New setting: Upkeep [Poll for minimum reinforcements]

[Dako]

If we go with the minimum deployment of 3 armies that cannot be reduced by upkeep, it will render the case with 1-terr guy useless as he will still get 3 armies. However, even with 30 armies (which is what will be available to him) I am sure he has a hope to take 1 more terr and stack on 2 of them. And then expand more. And more.

You are wrong that there is no chance of winning when you get 0 armies each turn. Even if that happens, you can still wait. People who deadbeat - they do not waste their time or slots on such games. If they have desire to try every single chance - even getting 0 armies will not make them deadbeat. So I do not see much difference with upkeep limit and current game settings in terms of 1-terr armies. This setting will prevent people from hoarding, so the one who has the best income and most terrs will benefit. Other will need to act quickly or they will stagnate.

[Woodruff]

If we go with the minimum deployment of 3 armies that cannot be reduced by upkeep, it will render the case with 1-terr guy useless as he will still get 3 armies. However, even with 30 armies (which is what will be available to him) I am sure he has a hope to take 1 more terr and stack on 2 of them. And then expand more. And more.
You are wrong that there is no chance of winning when you get 0 armies each turn. Even if that happens, you can still wait. People who deadbeat - they do not waste their time or slots on such games. If they have desire to try every single chance - even getting 0 armies will not make them deadbeat. So I do not see much difference with upkeep limit and current game settings in terms of 1-terr armies. This setting will prevent people from hoarding, so the one who has the best income and most terrs will benefit. Other will need to act quickly or they will stagnate.

People ALREADY deadbeat when they get into those situations because they don't want to bother with the stacking strategy. So they're certainly not going to want to bother with this implementation. That's my point...this suggestion, if implemented in that manner, WILL increase deadbeating. It's unavoidable.

[OliverFA]

If we go with the minimum deployment of 3 armies that cannot be reduced by upkeep, it will render the case with 1-terr guy useless as he will still get 3 armies. However, even with 30 armies (which is what will be available to him) I am sure he has a hope to take 1 more terr and stack on 2 of them. And then expand more. And more.
You are wrong that there is no chance of winning when you get 0 armies each turn. Even if that happens, you can still wait. People who deadbeat - they do not waste their time or slots on such games. If they have desire to try every single chance - even getting 0 armies will not make them deadbeat. So I do not see much difference with upkeep limit and current game settings in terms of 1-terr armies. This setting will prevent people from hoarding, so the one who has the best income and most terrs will benefit. Other will need to act quickly or they will stagnate.

People ALREADY deadbeat when they get into those situations because they don't want to bother with the stacking strategy. So they're certainly not going to want to bother with this implementation. That's my point...this suggestion, if implemented in that manner, WILL increase deadbeating. It's unavoidable.

But again. You are already treating it as if it is COMPULSORY. It is not compulsoy. It is an OPTION.

Then, WHY would a player that dislikes not reinforcing choose that option only to deadbeat later?

[Woodruff]

If we go with the minimum deployment of 3 armies that cannot be reduced by upkeep, it will render the case with 1-terr guy useless as he will still get 3 armies. However, even with 30 armies (which is what will be available to him) I am sure he has a hope to take 1 more terr and stack on 2 of them. And then expand more. And more.
You are wrong that there is no chance of winning when you get 0 armies each turn. Even if that happens, you can still wait. People who deadbeat - they do not waste their time or slots on such games. If they have desire to try every single chance - even getting 0 armies will not make them deadbeat. So I do not see much difference with upkeep limit and current game settings in terms of 1-terr armies. This setting will prevent people from hoarding, so the one who has the best income and most terrs will benefit. Other will need to act quickly or they will stagnate.

People ALREADY deadbeat when they get into those situations because they don't want to bother with the stacking strategy. So they're certainly not going to want to bother with this implementation. That's my point...this suggestion, if implemented in that manner, WILL increase deadbeating. It's unavoidable.

But again. You are already treating it as if it is COMPULSORY. It is not compulsoy. It is an OPTION.

