Talossan RISK game

[Glüc da Dhi]

Did I? (Im not counting capital lands, because the rules clearly list that as an addition to normal reinforcement)

[Alèx Soleighlfred]

Yup, you can. That's precisely what Ian did.Well if you're planning a one-direction blitzkrieg, it doesn't have a lot of sense to distribute your units

[Ian Plätschisch]

Oct 5, 2016 13:11:42 GMT -6 Alèx Soleighlfred said:

Well if you're planning a one-direction blitzkrieg, it doesn't have a lot of sense to distribute your units

Should I be worried?

[Glüc da Dhi]

Will this step most likely be resolved today or tomorrow?

[Ian Plätschisch]

Oct 5, 2016 15:45:08 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

Will this step most likely be resolved today or tomorrow?

Sorry, I haven't got my moves in yet because school and sleep have prevented me from doing so. I am getting them in soon though

[Alèx Soleighlfred]

Oct 5, 2016 15:45:08 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

Will this step most likely be resolved today or tomorrow?

Im not sure. This time it might take longer so don't haste.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Just to give feedback: In this version of the game, due to the capitals, it is pretty easy to wipe out a player.

This turn, if I had not done a capitalshift, I would have been able to wipe out Gluc.

This turn, because he already did his capital shift, he is able to wipe me out.

If he wipes me out, I won't be mad... This is the game, but I will be disapointed. I was looking forward for a long strategy filled game...

I feel like there are a few main problems that we could address for the 3rd strategy game we play (next is SmallWorld for Talossa, Small Talossa... I hope you all participate).

1 ) The fact that we get units not on our number of controlled land, but on the borders. I feel like ALL land should be counted.
2 ) The fact that we get probably WAY too many units. It strongly encourages agression over defense. It's a good thing for a fast game, but (see #3)
3 ) there are way too many land areas for a quick game. I built my strategy for a long term fight, and might be wiped out because I underestimated the advanges of a cross like expansion.
4 ) The only goals that is feasible is wiping out opponent.

But Marti, isn't that the game? Well, no... My own goal was to conquer Ataturk, and then, build up my defenses. I had no initial plans to go south of the "Wall" other than perhaps to increase my capacity to defend myself.

One of the things that is important in modern game design is to allow players to set their own goals.

Here are some examples:

1 ) In Race for the Galaxy, you have many ways to make points and build your power. You can focus on the military, on the "cost 6" development, on building your tableau as fast as possible, on mining, etc..
2 ) In Five Tribes, you can focus on any of the 5 tribes, on the genies, on the camels, on the resources, etc...
3 ) In Stone age, you have multiple ways to reach your objectives
etc...

Even in traditional Risk, there are multiple strategies.

My father always played the Carded Oceania strategies: conquer Oceania, stockpile on the one land in Asia that is the port for Oceania, and conquer one land per turn to get a card. Attack 1 border, pull-back. It meant that it took FOREVER to reach him, doing reinforcements instead of conquest.

It seemed unbeatable until I realized we didn't have to conquer back the lands he left behind around Siam. I could deprive him of easy targets... meanwhile, I pilled up elshwere and he would leave me an easy trail back in.

I've seen choas players in Risk, who never try to reconcile a single territory. They are annoying because they block control of continents.

I've seen spearers, who form a single line into enemy territory, making it harder to retake.

Well, spearer is the only workable strategy in this case....


I am not mad, and I am not saying this because I might be wiped out. I am trying to offer constructive feedback.

I do hope I survive, if only to be able to test other options on how to survive this game.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

If it's not too late, I might offer revised orders to try a new survival strategy.

[Alèx Soleighlfred]

Of course it is not too late. I accept them and put you last in the queue.

I have very busy day today, alas, I'm sorry I can't reply right now. It's good that we have such a thoughtful player as you, able to find the bugs and hinches in the gameplay! I really appreciate that.

I will resolve Turn 3 next morning, count the Force Stacks, and after that I ask you to take over me as the Gamemaster. Is that possible?

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Oct 6, 2016 8:21:21 GMT -6 Alèx Soleighlfred said:

Of course it is not too late. I accept them and put you last in the queue. :)

I have very busy day today, alas, I'm sorry I can't reply right now. It's good that we have such a thoughtful player as you, able to find the bugs and hinches in the gameplay! I really appreciate that.

I will resolve Turn 3 next morning, count the Force Stacks, and after that I ask you to take over me as the Gamemaster. Is that possible?

thanks for the compliment!

I am approaching this game as if it was a playtest.

I will try my best to judge like you would, but, I have one question:

Can I allow a player who is eliminated to restart a new game in a territory of MY choosing as GM, with the same starting location?

Why my choosing?

Because I would pick an area far from the other players and the original player's location.

For example, if I get wiped out, I might start in Florencia, far from the North.

[Alèx Soleighlfred]

i think that's possible.

[Ian Plätschisch]

I was thinking more about the nature of "all-in" battles, and realized there are some more problems with it.

