Petition to remove East Africa-Middle east connection

[sgapaulmyers]

If you wish the classic map was the way it is in the board game where East Africa cannot attack Middle East and vice-versa, then please vote "NO" in this poll to show your support.

[reverend_kyle]

that messed me up so bad when I played the actual board game.. its not a connectio nthere.

[reverend_kyle]

I voted yes and meant no.

[gavin_sidhu]

voted no but meant yes to fix up kyle.

[hitandrun]

I don't like the connexion, it is not on my Risk board.
However, it is on some official Risk boards. Maybe the way to solve this one is to see if it's on the 1957 French original.
By the way, if someone has the '57 game I'd offer you a fair price!:wink:

I voted no.

[ZawBanjito]

You're kidding me?! In some versions of the game there's NO connection?!! I had no clue... I guess I always played with that really old-ass board that we had to keep taping together... must have been an older version.

Dude, Asia would be like MAD easy to hold without a connection there! Although, it would make the Africa-Europe pair more formidible... hmmm...

I voted no, just because my world would otherwise be turned UPSIDE DOWN.

[Marvaddin]

This poll should be restarted. The title is "to remove the connection", but so if you vote NO you are favorable to the removal. I think we have many confused votes here.

[cramill]

This poll should be restarted. The title is "to remove the connection", but so if you vote NO you are favorable to the removal. I think we have many confused votes here.

I agree. (Why the difference in the title of the post and the question?)

I voted no, (in favor of the removal) because I thought that connection did not exist. But, now if I could change my vote I would, because I just took a look at my board (i believe i have the latest version of the game (2003)) and the connection is there. I think its fine if the connection stays.

[owheelj]

Yeah I misread the question and voted no. I meant to vote yes - which is to say that I'm in favour of keeping things the way they are.

[Bad Speler]

I have a 1959 version of risk (when it was still owned by Parker Brothers), and the connection is there. If it is the "classic" map I believe the connection should stay.

[garionoldwolf]

I voted yes it should stay because it's on the board game so why remove it from here?

[wicked]

darn I misread too .... keep it the way it is!

[sgapaulmyers]

I apologize if the wording of my post confused some people. I didn't realize it would be hard to understand when I wrote it.




Since it seems pretty evenly split for and against, maybe there is a way the developers could incorporate it as an option when setting up a game. Whoever sets up the new game can decide whether the connection would be there or not, and people would see which way it is setup when they go to join the game.

Would that be a good idea?

[sully800]

It just seems like an unnecessary option to me.

As people have shown, there have been versions of the board game with and without the connection.

With the connection I think it makes Africa too weak. Without the connection I think it makes Africa too strong.

Perhaps they should have an option where the connection only exists every other turn

[hitandrun]

Perhaps they should have an option where the connection only exists every other turn

LOL, I like it! Going to try it out next time I play Risk. I'm sure it'll lead to much confusion and chaos

[Suntzu]

i think the connection should stand.they are close enough. i dont know other people will say. SUNTZU

[strike wolf]

This is the original map that started it all. DON'T CHANGE IT!!!

[Zarg78]

I so do not like the connection.

It really gooses up my games, especially as I'm an expert at the board game, which has no connection.

[cramill]

I'm an expert at the board game, which has no connection.

Some boards have the connection and some don't. Maybe it should be an option, but that would make things more complicated.

[zarvinny]

With the connection I think it makes Africa too weak. Without the connection I think it makes Africa too strong.

Agree with the first statement, disagree with the second.

South America receives 2 armies, and has 2 borders, 4 countries, relatively easy to gain and hold.

Africa on the other hand, has 3 borders and 6 countries. bonus:3

Compare this to North America which also has 3 borders but 9 countries and yet has a bonus of 5. Three extra countries make a difference of 2 armies, however, border-wise they are equal.

I believe that if Africa has 2 borders and 6 countries it should keep its bonus of 3. This is shown by the tendency between Africa and N.A. that extra countries that are not extra borders give more troops as well.

This will strengthen africa, as it already has to compete with a powerful south america in most games. This will also make sense since South America and africa togehter will make 3 borders, 10 countries, bonus of 5 for the person holding them, just as north america has 3 borders, 9 countries, bonus of 5.

Therefore, decreasing Africa's borders makes it viable option for a starting continent and yet not unreasonably strong. In fact, South America and Australia will still remain as the classic map's most desired strongholds.

So using comparative analysis and logic, one can clearly see a much stronger argument in favor of eliminating the connection, (with "i don't wanna do it" arguments aside)

[zarvinny]

I do not believe that sentimental values over an older version of the map should influence a decision of game-play and enjoyment of a map that is considered the prime example for all maps made as a version that is precisely balanced and well organized

[Pedronicus]

If you look on a world atlas - this actual distance between the middle east and East Africa at the closest point is 10 miles.

If the makers of the map over the various editions included or omitted this join - I would suggest that they left it out as most people would see that you can practically spit that far.

Its a join. No Question. - If they added a dotted line - you'd get 1 dash in the space available.

its the closest natural adjoining areas on the classic map.

Also - Africa would be given an unfair amount of bonus values for just having 2 key areas to defend...

[Megatron]

I voted yes, and my first thought upon reading the question was, "what the f is wrong with this f'ing dumbass, there is a connection on the RISK board there, are you that stupid?" I have 3 different RISK boards and all show the connection, found a pic of a really old board online and there appears to be a connection on that one as well, If i saw a board without the connections I would call shananigans and claim that the board was not official.

[Caleb the Cruel]

I vote for NO CONNECTION, it confused me when I started playing here at CC

[ttocs]

With the connection I think it makes Africa too weak. Without the connection I think it makes Africa too strong.

Agree with the first statement, disagree with the second.

South America receives 2 armies, and has 2 borders, 4 countries, relatively easy to gain and hold.

Africa on the other hand, has 3 borders and 6 countries. bonus:3

Compare this to North America which also has 3 borders but 9 countries and yet has a bonus of 5. Three extra countries make a difference of 2 armies, however, border-wise they are equal.

I believe that if Africa has 2 borders and 6 countries it should keep its bonus of 3. This is shown by the tendency between Africa and N.A. that extra countries that are not extra borders give more troops as well.

This will strengthen africa, as it already has to compete with a powerful south america in most games. This will also make sense since South America and africa togehter will make 3 borders, 10 countries, bonus of 5 for the person holding them, just as north america has 3 borders, 9 countries, bonus of 5.

Therefore, decreasing Africa's borders makes it viable option for a starting continent and yet not unreasonably strong. In fact, South America and Australia will still remain as the classic map's most desired strongholds.

So using comparative analysis and logic, one can clearly see a much stronger argument in favor of eliminating the connection, (with "i don't wanna do it" arguments aside)

It makes up for that by having the three border countries right next to eachother, so it is a little easier to get it back easier if it were to be attacked. Anyway, they are both connected in the real world, if there is a border to be moved in africa, it would most likly be to have the southern euro-egypt/north africa connection be removed because they don't touch.