Manual Territory Selection: Choose or Draft Territories

[Arcee]

i'm pretty sure this has been suggested a bunch of times. the answer is that it would take forever for the game to start.

[Chadwick31]

You could make it an option for only speed games, and give 30 seconds to place, or something like that.

[greenoaks]

How about an option to, instead of randomly assigning territories, have people pick them in order as in the board game.

The problem with the board game was it was an advantage to place first, so how about a placement order that snakes back-and-forth, Catan-style? Ie a 4-player game would go 1234432112344321...

The current random system is okay, but sometimes one player gets in a better position than another before making a single meaningful choice, so why not have the option to go random or select for yourself?

so what if 'sometimes' a player gets a better start than everyone else.
sometimes a player gets a worse start. it all averages out in the end.

so that would be a big fat NO from me.

[Ditocoaf]

I think this would be viable as an option for realtime games and speed games. Admittedly, the idea as is wouldn't work for a regular 24hr turn game, but with creativity, I bet there's a way to let players pick territories.

Here's an example (not an actual recommendation, but just to show that there can be ways of tweaking this to make it work): From the start of the game, each player has 24 hours to rank all territories from first pick to last. Then the game simulates players taking turns to pick, based on that. (this wouldn't actually be desirable, because a-too complicated, and b-choices should be partially based on what's already been taken.)

This could be an interesting gameplay option, but it probably won't be, and shouldn't be, available for a while; lack's already got too many other good ideas to work on.

[slightly_mute]

i think there should be the option of deploying armies at the beginning. this would be a lengthy process, especially for non-speed games, but i think it's one of the key factors in strategic playing, and would be a very nice feature to choose.

also, it would be interesting to have a feature in the game, where you have assistance in maybe setting a common time that people would be able to play? i know this kind of defeats the purpose of speed games, and would maybe hinder the amount of premium memberships, but if the above was implimented, it would be nice if atleast when the game started, you could get the deployment out of the way.

[oggiss]

i think there should be the option of deploying armies at the beginning. this would be a lengthy process, especially for non-speed games, but i think it's one of the key factors in strategic playing, and would be a very nice feature to choose.

also, it would be interesting to have a feature in the game, where you have assistance in maybe setting a common time that people would be able to play? i know this kind of defeats the purpose of speed games, and would maybe hinder the amount of premium memberships, but if the above was implimented, it would be nice if atleast when the game started, you could get the deployment out of the way.

Don't know what you are suggestion here but get a premium membership that will surely help you out

[greenoaks]

also, it would be interesting to have a feature in the game, where you have assistance in maybe setting a common time that people would be able to play? i know this kind of defeats the purpose of speed games, and would maybe hinder the amount of premium memberships, but if the above was implimented, it would be nice if atleast when the game started, you could get the deployment out of the way.

do you have any other great ideas the owner could implement that would reduce the patronage of this site and its profitability.

[BaldAdonis]

this would be a lengthy process

It wouldn't have to be. If you want to select your territories instead of having them randomly placed, then just number the territories in the order you want, as though you were drafting them. If you want to decide your deployment instead of having 3 everywhere, just include a round 0 where everyone gets a day (or 5 minutes) to deploy, and can only see who owns what, not where they've deployed.

[slightly_mute]

well, i'm going off of the idea behind the board game. in the beginning, you take turns putting down one army. the idea is that you see where everyone else is placing their armies.

[Soloman]

well, i'm going off of the idea behind the board game. in the beginning, you take turns putting down one army. the idea is that you see where everyone else is placing their armies.

Would kill fog of war games. But I agree random means less strategy involved with the game.

Check out some of the other options floating around that create far more strategy then there currently is

[greenoaks]

well, i'm going off of the idea behind the board game. in the beginning, you take turns putting down one army. the idea is that you see where everyone else is placing their armies.

so how many years would it take to start a casual 8 player game on world 2.1 if we all took turns to deploy some armies, see where others deploy, deploy more ourselves, etc ?

[laci_mae]

well, i'm going off of the idea behind the board game. in the beginning, you take turns putting down one army. the idea is that you see where everyone else is placing their armies.

so how many years would it take to start a casual 8 player game on world 2.1 if we all took turns to deploy some armies, see where others deploy, deploy more ourselves, etc ?

So, do you have anything to say that's not sarcastic and bitter? I'm sure this new member who is honestly trying to contribute to the site and forum will feel encouraged to upgrade to a premium membership in response to your back-handed comments.

LMR

[greenoaks]

well, i'm going off of the idea behind the board game. in the beginning, you take turns putting down one army. the idea is that you see where everyone else is placing their armies.

so how many years would it take to start a casual 8 player game on world 2.1 if we all took turns to deploy some armies, see where others deploy, deploy more ourselves, etc ?

So, do you have anything to say that's not sarcastic and bitter? I'm sure this new member who is honestly trying to contribute to the site and forum will feel encouraged to upgrade to a premium membership in response to your back-handed comments.

LMR

plenty.

a knight would beat a samurai easily.
hot and sexy is the best thread ever.
klobber is a tool.

but back on topic, if slightly_mute can't handle his suggestions getting shot down he should remain totally mute.

[PaperPlunger]

Even in real Risk, you get cards for where you place your armies when starting, so in effect, it is random.

[Twill]

greenoaks, laci_mae is right. If you don't have anything meaningful to say...don't If you have something to say, say it nicely

Mute, the main problem is the timing. You could do it with speed games, maybe, but in a 3 player game, depending on the map, each person would have anywhere from 10 to 50 armies to place. If they were placed one at a time in a 5 minute turn cycle, that would add up to 12 hours to a speed game JUST in deployment.

If you do it in blocks, yes, it might work time wise, but again you lose the element of "see where the others are placing" making the impetus to do it rather meaningless.

It's been asked for several times, but the implementation of it doesn't seem to work well in an asynchronous environment.