A Large Geographically Neutral Map Proposal

[missy_star]

Map Name: The Ring
Mapmaker(s): missy_starlet
Number of Territories: 144
Special Features: Fully symmetrical about every axis. Will allow for the option of a "fixed" drop start, whereby every player has the exact same starting position as every other player. 144 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 16, 18, 24, allowing for a large number of equal starting positions for multiple multiplayer games. Continents must be 4 territories each to allow the symmetricalness across all axes
What Makes This Map Worthy of Being Made: I am not aware of any map that exists which would allow this specific gameplay.. Each territory is exactly equivalent in strength and weakness to every other territory, so that the only variables are (1) the dice and (2) gameplay. If the site can allow for "neutral" dice gameplay (i.e. attacks and kills occur in a 1-to-1 ratio), this would turn this game into checkers with a Risk gameplay.

The edge territories (inner and outer edges) make up a continent. Orange and purple on the map.

Map Image:
[bigimg]https://i.postimg.cc/nLjjbfNm/119613159-750650669109577-4344285983313849341-n.jpg[/bigimg]

[missy_star]

I'm a migrant from Major Command. I'm not particulary popular there (actually, extremely unpopular). This map proposal got no traction there, not even a single reply. Hopefully you guys see something here that they don't.

[Mokerslag]

Great idea, i like the unique style of gameplay what you propose Will see how far this come Nice job!

[ZaBeast]

When you say everybody would have the same starting positions, you're thinking of a conquest-type map where everyone would start at opposite ends?
Or maybe I'm misunderstanding and you want to assign all territories. If so, do you plan on having any bonuses or would it basically be a huge circus-maximus map with all-directions assaults?

[missy_star]

I'm saying that rather than a random drop, a fixed drop can occur. So that everyone has the same "starting" position, which can mean their territories are scattered all over the map (just like regular risk) but because 144 is divisible by 4 (and 6 and 8 etc.), and the map is symmetrical everywhere, it means everyone has the same number of troops in the same relative positions as every other player. I'm not implying that players start in corners or whatever. I'm saying the DROP will look the same for each player, if played in the fixed drop format. Alternatively, it can be a random drop, just like all other maps.

Bonuses are received for the 4-territory continents. Figure a +2 for each one, or something like that.

[missy_star]

In a 1v1 game, imagine the drop to essentially be a black/white checkerboard, with each player having their troops in the same order/arrangement as their opponent. Extend this to all the divisors of 144, and you can have multiplayer playing in the same manner.

[missy_star]

My concept, is to have the ultimate battle-royale map, where luck is removed, and the outcome is decided purely on gameplay. Given the absence of any random outcomes (in the event of fixed drop and fixed dice), the winner of a game on this map would truly be considered the best Risk player.

[gorehound]

I like this idea, well worth pursuing. Good luck with it.

[Minister X]

...because 144 is divisible by 4 (and 6 and 8 etc.), and the map is symmetrical everywhere, it means everyone has the same number of troops in the same relative positions as every other player.

What about games with 5, 7 or 11 players? These numbers might give you a dilemma. Three can work because there are six rings. Ditto for 9. But 5, 7 and 11 could prove difficult.

[ljex]

...because 144 is divisible by 4 (and 6 and 8 etc.), and the map is symmetrical everywhere, it means everyone has the same number of troops in the same relative positions as every other player.

What about games with 5, 7 or 11 players? These numbers might give you a dilemma. Three can work because there are six rings. Ditto for 9. But 5, 7 and 11 could prove difficult.

I would think the answer would be to have certain "drops" be filled with neutrals (i.e., if you have 7 players and 12 drops 5 of them are filled with neutrals and 7 of them are players drops).

Agree that some of the drop elements need to be figured out overall but think that the concept is really cool and worth exploring.

[MGSteve]

Only thing I can disagree with is the statement that luck is removed. You still have dice, the infamous CC dice with its horrible algorithm. But it seems like a decent concept so go for it.

[missy_star]

>What about games with 5, 7 or 11 players?

