Spoils Discussion

[Skandranonsg]

As training for coming to a real competitive online Risk community, I've downloaded a game called Domination, and I've found a couple very discouraging facets of the game of Risk, most notably, the spoils.

So far, I'm finding escalating spoils to be a major unbalancing factor in games,especially early on. I find myself attempting to establish myself in a continent, or even somewhere mildly defensible, and all-of-a-sudden I'm wiped off the map by 30 armies dropped into a country that was previously strategically worthless to a player.

For this reason, I do not like escalating spoils, so I tried the other extreme, no spoils. This, unfortunately rewards extremely defensive play. Games tend to last far too long with "turtling" encouraged, and is quite frankly the least fun way to play.

This leads me to my current love (and long standing play style) fixed spoils. To me, this is the most balanced method of playing, and keeps players on their toes. This rewards risky plays that pay off, and tends to force players into much more complex and well-thought out strategies.

Fixed > Escalating > None

So, what are your opinions on spoils, which ones do you prefer above the others and why? Please feel free to tell me why I'm wrong as well. =D

[Army of GOD]

Agreed with the escalating. The strategy is "hope someone is an idiot and cashes in so then you can get 14 billion on your turn" in which you go and elminate a person, get their spoils, cash in so you get 44 x 10^43 guys, and so on and so on.

Disagree with the fixed. That just adds more luck to the game "I gots 3 reds and dey gots all 3 colurs =("


While no spoils might be boring, it's better then getting massacred or lucked out of a win.

[Skandranonsg]

Could you elaborate on your comments on fixed? At best a player gets spoils once every 3 turns, and at worst a player gets spoils once every 5 turns.

[Army of GOD]

Could you elaborate on your comments on fixed? At best a player gets spoils once every 3 turns, and at worst a player gets spoils once every 5 turns.

Ok, so let's say in a 1 on 1, the person who gets a set in 3 turns gets a 3-color set (which is worth 10 [on Classic Map at least] and the person who gets it in 5 turns gets a red-set [worth 4]). HUUUUGGGE disadvantage I think.

[The Neon Peon]

As for your escalating bit... If you are going for continents, you're playing it wrong. That's all there is to it.

Let's put it this way: if the cash is going to be at 30 at the end of round 6 in an 8 man game... no bonus on the map can stand up to that, so you should not even bother.

The way to play escalating is to build stacks around the board, so that eventually, you can kill someone with say 42 troops for their spoils. Then you can sash those spoils and deploy 60 troops and repeat the process.

It is a wonderful setting because there is no diplomacy, no real dependency on dice (because there are a ton of troops on the map, it balances out), and it is all about when and what to hit. I'd suggest you join the Society of Cooks if you want to learn how to win on it. It is really a good setting.

[BigBallinStalin]

Fixed isn't flat rate, is what I think the OP is saying.

He's talking about having an escalating game where it stops escalating at 20 or so.

This method is more fun, I've play this a lot with Risk (IN REAL LIFE, not the fake version of life). There's no rubbish Deus ex Machina flat rate, no ridiculous BS with escalating, and not as much turtle'ing with no spoils.

20's a bit high though. The new Risk gameboard has a different way of cards, where each card has either 1, 2, or 3 stars, and the number of stars you turn in gives you a certain number of troops. You can turn in as many as you like but I think you have to turn in at minimum 3 stars.

3 stars is about 2 or 3 armies. 4 stars is 4 or 5. I forget exactly what's what, but the more stars you turn in the higher the "cost-efficiency" (for lack of a better word) in star per army.

[Mr Changsha]

I prefer flat for standard and no spoils for teams. My ideal setting for standard however would be for flat rate sets with more variety...anywhere from between 4 and 20 (with the 4-20 option going live after say round 9). A touch complicated but I think it would still allow for the early empire building but would be more likely to create the 'impact events' needed to stop the typical flat standard stagnating as so many 'properly played' ones do.

Robinette proposed a similar sytem a while back which we both agreed might bridge the gap between the two disciplines. For example, I just played a colonels 'Robinette Special' and just hated it...not my cup of tea at all. I'm sure she wouldn't join a speed flat on the same basis.

[natty dread]

I like no spoils games. On those you really need to think if you're going to attack someone, and eliminating a player doesn't give someone a huge advantage. A lot more strategy, and it's a great setting for team games as well.

Also like small maps on escalating. It also has strategy, where you need to place your troops strategically, and you need to be able to see who to eliminate and when.

[Robinette]

Robinette proposed a similar sytem a while back which we both agreed might bridge the gap between the two disciplines. For example, I just played a colonels 'Robinette Special' and just hated it...not my cup of tea at all. I'm sure she wouldn't join a speed flat on the same basis.

oh what a fun, and frustrating, game that was... i would have won, too, if not for those last 3 troops ...
Yup, in escalating it's often do or die, win or lose... so when the 'assault cubes' go bad, it rips your heart out!

But the best part of that game was what you said... just as you became aware that the landscape would soon change...
2009-12-11 05:02:44 - Mr Changsha: As a non escalating player I could be wrong, but I suppose this is the moment of revelation? The great orgy of numerical violence?

Perhaps that is what i love so much about escalating...