When a team-member withdraws his troops or transfers his troops to his partner, it is obvious that those remaining "soldiers" would offer no resistance. It would be a much more strategic game, also more balanced, if team-members were simply allowed to conquer each other's territories without rolling the dice (or fixing them so that the defending player always loses).
Example. Steve transfers his 2 units from Iceland to his partner in Great Britain, so that his partner can conquer Europe. His partner now has 5 troops on Great Britain and decides to attack remaining unit on Iceland. Logically, troops in Iceland should OFFER NO RESISTANCE, because they would WANT their partner to win. However, game is made in such a way that they do offer resistance and this is not logical.
Solution: Fix the dice so that defending team-member always loses (allows his team-mate to win), or eliminate dice-rolling in such a case altogether.
chetnik wrote:When a team-member withdraws his troops or transfers his troops to his partner, it is obvious that those remaining "soldiers" would offer no resistance. It would be a much more strategic game, also more balanced, if team-members were simply allowed to conquer each other's territories without rolling the dice (or fixing them so that the defending player always loses).
Example. Steve transfers his 2 units from Iceland to his partner in Great Britain, so that his partner can conquer Europe. His partner now has 5 troops on Great Britain and decides to attack remaining unit on Iceland. Logically, troops in Iceland should OFFER NO RESISTANCE, because they would WANT their partner to win. However, game is made in such a way that they do offer resistance and this is not logical.
Solution: Fix the dice so that defending team-member always loses (allows his team-mate to win), or eliminate dice-rolling in such a case altogether.
Word!
At one time there was a suggestion for a new format that entailed the removal of dice rolls completely. Meaning that if I attacked a 5 with an 8 I would advance 3.
I think that would be even better, as it would eliminate the unrealistic bullshit rolls that always occur with the "random" rolls that we currently enjoy.
This is entirely different from eliminating dice alltogether. We are talking about a "Team" which should act as one player. Entire purpose of the idea of a "team" is that they work together as "one". I don't see why this shouldn't be an option. It's a house rule when I play risk with friends because it is logical and makes the game more fair.
Switch button? I think that's a bit out of touch with reality. We'd at least want your own troops to "march" into ally's territory while his own army dismantles or joins you. I think for logistical purposes "dismantlement" might be easier to create in this case.
jefjef wrote:Well why not just have a switch tert button. Click it and BINGO. From red to green.
I wasn't serious. Why benefit from possible mis deploys. I have lost games and won games from these mistakes and friendly troops in the way. Something like this could reward poor strategy.
There would be early game game consequences too based on the drop. It could enable someone grabbing a bonus immediately instead of a few rounds. That would really bring "luck of the drop" into victory lane.
This post was made by jefjef who should be on your ignore list.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
What about if an your team mate is reduced to one territory by the opposition who just misses out on a cash...
The idea here is that you have to gamble to kill your team mate to rescue the cards - if you weren't going to lose any troops - then this wouldn't be a gamble... and thus hand the initiative back to the team that has just lost one of their members...
demonfork wrote:At one time there was a suggestion for a new format that entailed the removal of dice rolls completely. Meaning that if I attacked a 5 with an 8 I would advance 3.
Good to see years of maths lesson have not been wasted on you.
chetnik wrote:When a team-member withdraws his troops or transfers his troops to his partner, it is obvious that those remaining "soldiers" would offer no resistance. It would be a much more strategic game, also more balanced, if team-members were simply allowed to conquer each other's territories without rolling the dice (or fixing them so that the defending player always loses).
Example. Steve transfers his 2 units from Iceland to his partner in Great Britain, so that his partner can conquer Europe. His partner now has 5 troops on Great Britain and decides to attack remaining unit on Iceland. Logically, troops in Iceland should OFFER NO RESISTANCE, because they would WANT their partner to win. However, game is made in such a way that they do offer resistance and this is not logical.
Solution: Fix the dice so that defending team-member always loses (allows his team-mate to win), or eliminate dice-rolling in such a case altogether.
Sounds like a great way to make more multis.
Seriously, teams are already skewed. This would only make it worse.
Nah im against this it wouldnt be more stratigic, it would be less. If you knew your team mate would just let you take the territory all you would have to do is put 2 troops in the territory you are attacking from then you would have an auto win. Without knowing how many tries it will take to defeat your team mate it takes more then 2 troops and thus more stratigy trying to figure out how many you will put in your attackiong territory. make any sense?
yeti_c wrote:What about if an your team mate is reduced to one territory by the opposition who just misses out on a cash...
The idea here is that you have to gamble to kill your team mate to rescue the cards - if you weren't going to lose any troops - then this wouldn't be a gamble... and thus hand the initiative back to the team that has just lost one of their members...
C.
Yeti hit the nail on the head. What if i am in a quads game and me and my teammates have 5 armies each and 5 cards each. I cash my set and eliminate my partners 1 by 1 (knowing i wont lose any armies) cashing over and over and over again until i wipe the board? This is what all team games would turn into unless it was a no spoils game. Just sayin
Any of you guys ever play the Risk game for playstation? Where you could have generals and the outcome of your battles depended upon what kind of attack strategy card you used as compared to the defense strategy card
chetnik wrote:When a team-member withdraws his troops or transfers his troops to his partner, it is obvious that those remaining "soldiers" would offer no resistance. It would be a much more strategic game, also more balanced, if team-members were simply allowed to conquer each other's territories without rolling the dice (or fixing them so that the defending player always loses).
Example. Steve transfers his 2 units from Iceland to his partner in Great Britain, so that his partner can conquer Europe. His partner now has 5 troops on Great Britain and decides to attack remaining unit on Iceland. Logically, troops in Iceland should OFFER NO RESISTANCE, because they would WANT their partner to win. However, game is made in such a way that they do offer resistance and this is not logical.
Solution: Fix the dice so that defending team-member always loses (allows his team-mate to win), or eliminate dice-rolling in such a case altogether.
okay so theoretically i accidentally attack me teamates stack of 15... i wipe completely and i only have 2... in that retrospect i think its a bad idea..
In my opinion this is a bad idea, the thing that will actually be eliminated is strategy. Bad players should be punished for butchering their teammate for a bonus. That punishment is losing armies whilst attacking.
Edit:
Phatscotty wrote:Any of you guys ever play the Risk game for playstation? Where you could have generals and the outcome of your battles depended upon what kind of attack strategy card you used as compared to the defense strategy card
Yeah, that was my only experience of Risk before CC. I was pretty awesome at the playstation game. I thought it was fun too, if a little short/small. Loved the attack defense card thing. I would really like to play that system again.
I like the general idea of this but it does seem that some problems arise. Maybe a better idea would be to allow teammates as a reinforcement to give their countries up. If that would even be possible to code.
If it's unlimited reinforce I would say in this situation still only allow one hand over country. And since its not someone conquering the country if a player gives up their last country to their teammate the cards would just go away?