You're right. Unless you can find a reasonably small number that is divisible by all numbers 2 through 11, and 24 also, then an egalitarian fixed drop cannot be played for all the multiplayer possibilities on this site. 144 gets most of them. For 5, 7 and 11, the game can be played with a normal (randomized) drop.

>Only thing I can disagree with is the statement that luck is removed.

There is a dice setting at Major Command and I believe Dominating 12 also, where there is no dice. Attacks and kills occur in 1 to 1 ratios. At MC, it's called "fixed force". In "fixed force", there is no dice, and that element of randomness is not present. This dice setting doesn't appear to exist here. If it did, the only element of luck would then be the order of play (which could be eliminated with simultaneous play).

I'm not saying that this game can only be played without randomness. I'm saying there are options to play it that way. The map can still be played in the usual fashion with dice and a randomized drop.

[riskllama]

doughnut world?

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

Since the 1-to-1 dice thing would probably require a bigger programming change to the site than a new map would, probably bets to focus on what's possible already.

A possibility that might be interesting:
• Each ring is a "continent" as well as each "spoke" (for lack of a better term); then you would have players competing over the same territory to get their bonus. (I had thought about trying to make a Venn diagram-inspired map where there would be multiple crossovers that would involve this idea).

[Fewnix]

like it.

[DoomYoshi]

Starting positions would be harder to fix. I'm pretty sure the XML can take a small starting position and then give you multiples of it for less players. So you can make a 12-player start map and then it will assign somebody 2x that for the 6-player map. But there is no way to have a different start-map for 8 players, AFAIK.
Perhaps some of our resident XML experts can look around.

What exactly are the starting map positions for each of the starting# of players?

It would be possible to do in Scenarios, but then you get no players and no points

I like the map concept, but you might need to drop the 'fixed drop' idea due to programming limitations.

[Fuchsia tude]

Starting positions would be harder to fix. I'm pretty sure the XML can take a small starting position and then give you multiples of it for less players. So you can make a 12-player start map and then it will assign somebody 2x that for the 6-player map. But there is no way to have a different start-map for 8 players, AFAIK.
Perhaps some of our resident XML experts can look around.

What exactly are the starting map positions for each of the starting# of players?

It would be possible to do in Scenarios, but then you get no players and no points

I like the map concept, but you might need to drop the 'fixed drop' idea due to programming limitations.

No, that starting position setup is all you need. As mentioned, 144 is divisible by 12, so you can have 12 starting locations of 12 territories each. Set them all arrayed uniformly distributed around the map, with the territories in every continent assigned to four separate starting positions.

Like you say, you can let players spawn with multiple starting positions; you can also set a maximum. I might set a maximum of 3 starting positions per player, so that no one could randomly start controlling any continent if they happen to get a lucky drop (yes, there's only a 1/(11x10x9) = 0.101% chance per player in a three-player game, but still, that would happen every 1 in 330 three-player games; and 1/11x10x9 + (1/11)(1/10)(8/9)(1/8) + (1/11)(9/10)(8/9)(1/8)(1/7) = 0.3319% chance per player in a two-player game, so that would happen every 1 in 150 two-player games). But maybe that is rare enough not to worry about.

With 12-territory starting positions and a 3-starting-position limit:

• 2 players: Each player starts with 36 territories, 72 total, leaving 72 neutral.
• 3 players: Each player starts with 36 territories, 108 total, leaving 36 neutral.
• 4 players: Each player starts with 36 territories, 144 total.
• 5 players: Each player starts with 24 territories, 120 total, leaving 24 neutral.
• 6 players: Each player starts with 24 territories, 144 total.
• 7 players: Each player starts with 12 territories, 84 total, leaving 60 neutral.
• 8 players: Each player starts with 12 territories, 96 total, leaving 48 neutral.
• 9 players: Each player starts with 12 territories, 108 total, leaving 36 neutral.
• 10 players: Each player starts with 12 territories, 120 total, leaving 24 neutral.
• 11 players: Each player starts with 12 territories, 132 total, leaving 12 neutral.
• 12 players: Each player starts with 12 territories, 144 total.

[rockfist]

If you have people start with a number divisible by 3, getting the first turn is a big advantage.