check this link for more same time risk info, or just google it. http://www.planetozkids.com/ozzoom/games/risk-2-game.htm

Anyways, I only propose adding in a surge so you can add more strategy.

I think the bombardment maps would make this very, very hard to take a castle.

[lancehoch]

Ok, lets picture a game on feudal. Your first turn, you can bombard all the surrounding territories down to 1, then you can take out 1 territory, then it all stops. Then your next turn you might be able to take 2. Then you get bottlenecked because you cant really attack spread out and you have these two 10s to worry about. Then trying to find the other guys, you might have to cross norther plains, one territory at a time. Then 20 turns later, you run into them. Maybe you knock down their front army. if you then have to go into their realm you have to take them one territory at a time. They still have a castle to build up 5 armies per turn that you cannot do anything about, but they can bombard you without fear of retribution for a while. finally 40 or so turns into the game, you may have taken a second castle. Repeat this process up to 4 or 6 times for a large game. Then what?

[n00blet]

Ok, lets picture a game on feudal. Your first turn, you can bombard all the surrounding territories down to 1, then you can take out 1 territory, then it all stops. Then your next turn you might be able to take 2. Then you get bottlenecked because you cant really attack spread out and you have these two 10s to worry about. Then trying to find the other guys, you might have to cross norther plains, one territory at a time. Then 20 turns later, you run into them. Maybe you knock down their front army. if you then have to go into their realm you have to take them one territory at a time. They still have a castle to build up 5 armies per turn that you cannot do anything about, but they can bombard you without fear of retribution for a while. finally 40 or so turns into the game, you may have taken a second castle. Repeat this process up to 4 or 6 times for a large game. Then what?

in the beginning, it would be pretty slow. but as people would begin to realize that crossing the northern plains would be a bad idea, they would instead go for the rebel realm or the realm of might. it would make the game a lot longer, but if it was played with unlimited fortifications (which would make sense, being able to travel through your own territories would be a lot easier than attacking through enemies), it would speed up considerably.
i understand how some people wouldn't want that delay, and how it could possibly run into problems with no cards and adjacent fortifications, depending on the map, but that would be the choice of the game maker.

but besides, winning a 120 round game against 6 people is about as great a feeling as they get

[Ditocoaf]

Ok, lets picture a game on feudal. Your first turn, you can bombard all the surrounding territories down to 1, then you can take out 1 territory, then it all stops. Then your next turn you might be able to take 2. Then you get bottlenecked because you cant really attack spread out and you have these two 10s to worry about. Then trying to find the other guys, you might have to cross norther plains, one territory at a time. Then 20 turns later, you run into them. Maybe you knock down their front army. if you then have to go into their realm you have to take them one territory at a time. They still have a castle to build up 5 armies per turn that you cannot do anything about, but they can bombard you without fear of retribution for a while. finally 40 or so turns into the game, you may have taken a second castle. Repeat this process up to 4 or 6 times for a large game. Then what?

This is actually a pretty inaccurate representation, for one reason-- the suggestion has been changed to where a territory can attack many times in a turn. Your castle could take out all neighboring territories in your first turn. While crossing the northern plains, you could spread out and have a wide wave of armies spreading across the lands. Because you can't have one group of armies travel several spaces in one turn, you would have to split those troops, attacking in multiple areas, strategically.

True, you might have to wait a few turns while you build up a sufficient force to storm the castle. But if you've just taken the entire northern plains (which would take 6 or 7 rounds, depending on where you start), you should be able to build a force pretty quickly.

The main reason I like this idea is that it's more reminiscent of real war. It seems kind of silly to take a region by zig-zagging one mass of troops around the globe; with this, you would have to spread out and attack in multiple places in order to get the job done.

[n00blet]

in looking at the map again, i realize that it actually would not be too slow going through the northern plains.
let's look at it (assuming you start in the great kingdom):

first round (of the attempt to take the plains): take northern plains 16
second round: take 15 and 14 and advance into both
third round: take 7 and 8 from 15 and take 9 and 13 from 14, advancing into 8 and 13
fourth round: take Rhu village and 6 from 8 and take 10 and 12 from 13, advancing into 6 and Rhu village, fortifying the troops from when you conquered 10 and 12 to Rhu village.
fifth round: take 5 from 6 and take 4 and 11 from Rhu, advancing and then fortifying all troops to 4.
sixth round: take 2 and 3 from 4, advancing all into 3.

so, then you have successfully crossed the northern plains in only six rounds. that doesn't seem too long, seeing as most players take about 3 or 4 rounds anyways so as to amass their troops before committing to attacking through.
as you can see, attacks would need to be far more precise and calculated, but by no means would it be impossible to accomplish goals on a map, as long as on commits enough time to working out a strategy.

[Ditocoaf]

I really want to play this option... any more responses? Anything to say about the response to the criticism?

[Richard Hand]

I also want to play, who do we harangue to get it set up?

[n00blet]

with 11 people saying they don't want it, but then only having a few actually saying why they don't like it, i don't know if too many people are actually reading the entire suggestion and thread.

any mods or administrative people who have anything to say? generally their words carry i bit more weight...

[Ditocoaf]

I think the "I don't want it" votes are mostly actually "I don't care" people. Perhaps the option should be changed to "I don't want anybody to play this option"?

[Thezzaruz]

I think the "I don't want it" votes are mostly actually "I don't care" people.

Don't do that.Don't downgrade other peoples opinions/votes just because they don't match yours...

[lancehoch]

Why not get a few people together who like the idea and make a game with the stipulation that you are playing by this rule. Tell us how it goes.