Imagine that Country A has two lands each with 20 troops. Country B attacks one of these lands with 25 troops, and, due to the laws of probability, almost certainly wins. Country B then attacks the other land, and again almost certainly wins.

Now, 25 troops have wiped out 40 troops, and took absolutely no losses! On top of that, Country B took bounty troops!

The obvious solution to this is to stockpile all of your troops onto a few lands. However, this does not make for very compelling strategy, since one option is so clearly superior to the other.

A possible remedy to this is to take out the dice entirely and have 1-for-1 kills (and possibly 3-for-2 kills or some other ratio in the case of a stronghold). This is but one suggestion, though.

I also agree with mpf that all lands should be counted for reinforcements (though I would be open to an explanation if you have one). I don't think, however, that reinforcement levels are too high and encourage attack; if the number of troops were divided in three, the proportions when attacking would remain exactly the same, so it shouldn't have any effect. Having a lot of troops is handy for quickly expanding, though, which is very helpful given the large number of lands on the map.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Oct 6, 2016 15:40:01 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

I was thinking more about the nature of "all-in" battles, and realized there are some more problems with it.

Imagine that Country A has two lands each with 20 troops. Country B attacks one of these lands with 25 troops, and, due to the laws of probability, almost certainly wins. Country B then attacks the other land, and again almost certainly wins.

Now, 25 troops have wiped out 40 troops, and took absolutely no losses! On top of that, Country B took bounty troops!

The obvious solution to this is to stockpile all of your troops onto a few lands. However, this does not make for very compelling strategy, since one option is so clearly superior to the other.

A possible remedy to this is to take out the dice entirely and have 1-for-1 kills (and possibly 3-for-2 kills or some other ratio in the case of a stronghold). This is but one suggestion, though.

I also agree with mpf that all lands should be counted for reinforcements (though I would be open to an explanation if you have one). I don't think, however, that reinforcement levels are too high and encourage attack; if the number of troops were divided in three, the proportions when attacking would remain exactly the same, so it shouldn't have any effect. Having a lot of troops is handy for quickly expanding, though, which is very helpful given the large number of lands on the map.

My main problems with the number of troops would be fixed by higher losses for attackers...

As for attacks, why not a ratio attack like in wargames?

A table which shows the damage you do depending on your ratio of units.

The defender also rolls on the inverse ratio.

Damage is resolved, we repeat until one side is wiped out.

1:1 would be something like:

6: kill 50% of your number of units (you have 10, you kill 5 enemies)
5: kill 25%
4: kill 10%
1-3, no effect

2:1 would be better odd, etc...

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Here is what I propose:

Roll	Inferior Forces	1:1	3:2	2:1	3:1	4:1
8 (6 on SH)	200% Damage	Total Destruction	Total Destruction	Total Destruction	Total Destruction	Total Destruction
7 (5 on SH)	100% Damage	Total Destruction	Total Destruction	Total Destruction	Total Destruction	Total Destruction
6 (4 on SH)	50% Damage	50% Damage	Total Destruction	Total Destruction	Total Destruction	Total Destruction
5 (3 on SH)	25% Damage	25% Damage	50% Damage	Total Destruction	Total Destruction	Total Destruction
4 (2 on SH)	No Effect	10% Damage	25% Damage	50% Damage	Total Destruction	Total Destruction
3 (1 on SH)	No Effect	No Effect	10% Damage	25% Damage	25% Damage	Total Destruction
2	No Effect	No Effect	No Effect	10% Damage	10% Damage	10% Damage
1	No Effect	No Effect	No Effect	No Effect	No Effect	No Effect

I know, the table looks weird, but at 4:1, 25% destruction IS Total destruction... And at inferior forced, 100% of YOUR forces as damage of your enemy is still low

In short:

If a force of 13 attacks a force of 5, you get a 2:1 for the attacked and an Inferior force for the defender.

Round 1: Both roll a 3.

Attacker causes 25% of 13 in damage, or 3. Defender causes 0 (no effect).

Round 2: We are now 13 VS 2.

Defenders roll a 6! Wow! attackers rolls a 2.

attackers causes 10% of 13, or 1., Defenders causes 50% of 2, or 1.

Round 3: We are now 12 VS 1.

Defender rolls a 1, Attackers rolls a 5.

Combat ends, attacker lost 1 total unit.

PS: If both lose ALL of their units, Defender wins with 1 remaining unit.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

On a 5 or 6, you always cause damage.
On a 1 you never do, and with a 2 you either miss, or cause minimal damage (10% of your numbers). Of course, at 30 VS 2, you still win in a single round...

If you are attacking in higher number, you hit on 4-5-6 and the defender on only 5-6.

If you are 50% bigger, you hit on 3-4-5-6. If you are twice the size, you hit on everything but 1!

A Stronghold means you hit on 3-4-5-6.

BUT, if you have say, 5 units, a 6 will give you 10 of damage! That's HUGE!