new player order......same time (not freestyle)

[BaldAdonis]

There are faster games, with shorter turn lengths - just five minutes each - but you need to buy premium to play them. Suggestions for less-than-24-hour turns (or longer, or less than 5 minutes for speed games) have been rejected, because of the unnecessary complexity they add to game creation/joining. What did you have in mind? One day for each "move" (deploy phase, attack phase, fortifying phase)?

[cicero]

well, being new, i don't have a good idea how long a sequential game would take. i imagine the longest it could take is 1 day per person per turn? in other words, a game of 8 players could take 8 days max to complete one turn? my idea would take 3 days max to complete a turn, no matter how many are playing. the only concession would be that all dice rolling is done automatically.

OK Environmentalist, time to stop teasing us now and present your idea.
How exactly would your idea work to ensure that a round of any number of players would be completed within 3 days? And why would this be a good thing?

If you could edit your first post using the form presented when you first clicked 'new topic' that would be a start. I include it here for you to copy and paste:

Code: Select all

[b]Concise description:[/b]
[list]
[*]xxxxxxx
[/list]

[b]Specifics:[/b]
[list]
[*]xxxxxxx
[/list]

[b]This will improve the following aspects of the site:[/b]
[list]
[*]xxxxxxx
[/list]

If in fact you don't have a specific idea in mind then I would suggest that we move this thread from this Suggestions & Bug Reports forum to the General Discussion forum. Please post in this thread or PM me if that is what you would like to do.

Equally if you have any other questions please PM me or post here as appropriate.

Cicero

[OliverFA]

I think that what he is suggesting is dividing the game in two phases.

First, declaration phase. Players have 24 hours to declare their movements.

Second, once all movements are declared, or 24 hours have passed, resolve all movements and move to next turn.

[Timminz]

Are you referring to a setting that RISK 2 uses? I've never played it, but I've seen it suggested, and rejected numerous times.

[OliverFA]

That's what his suggestion seems to me. The Risk 2 setting.

And why it was rejected? It is not so bad and would speed games. Turns would take only 24 hours no matter how many players in the map...

[Environmentalist]

Are you referring to a setting that RISK 2 uses? I've never played it, but I've seen it suggested, and rejected numerous times.

yes, this is what i am referring to. anyone who has rejected the idea has either never tried it or, sadly, just doesn't get it. Same Time is remarkable for its natural simplicity and cohesiveness to the original game. It is far superior to any other styles and is perfect for a game site like this one. it shouldn't replace the others, but be a 3rd option, one that would quickly become the popular choice.

[OliverFA]

Are you referring to a setting that RISK 2 uses? I've never played it, but I've seen it suggested, and rejected numerous times.

yes, this is what i am referring to. anyone who has rejected the idea has either never tried it or, sadly, just doesn't get it. Same Time is remarkable for its natural simplicity and cohesiveness to the original game. It is far superior to any other styles and is perfect for a game site like this one.

I agree 100%

[Androidz]

Im a big fan of all players deploy on the same round then attack. Altough im not a big fan of the rest you suggested.

Let say Player 1. Attacks from alaska and gave the order to attack whatever with 5 armies with 5 armies.
Then player 2. On the same round attacks with 4 armies on the 5 armies on alaska.

How do you think the "Game Engine" will think about this? they attack same terretorie on the same time. Both ways?:S


Next problem lets say player 1 and survived with 4 armies all forwarded to next terretorie. has now the chance to attack the last terretorie to get conitnent bonus. But he cant cause the orders are already summited.

And im sure it might be other flaws ive just read a bit of you suggestion.

[lancehoch]

I think I have gotten all of them. I have merged in as many of the Risk II/Same Time Risk suggestions into one thread. If anyone has any questions feel free to PM me.

Here is a list of the different instances of this suggestion:
Same-time Risk by gavin_sidhu on 6/8/06
Simultaneous Attack by FlyinHi on 7/17/07
Simultaneous Game by FlyinHi on 7/17/07
Simultaneous Play by FlyinHi on 7/18/07
Same-Time Risk by Shino Tenshi on 4/8/08
Same time risk by Natewolfman on 5/16/08
new player order......same time (not freestyle) by Environmentalist on 9/21/08
a real discussion of 'SAME TIME' by Environmentalist on 9/23/08

[Environmentalist]

so i spent a great deal of time composing the following in another post and was pretty upset to find it buried amongst a hogwash of ill-informed, supposedly related incompetence. unbelievable. clearly mine is the most focused and comprehensive explanation of the gaming style, adapted for and explained in a way the community can understand. I hereby resurrect my post to ensure that it receives the kind of appreciation and constructive criticism such a concept demands.

yes, this is from Risk 2. anyone who has already rejected the idea has either never tried it or, sadly, just doesn't get it. Same Time is remarkable for its natural simplicity and cohesiveness to the original game. It is far superior to any other styles and is perfect for a game site like this one. it shouldn't replace the others, but be a 3rd option, one that i am confident would quickly become the popular choice.