But again. If that is the argument for your setting, then all option-related settings should be accepted.

[Dako]

People ALREADY deadbeat when they get into those situations because they don't want to bother with the stacking strategy. So they're certainly not going to want to bother with this implementation. That's my point...this suggestion, if implemented in that manner, WILL increase deadbeating. It's unavoidable.

If the already deadbeat - they will deadbeat with any other setting. However players that do not deadbeat will not deadbeat cause of the setting. I think this is one of cases where people can be divided into exactly 2 categories. And I do not think that any option will change people from one category to the other.

[Woodruff]

People ALREADY deadbeat when they get into those situations because they don't want to bother with the stacking strategy. So they're certainly not going to want to bother with this implementation. That's my point...this suggestion, if implemented in that manner, WILL increase deadbeating. It's unavoidable.

If the already deadbeat - they will deadbeat with any other setting. However players that do not deadbeat will not deadbeat cause of the setting. I think this is one of cases where people can be divided into exactly 2 categories. And I do not think that any option will change people from one category to the other.

I disagree very much. If I have a hope of winning the game, even a very slim hope, I will keep slogging away at it trying to win in whatever manner I can. If I have no hope of winning the game, I would at the very least seriously consider deadbeating, because I wouldn't see the point of playing if I can't win.

[OliverFA]

This is getting a bit tiring. Isn't it?

I already explained it. I will explain for the last time.

Without upkeep, if the game evolves to an stalled situation, and that situation lasts for a long time, the tendence is to arrive at a moment in which armies distribution mirror exactly the reinforcement distribution. Why is that? Because each turn each player reinforces a number of armies. The more turns that pass the more the army proportion ressemble that reinforcement proportion.

As an example, if we have four players reinforcen 15, 10, 9 and 3 armies, after 10 turns they will have reinforced 150, 100, 90 and 30 armies. After 100 turns they will have reinforced 1500, 1000, 900, and 300 armies. Those proportions are altered by wathever armies there were on the board when the stalled situation began, but it's easy to see that the more turns pass the more similar will be armies on the board and reinforcements each turn.

Now, with upkeep, reinforcement would stop when armies were 150, 100, 90 and 30. So, the result is exactly the same. Only that it is reached a lot sooner. So... the chances of the player with one territory are EXACTLY THE SAME as without upkeep. If he deadbeats, is just because he chooses to.

Now, for the difference. If the cornered player has more than 30 armies, he gets to keep them. And then, the proportion is changed IN HIS FAVOUR.

Another difference is that when players see that they receive 0 armies, they will be more likely to attack. So stalled situations are more likely to be broken earlier.

I hope that with this explanation it's clear that one territory players first are not encouraged to deadbeat and second have a chance to survive equal or superior to the one wihtout upkeep.

What won't happen (and in my opinion it's good that it does not happen) is that the one territory player can't be stopped building and building more and more armies while the other players fight each other. He can wait for the right moment to use his 30 armies (or the armies he saved if they were more than 30) But he can't build an absurdly big army while waiting. And if you ask me, that's good.

[Dako]

I disagree very much. If I have a hope of winning the game, even a very slim hope, I will keep slogging away at it trying to win in whatever manner I can. If I have no hope of winning the game, I would at the very least seriously consider deadbeating, because I wouldn't see the point of playing if I can't win.

Getting 0 troops per round doesn't strip you of the winning chance. It is just very slim. And yes, I find this conversation exhausting because we keep talking on the different levels and none of us wants to hear the other. So let's wait for the input from other members of the community.

