Max number of troops on each territory....

[Dukasaur]

Would be an interesting strategic option, yes.

[cairnswk]

I think it could be an option to explore as a type of gameplay, but i wouldn't want it on all games...it'd be horrendous not being able finish some games quickly....you might actually lose players from site due to longevity of games.

[Vid_FISO]

I think it could be an option to explore as a type of gameplay, but i wouldn't want it on all games...it'd be horrendous not being able finish some games quickly....you might actually lose players from site due to longevity of games.

No-one is forced to play any map or settings that they dislike, except maybe in clan wars or certain tourneys where you play "away" and of course the option is there to decline an invite (or just do it for the team) or simply not enter tourneys where you are likely to face what you dislike (don't understand) most.

If it can be coded then why not give it a go, there will be tens or hundreds quite happy to take on any challenge and find where it works for them.

Maybe worth considering for the escalating scenario is to have a "troop bank" to reinforce from so that anyone that can't deploy fully at the start of the go can top up at the end?

[chapcrap]

MOVED from Archives to Suggestions

[Lord_Bremen]

I think I caused this to be moved back, so here's the idea as I see it (this was successfully implemented on denizengames, which was a site pretty much the same as this one, where I played a while back):

When creating a game, you have the option of designating a pre-set stack limit (10/14/20/26 would be good options). This is OPTIONAL. If you do designate a stack limit, no territories can exceed that limit when you deploy/fortify. If you have more armies to deploy but all your territories are maxed, you lose the extra armies. This isn't a negative at all as some of the comments here seem to imply, it adds another strategic element - sometimes it's necessary to take a risk and spread yourself out in order to receive extra income. Assuming of course you survive until the next turn. Territories could go over the max with territory bonus from cards (if this is hard to code it's not particularly important, but this is how it was when I played it).

This obviously goes best with constant or no cards, and it makes for some very fun games. Basically it adds a defensive element - you can stick a max army or two on the border and feel pretty secure. If there's specific maps with triggers this would be problematic on, then just disable it for them (or trust people to be smart enough not to create such games). I've had quite a few fun games where every maxes and then you have trench-style warfare with each side moving up one territory at a time. Not for everyone obviously, but it's not meant to be.

[Lord_Bremen]

Also it's worth noting that this is an official risk option: http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/RiskCollector's40thAnniversaryEdition.PDF (page 16).

[greenoaks]

MOVED from Archives to Suggestions

move it to rejected

[Lord_Bremen]

MOVED from Archives to Suggestions

move it to rejected

If you don't like it, then don't play games with it. What possible reason is there to stop other people from using an option they enjoy? This doesn't take away anything from anyone who wants to play an unlimited game instead. Or at least don't troll my thread.

[greenoaks]

MOVED from Archives to Suggestions

move it to rejected

If you don't like it, then don't play games with it. What possible reason is there to stop other people from using an option they enjoy? This doesn't take away anything from anyone who wants to play an unlimited game instead. Or at least don't troll my thread.

this does take away.

• there is a limited amount of resources available to implement features so players indicating whether they like or DISLIKE a potential option is important.
• there are a limited number of players, the more options we have the more fragmented the community becomes. that means it is harder to start games and the ones that do take longer to fill.

this option is a waste of resources. it adds very little to the site and there are many, far better suggestions out there.

[Lord_Bremen]

Have any of you guys even tried this option? In normal risk, the strategy is simple - you just put all your armies on one place and the game generally ends in one turn in a massive attack. That's not particularly innovative and it doesn't take much effort. If there's a stack limit, you can't do that anymore, so it adds entirely new types of strategies that are simply not viable otherwise. If it's not possible to kill everyone in one turn (due to stack limits), that means you have to plan ahead, not only to what you can capture but as to whether you will be able to hold it. Games don't end in one big battle so there's a lot more strategy and much more room for comebacks.

There are thousands of players on here and tons of variations/maps. Either this will be popular and lots of people will join these types of games (that would be a good thing), or it won't be and people will stick to regular games. It's not as if there is any lack of players joining - I managed to fill four 8 player games (with non-standard options) in less time than it takes to run a single turn.

If it's hard to program then it's obviously up to those guys when/if they implement regardless of whether this is approved. But that's a reason to be indifferent (or even cheerlead for some other suggestion, though pretty much all of those at the moment seem to be cosmetic), not to actively oppose this. Especially considering that this is a variant straight from the actual Risk rulebook.

[spiesr]

Before this option can really be considered for implementation I think somebody should test this on all maps. Simply put, I fear that there might be map and settings combinations where this leads to endless stalemates. As such, some maps (I have no idea which ones though) should probably be banned from use with this option if such a thing were ever implemented.

(Yes I have played with this option in real life.)

[chapcrap]

Before this option can really be considered for implementation I think somebody should test this on all maps. Simply put, I fear that there might be map and settings combinations where this leads to endless stalemates. As such, some maps (I have no idea which ones though) should probably be banned from use with this option if such a thing were ever implemented.

(Yes I have played with this option in real life.)

What scenarios would this not work with?

[Lord_Bremen]

Before this option can really be considered for implementation I think somebody should test this on all maps. Simply put, I fear that there might be map and settings combinations where this leads to endless stalemates. As such, some maps (I have no idea which ones though) should probably be banned from use with this option if such a thing were ever implemented.