SAME TIME

As everyone here knows, a single turn consists of 3 phases

• Deployment Phase
• Attack Phase
• Fortification Phase

Players conduct each of the 3 phases at the Same Time

• Deployment Phase - Players turn in cards and/or deploy units. Only after all players have done so will the actions of the players be revealed on the map and the next phase commence.
  
• Attack Phase - Players select where and with how many units they want to attack. Only after all players have done so will the actions of the players be revealed on the map and the next phase commence. See below for details on this phase.
  
• Fortification Phase - Players fortify their territories. Only after all players have done so will the actions of the players be revealed on the map and the next phase commence.

Attack Phase in Detail

• Players 'give orders', specifying from which territories they want to attack and with how many units.
• Units in a territory may be divided and assigned to attack in multiple directions.
• After all players have set up their attacks, their orders are revealed and the dice rolling is done automatically.
• For each attack, dice will roll until either the attacker runs out of units or they win the battle, in which case all remaining units move automatically into the new territory.
• There will be Border Clashes when 2 players attack each other. The winner will proceed to attack the remaining forces that were left behind by the loser. (see additional details below)
• There will be Territorial Disputes when 2 or more players attack the same neutral or 3rd party territory, assuming their combined forces successfully eliminate all units in that territory. (see additional details below)
• Attacks would be restricted to neighboring territories only, with the exception of a Surge Attack. This is an option for a player to specify that some or all of the units left over from an initial attack should proceed to attack an additional territory, for better or worse. Sometimes SA's result in BC's or TD's.

Order of the Attacks

1. Border Clashes
2. Normal Attacks
3. Territorial Disputes
4. Surge Attacks

Additional Details

• BC's and TD's are unique in that battles are between 2 attackers, thus there is no defender. There is thus no winner in the case of ties. Dice are rerolled to determine a winner.
• The fortification phase could be excluded entirely, or coupled together with the deployment phase. This would reduce playing time by a third, but it would also restrict the game dynamic.
• SA's could be optional. I suggest allowing one per turn for the dynamic it creates. But any more would begin to undermine the whole.

Some Benefits

• It would take a maximum of 3 days to complete one game turn, regardless of the number of players, as opposed to one day per player as in a sequential game.
• The playing field is equalized, so the order in which players login does not matter.
• If a player misses a day, they do not lose a whole turn.
• Strategy has a whole new meaning under this style of gameplay.
• Attacks would be restricted to neighboring territories only.
• There is no playing order, nor the issues inherent therein. Thus it is preferable to both freestyle and sequential styles, focusing the game on strategy, where it belongs.
• This space reserved for whatever I forgot to mention.
  

[lancehoch]

New thread merged in, see my post two above for a comprehensive list.

[OliverFA]

I think that the problem with this suggestion might be that it needs a lot of programming effort. For this reason, I suggest people who likes this suggestion to support this other suggestion (new conquered territories cannot attack during the turn they are conquered) viewtopic.php?f=4&t=51364 which, despite not being exactly the same, is close enough and much more simpler to code.

[FabledIntegral]

I don't understand at all... how would things be done automatically and if so, why are we even playing? If you pay for premium instead of having 24 hour turns, you can have only 5 minute turns.

Also, in order to get 3-day games, turns would need to be about 8 ish hours long... meaning you miss your turn if you sleep.

[BaldAdonis]

I don't understand at all... in order to get 3-day games, turns would need to be about 8 ish hours long... meaning you miss your turn if you sleep.

It has a different game mechanics. You don't take your turn in order like Risk, you make all your turn decisions in secret and then everyone reveals theirs, like Scattergories.

I think the reason this won't be implemented is that it would take so much effort to rebuild the game engine. It is, in effect, an entirely different game, and so belongs on a different site. Just like games without dice - while the options available here can be seen as variations on Risk, this would be a whole new game, only related because it uses the same pieces.

[OliverFA]

I don't understand at all... in order to get 3-day games, turns would need to be about 8 ish hours long... meaning you miss your turn if you sleep.

It has a different game mechanics. You don't take your turn in order like Risk, you make all your turn decisions in secret and then everyone reveals theirs, like Scattergories.

I think the reason this won't be implemented is that it would take so much effort to rebuild the game engine. It is, in effect, an entirely different game, and so belongs on a different site. Just like games without dice - while the options available here can be seen as variations on Risk, this would be a whole new game, only related because it uses the same pieces.

Right. Looks like it would take a lot of programming effort.

BUT... implementing adjacent attacks would be not so difficult, and it would have almost the same effect. So please, people who like it, support that idea.

[Thezzaruz]

I don't understand at all... how would things be done automatically and if so, why are we even playing? If you pay for premium instead of having 24 hour turns, you can have only 5 minute turns.

Also, in order to get 3-day games, turns would need to be about 8 ish hours long... meaning you miss your turn if you sleep.

Yea you are missing the point. The time aspect is not at all important, it's just a small side effect. The big difference is in strategy and dynamics.

IMO it would be a fun way to play. And even though it might require too much coding to be implemented the "it's another game" argument is not really true. It's not really any more different than freestyle, it's just different in another way.

[Jeff Hardy]

i dislike this idea