[SirSebstar]

Oliver, I just thought of something else.
Fog hides your location, but it does show the amount of troops you get by turn.
Obviously I do not know what country you hold. But when I see you holding 1 country and getting no troops per turn, I would likely know how big his stack is too.
In short this setting is not really compatible with fog, although I would find it interesting to know that this way I can also get an estimate of the other guys stack..mmm interesting

[OliverFA]

Oliver, I just thought of something else.
Fog hides your location, but it does show the amount of troops you get by turn.
Obviously I do not know what country you hold. But when I see you holding 1 country and getting no troops per turn, I would likely know how big his stack is too.
In short this setting is not really compatible with fog, although I would find it interesting to know that this way I can also get an estimate of the other guys stack..mmm interesting

Thanks for bringing the FoW subject to the discussion. We had not talk about it yet

It's my opinion that this setting is very compatible with FoW. Correct me if I am wrong (I don't play FoW games much) but I think that the log says something like this (got from a real FoW game):

2011-03-21 00:48:32 - Player received 2 troops for holding ?
2011-03-21 00:48:32 - Player received 3 troops for holding ?
2011-03-21 00:48:32 - Player received 6 troops for holding ?
2011-03-21 00:48:32 - Player received 5 troops for 17 regions
2011-03-21 00:48:36 - Player deployed 16 troops on ?

So a big part of a FoW is deciphering the log. By reading this log you can probably guess which continents Player has (each continent has a separate line in the log), and you know for sure how many regions the player has (it is said in the log). Now army size will be another thing you can guess partially from the log. By seeing how many armies each player deploys, you will be able to guess his minimum army size. (but not his maximum, because remember that you can have more armies than what you can maintain. You just stop receiving more reinforces).

So you know the army size, and your oponent knows yours. Just like you know his bonuses and how many territories he has. But you still don't know how is his army distributed. You can do the math and substract the armies you see from the total number to guess how many armies he has in the territories hidden by FoW. But again I think this is part of the FoW deciphering game.

BUT... If a majority of people feel like this is giving away too much information, the proposal can be ammended to remove the real number from the log when upkeep is active and substitute it by ?. However, I think it would be great as it is.

In fact, it's good that we are talking about it, because it also raises the subject about how to write the log with upkeep. I think that the log shuld look something like this:

2011-03-21 00:48:32 - Player received 2 troops for holding AAA
2011-03-21 00:48:32 - Player received 3 troops for holding BBB
2011-03-21 00:48:32 - Player received 6 troops for holding CCC
2011-03-21 00:48:32 - Player received 5 troops for 17 regions
2011-03-21 00:48:32 - Player pays an upkeep of 10 for 107 troops
2011-03-21 00:48:36 - Player deployed 6 troops on DDD

[gimli1990]

i would love to see this implenateed as a option it seems like a lot of fun.

[benga]

This setting favors missing turns!

I would play one turn then miss 2 turns to get more armies!

And still would not be falling behind!

[Dako]

This setting favors missing turns!

I would play one turn then miss 2 turns to get more armies!

And still would not be falling behind!

I guess deferred troops will be calculated based on the income as well.

[OliverFA]

This setting favors missing turns!

I would play one turn then miss 2 turns to get more armies!

And still would not be falling behind!

Sorry. I don't understand what you say. Could you explain? Maybe I could solve the issue if I know what you are talking about.

[Dako]

Your deploy - 10 troops. Upkeep is 4 troops. If play 2 turns you will get 6 + 6 = 12 troops. If you miss 1 turn you will get 6 + 10 deferred = 16 troops ;).

[SuicidalSnowman]

Hello all,

I have read through all the posts so far, but some of them I admit went a little over my head. I did, however, have some thoughts about deadbeating:

First of all, even if you are on one territory with an income of 0, I don't see how this is suddenly a problem encouraging deadbeating. I have played in plenty of games where I have been in a position that all but eliminated me from the game. I recently played a game where I was in a position with two territories behind 3 and 3 neutrals. Even with building a stack, it didn't matter, because both my opponents, or whomever was left, would have income far outweighing mine. Even so, I didn't deadbeat, but even with perfect dice and both my opponents playing like idiots, I don't think I ever would have won.

Same thing happens ALL THE TIME in 1v1, one player finds him or herself with only one or two territories locked behind neutrals while the other player collects the bonuses. Some players are very careful and even take their time breaking down the neutrals to finish you off, and it is frustrating, but you don't have to deadbeat.

Even if you were stuck on one territory, with an income of 0, I fail to see how that is any different than when played 1v1 and the other player "holds hostage." You still have no chance to win, and you still are at the mercy of the other players. If a player truly is that weak, someone will finish them off.


