Page 1 of 1
mission risk
Posted:
Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:10 amby cheerios rule
Here is a new type of risk. Everyone automatically gets a card. On the card is a mission. The first person to finish a mission wins the game. a mission could be kill a player or conquer asia and europe and hold it for 3 turns.
Posted:
Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:11 amby AndyDufresne
A
Mission Cards Option is currently 'Pending.'
--Andy
f
Posted:
Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:19 amby dugcarr1
ONLY ON WORLD MAP
Posted:
Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:30 amby AK_iceman
dugcarr1 wrote:ONLY ON WORLD MAP
I would actually prefer it for every map. Makes it more interesting.
Posted:
Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:55 amby hitandrun
'Mission Risk' was only invented to make the game quicker. Seeing as the games here last for days anyway, and still would with missions, what's the point?
Also mission cards make the game very unfair, I for one would not play 'Mission CC'
Posted:
Tue Oct 24, 2006 11:20 amby Blitzaholic
it could be offered as a choice, not you must play it only, offer as an option only, for those that want to, well they can create those games, for those that do not, well, this is ok as well
Posted:
Tue Oct 24, 2006 11:53 amby qeee1
Better things to be working on...
Posted:
Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:44 pmby Hoff
I think its a great a idea, it would add another level to CC that would improve the site.
Posted:
Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:51 pmby Knight of Orient
its a good idea, but should definitely be kept as an option when game is created.
Posted:
Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:09 pmby hitandrun
The beauty of CC is it's simplicity. If there are too many options it'll end up being like Landgrab or W@W, and we definatly don't want that! We already have fog of war in the pipeline, any more and CC will lose what makes it great.
Posted:
Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:34 pmby KoolBak
Opinions...we all have em! I like mission risk as an option and think any add'l options make the site better.
No matter what changes occur (and I have seen quite a few), somebody's gonna whine.
Keep up the awesome work Lack!!
Posted:
Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:04 pmby lackattack
Some maps have single-territory continents. It wouldn't be very fair if holding 1 country was your mission, now would it?
I think if we have missions it should always be to eliminate someone, like paranoia at W@W.
Then you have an issue with deadbeats. What if your target is auto-kicked? This may not be a problem soon enough though... lately I've been thinking that when we have a SkipTurn/Vacation button, we can have auto-skip instead of auto-kick (which of course would require limiting the missed armies multiplyer).
Posted:
Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:37 pmby vic
what is w@w?
Posted:
Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:46 pmby AK_iceman
vic wrote:what is w@w?
World @ War
Posted:
Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:29 pmby Herakilla
lackattack wrote:Some maps have single-territory continents. It wouldn't be very fair if holding 1 country was your mission, now would it?
I think if we have missions it should always be to eliminate someone, like paranoia at W@W.
Then you have an issue with deadbeats. What if your target is auto-kicked? This may not be a problem soon enough though... lately I've been thinking that when we have a SkipTurn/Vacation button, we can have auto-skip instead of auto-kick (which of course would require limiting the missed armies multiplyer).
in real mission risk if you do not kill your target then you have to get like 24 territories of your choice
woot i got to quote lack!
Posted:
Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:35 pmby Evil Semp
In real Risk isn't that mission 24 countries with 2 armies on each. Also some of the missions are holding 2 continents.
Posted:
Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:35 amby KoolBak
The risk II cd has all the real missions and yes, should your original mission be unattainable, it switches as indicated (2 armies ea on 24 [contiguous?] countries). Scarus is a big Risk II guy; I bet he has access tot he list of original missions.
Posted:
Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:09 amby hitandrun
KoolBak wrote:The risk II cd has all the real missions and yes, should your original mission be unattainable, it switches as indicated (2 armies ea on 24 [contiguous?] countries). Scarus is a big Risk II guy; I bet he has access tot he list of original missions.
New missions:
Hasbro wrote:There are 28 possible missions, but they are divided into just seven types: missions that require you to:
* control specific continents or a certain number of continents or territories;
* conquer a certain number of territories in a single turn;
* make one or three successful invasions across water;
* gain a certain number of reinforcements in a single turn;
* have more units or territories than other players;
* take a territory from each opponent;
* destroy 12 or 15 enemy units in a single turn.
Original missions:
Random Risk FAQ wrote:
2.2.1.1 What are the possible missions?
There are 14 (only 12 in the 1998 US edition) different missions, as follows:
i) Kill a certain colour. There are 6 of these, one for each colour. If fewer than 6 colours are going to be used in the game then the cards corresponding to the unused colours are removed from the deck before missions are given out. (This is quite clearly stated in at least some versions of the rules, and failing to do so doesn't make much sense.) If you draw your own colour, then your mission changes to mission (iv).
ii) Conquer some combination of continents. There are 6 of these:
Conquer Asia and South America;
Conquer Asia and Africa;
Conquer North America and Africa;
Conquer North America and Australasia;
Conquer Europe and South America and a 3rd continent of your choice [this mission is omitted from 1998 US edition];
Conquer Europe and Australasia and a 3rd continent of your choice [this mission is omitted from 1998 US edition].
iii) Occupy 18 territories with at least 2 armies in each territory.
iv) Occupy 24 territories (no restriction to 2 or more armies in each).
Posted:
Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:13 amby moz976
Yeah I like the new mission cards. It gives more variety to mission risk and in my opinion is a little more difficult. In my experience with the old mission risk who ever got the conquer and occupy 18 countries with at least 2 armies almost always won.
Posted:
Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:17 amby hitandrun
That is precisely why I don't like mission risk; there is always going to be an easier mission. There is already enough chance in the game, with dice and random deployment, without someone winning like that!
Posted:
Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:05 amby KoolBak
Well thanks for posting those anyhow! If the decision is made to eventually implement, Lack will have some good info there.....
Posted:
Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:07 pmby hitandrun
Well, if CC is to get mission cards I hope we can all do some work to create a mission system that is fairer than 'mission risk'.
Posted:
Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:27 pmby RobinJ
I was thinking about board game Mission Risk where you have 4 different missions. Could sets of missions be put together in this way. It might make it fairer too.
Posted:
Wed Oct 25, 2006 5:37 pmby Herakilla
ive played with the new mission cards, they ROCK!!!! lol my friends hate them though
i got south america in early game while my friends fought for australia and one of kmy missions was to hold a continent for one turn so thats one down.
my next mission was to make a successfull attack over sea and i went from alaska to kamchatka to do that.
by now one of my friends was dead and the other one had australia africa and europe. he was about to win but i completed my last mission, barely. it was to kill 15 enemy units in one turn. when i killed my 15th unit i only had one army left to attack with! lol
all in all those mission cards nabbed victory out of the jaws of defeat and not a moment too soon!
Great idea!
Posted:
Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:22 amby MonkeyRex
I really like this idea. Someone said it was introduced to make the game quicker - I disagree. With missions it isn't so obvious who's in the lead. Maybe the guy with 100 men must take Europe where he has no men,b ut the player with 20 men is working to kill off the player with 6 men. It adds a fun new dimention to the game. A clear cut YES from me