(Yes I have played with this option in real life.)

What do you guys mean by stalemate? You eventually have to attack or you won't be able to place new armies. Games can go longer if everyone digs in, but that's not really a problem. I suppose if you had a really narrow choke and unlimited fortification (not a particularly good combo with stack limits) you could have an issue until someone got lucky. But that seems unlikely.

[aad0906]

Before this option can really be considered for implementation I think somebody should test this on all maps. Simply put, I fear that there might be map and settings combinations where this leads to endless stalemates. As such, some maps (I have no idea which ones though) should probably be banned from use with this option if such a thing were ever implemented.

(Yes I have played with this option in real life.)

What scenarios would this not work with?

It will stop people from going through the pinnacle in Clandemonium, so that could be fun. The deeplands would also be much easier to hold.

[Kaskavel]

I think this is an excellent idea.
1. I ve already played such games with mc05025 after agreement. It was a success.
2. The option may only influence first round under such settings. A manual hive 1-1 is gamble, a manual restricted to 10 hive 1-1 is wonderful and does not influnce the game later.
3. A restricted to 4 game may also make sence, knights for example. It does not need to be a big number.
4. The game will, under some settings, resemble a trench game too much.
5. Maps with objectives gets very much more fun and strategy.
6. Maps with few interesting points also get boosted. Imagine surrounding an enemy oasis with stacks in oasis map.
7. Yes. Almost any suggestion does not work well, or even destroys the game, in combination with some other settings. People should stop imagining what kind of settings may make a new suggestion unworkable. Get used to it. The more options we add, the more weird combinations will be available. For example, we already added trench to the site. You cannot play 8 man escalating trench is most maps. Yes, if we add max armies, we will also not be able to play some escalating games. So what? This does not mean the suggestion is invalid. Combine it with workable settings. This would not be the first time, nor will it be the last one. Like you dont play escalating hive 8 players, like you dont play Antartica nuclear (some gamblers like to do so though), like you dont play escalating trench multiplayer, just dont play limited armies escalating also, it is not that difficult. The suggestion forum is not a place where we come, read suggestions and pretend to be clever by finding out which combination of settings will make the suggestion unplayable. You are not clever by doing that, you are not the only one understanding that some combinations get weird, irrelevant or self defeating, you are not clever by mentioning that again and again and you are are not contributing to the site this way. The same arguments have been made again in the past. Fog? What is the point of that in doodle 1 vs 1? Trench? What is the point in killer neutral maps or in big escalating games? Those worked though. Either we avoid some settings or we fix some specific problems (like the killer neutrals above).
I vote for the suggestion with enthusiasm

[Koganosi]

Before this option can really be considered for implementation I think somebody should test this on all maps. Simply put, I fear that there might be map and settings combinations where this leads to endless stalemates. As such, some maps (I have no idea which ones though) should probably be banned from use with this option if such a thing were ever implemented.

(Yes I have played with this option in real life.)

What scenarios would this not work with?

City Mogul?!

Hate the suggestion on that topic. I would just avoid it. You cant play escalating on it, and it just only makes room for big stacking games untill you have 20 on every terro.

I dont really get it why this got moved back into suggestion.

Urs

Koganosi

[chapcrap]

Before this option can really be considered for implementation I think somebody should test this on all maps. Simply put, I fear that there might be map and settings combinations where this leads to endless stalemates. As such, some maps (I have no idea which ones though) should probably be banned from use with this option if such a thing were ever implemented.

(Yes I have played with this option in real life.)

What scenarios would this not work with?

City Mogul?!

Hate the suggestion on that topic. I would just avoid it. You cant play escalating on it, and it just only makes room for big stacking games untill you have 20 on every terro.

I dont really get it why this got moved back into suggestion.

Urs

Koganosi

So, you would just have a lot less men in City Mogul. That's the point. In can work just fine...

As far as why it got moved back, that's because it was never rejected, it was just archived. If someone wants to talk about something that is archived, we'll move it back.

[tkr4lf]

How would auto-deploys work with this?

Wouldn't the xml have to be changed to make the auto-deploy stop auto-deploying once the tert reaches 12? And then programmed to go back to auto-deploying once it goes back under 12?

Seems like it would be pretty hard to program...

[chapcrap]

How would auto-deploys work with this?

Wouldn't the xml have to be changed to make the auto-deploy stop auto-deploying once the tert reaches 12? And then programmed to go back to auto-deploying once it goes back under 12?

Seems like it would be pretty hard to program...

I think the code would just have a maximum troop count per territory. So, I think autodeploys just would not go above a certain level.

Either way, the more I think about this, the less I like it.

[tkr4lf]

Ok, that sounds reasonable.

But, I'm with you. I really don't like this at all.

You can achieve the same basic effect with the trench setting, and quite honestly, it's just another stupid game option that I have to watch out for so I don't accidentally join one.

[rdsrds2120]

After some review, we feel that this suggestion wouldn't live up to the quality of gameplay settings we'd like to see on ConquerClub. I am going to give this an Admin Veto after 11 pages. Thanks for your input everyone,

BMO

[agentcom]

Edited OP to include RDS' comments, above