The deadbeating debate strikes me as less meritorious. I also don't like to play three player flat rate games, too often they turn into build games. But that doesn't mean I should deadbeat out if I sign up for one and that happens. I personally HATE the implementation of Manual deployment on this site, but that doesn't mean when I start a game with those settings that I automatically deadbeat out.

And finally, if someone wants to deadbeat out because I haven't finished them quick enough, they can go right ahead. I personally know I won't do it if I am losing, and if I am winning, I'll collect my win. I see other concerns with this suggestion, but not deadbeating.

[SuicidalSnowman]

On the numbers poll, I think there needs to be at least 1.

First of all, it addresses the "players will be forced to deadbeat" concern.

Second of all, it will help games from going stale.

Third, since the nature of Risk requires leaving behind one troop, even with perfect dice you need 2 troops to do anything. Therefore, I think you need at least 1 per turn, otherwise you are injuring the game mechanics.

Fourth, taking it from the "what are we simulating" point of view, even if an army is under siege in one territory, perhaps they could recruit a resident who otherwise would abstain to try to break the deadlock.

Fifth, to me CC inherently has income, and so should every game.

[benga]

This setting favors missing turns!

I would play one turn then miss 2 turns to get more armies!

And still would not be falling behind!

Sorry. I don't understand what you say. Could you explain? Maybe I could solve the issue if I know what you are talking about.

The more the troops the less the reinforcements,
so a one point if I am happy with number of reinforcements I just skip a turn!

Even better if someone attacks me!

Lets say I grab 2 or 3 bonuses and see I can't make more w/o some heavy def,
I just stop and let them pile up!

Then come back and make the desired drop

[benga]

Your deploy - 10 troops. Upkeep is 4 troops. If play 2 turns you will get 6 + 6 = 12 troops. If you miss 1 turn you will get 6 + 10 deferred = 16 troops .

Here is the math

[SirSebstar]

Your deploy - 10 troops. Upkeep is 4 troops. If play 2 turns you will get 6 + 6 = 12 troops. If you miss 1 turn you will get 6 + 10 deferred = 16 troops .

Here is the math

wow, this is sooo bad

[OliverFA]

Thanks everybody for your comments.

I had not thougt about deferred troops. But of course, upkeep has to be paid also for deferred troops. Will update the proposal to have it into account.

If things go as planned, I will comment more extensively about your comments. But just wanted to thank everybody for posting.

[SuicidalSnowman]

Your deploy - 10 troops. Upkeep is 4 troops. If play 2 turns you will get 6 + 6 = 12 troops. If you miss 1 turn you will get 6 + 10 deferred = 16 troops .

Here is the math

wow, this is sooo bad

Wait, but I thought deferrals took into account the bonus of that missed turn...

Here is my chart

Miss 1: 3 + 4 = 7
Miss 2: 3 + 2 = 5
Start Turn 3: 3 + 12 deferred

Or else everytime someone secured a large bonus, they would miss the next 2 turns to save up.

Let's say on classic I grab asia and hold it, so I get the bonus.

Next turn, someone breaks my bonus, but I miss the turn. I don't keep my bonus, I lose it, even in the deferral.



So, for upkeep, the same should hold true.

Miss 1: 3 + 4 - 1 = 5
Miss 2: 3 + 2 - 2 = 3
Start Turn 3: 3 -2 + 8 deferred.
Three turn total = 9

Now, if I don't miss the turns.
Turn 1: 3 + 4 - 1 = 5
Turn 2: 3 + 2 - 2 = 3
Start Turn 3: 3 -2 = 1
Three turn total = 9

In the chart, I do 3 territory troops, plus bonus region, minus upkeep.

This does NOT give bonus troops if you follow the math correctly.

[Funkyterrance]

Why make the game more complex?

[Dako]

Why make the game more complex?

Because evolution is an increase of complexity and difficulty every time. This is how things work in our world.

[OliverFA]

Why make the game more complex?

To make the experience more enjoyable and entertaining?