MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION -- One-For-One RISK

[CreepyUncleAndy]

A few years ago, my friends (who are avid RISK players) got tired of rolling dice, and started playing RISK a new way:

When invading another territory, armies mutually annihilate each other at the ratio of 1:1. In other words, if you have 1 army guarding Kamchatka, I must have at least 3 armies in Alaska in order to take it (from across the Bering Straight) -- 1 army to annihilate (and be annihilated by) your 1 occupying army, 1 army to invade and occupy Kamchatka, and 1 army to remain behind in Alaska.

Perhaps this can be incorporated as a game option on Conquer Club?

Possibly the Rate of Attrition could be adjusted from 1:1 to x:y (ratios could favor the attacker, the defender, or neither)....

(And, possibly, maps could be created that change the attrition ratio from 1:1 to, say, 3:2 or 1:2 in certain territories, but one thing at a time.)

[CreepyUncleAndy]

And, to go even more nuts, possibly attrition rates can vary from border to border -- i.e., you might get slaughtered attacking Western Europe from Britain (3:1) but invading Western Europe from Central Europe might be easier (2:3). But this, of course, introduces a whole new set of classes and objects and all kinds of coding issues that the game afaik does not (yet) allow for, not to mention fundamentally changing the substance of the game....

[sully800]

It takes away the whole "risk" aspect of the game, and would change it into something completely different.

However I would play it now and then for fun, because sometimes it is nice to eliminate as much luck as possible.

What would you do though while attacking against a single army? If you still lose 1:1 in that situation it seems like there is a problem, because normally you would win those attacks much more often than you would lose them.

Anyway, I doubt it would be implemented but I think it would be at least slightly interesting.

[gulio]

I can just see someone holding AUstralia and putting 5 onto siam each turn for.. um.... 40 turns?... would be fun though.

[joeyjordison]

basically if u don't get gd placement then u r dead. everyone starts with the same armies so everyone will kill each other the same amount. this would be true until someone flucily got a bonus at which point they would automatically win unless there was an alliance made against them or a series of attacks by separate players.
i get annoyed by dodgy dice. today for example i lost 10 armies straight in one game. didn't even kill 1 army. next game i go to take a turn and lose 4 armies straight, don't make a single kill. next game i get perfect dice and take every territory i attack without a casualty! took an entire continent from a guy!
this is just the way the dice r and risk wouldn't b risk without dice

[gulio]

I could see using the cards for something - IE if you held E.Austrailia and you were attackign E.Australia you could get a "One time bonus" of autokilling 1 unit per turn...

[spiesr]

It would be impossipible to do anything at the start.

[SirSebstar]

not impossible. you would just need more then 1 country to border the country you are trying to invade.
oh and you get a minimum of 3 troops to begin with. so basicly, you can attack ony 1 country and win.!

[CreepyUncleAndy]

Actually, if there are 3 armies on a territory, you would have to attack it 3 armies of your own to wipe out the 3 defending armies, then send in a 4th army to occupy (and leave at least 1 army behind in each territory you attack from).

At the beginning of the game, each territory has 3 armies on it. So, if you were lucky enough to occupy an enemy territory's two neighboring territories, you would be able to send 2 armies from each of two territories (leaving 1 behind in each) for a total of 4 attacking armies to annihilate your enemy's 3 armies (leaving 1 of your armies alive to occupy the conquered territory).

[Lupo]

Honestly i think it would be much more Risk minded to play with Italian Risk rules, where you could both attack both defend with 3 dice!

In this way the ratio between armies lost from attacker and the ones from defender would be, in average, around 2:1 instead of 1:1.

I could tell you that in this way Risk game would be more tactical and I would say even more exiting, since this would change complitely the game in a better one, at least in my opinion!

So, my suggestion would be to give the option to choose between:

International Risk rules (2 dice defending)

and Italian Risk rules (3 dice defending)

[gavin_sidhu]

posted twice.

[gavin_sidhu]

So italians like their risk like their football, defensive.

Dont like the idea, could get boring (as italian football gets sometimes).

[panicker]

So italians like their risk like their football, defensive.

Dont like the idea, could get boring (as italian football gets 99% of the time ).

totally agree

[Lupo]

So italians like their risk like their football, defensive.

Dont like the idea, could get boring (as italian football gets 99% of the time ).

totally agree

I am starting thinking you're only angry 'cause Italy won the World Cup....
Moreover what you said about Italy is not true: have you wacthed Germany-Italy during the world cup? It was a really great match!

About italian Risk, maybe you should try it, before saying something totally not true!

[panicker]

So italians like their risk like their football, defensive.

Dont like the idea, could get boring (as italian football gets 99% of the time ).

totally agree

I am starting thinking you're only angry 'cause Italy won the World Cup....
Moreover what you said about Italy is not true: have you wacthed Germany-Italy during the world cup? It was a really great match!

About italian Risk, maybe you should try it, before saying something totally not true!

my agreement was based purely on the domestic league in italy and is an opinion

as for the italian rules for risk i wouldnt be totally against that but how would it work when say both teams threw all sixes? defending team still win these battles?