I have played the game RISK for decades now (DISCLAIMER: CC bares coincidental similarity to the game RISK).
One rule that we always played with concerning bonus troops was that the bonus troops had to be placed in the continent of holding only. For instance, if I hold Australia, I can only place the 2 bonus troops in one of the four territories in that continent.
I am not certain if this rule is official or a house rule that just became part of our play style, however I was curious if others have played this way, and whether people would be interested in this option as a feature. For instance when setting up a game, this could be a format similar to fortifications (which is largely based on house rules).
I'm pretty much in favor of any option that affects game play, and I like this one a lot. Especially in conjunction with something less then 'unlimited reinforcement', but it can work with that as well obviously.
Right now, the Cartographers can create maps where the deployment goes directly on a specified territory all the time...I think it may be manageable to make that if a continent is held, the deployment would automatically go on a territory/territories...but it wouldn't be chooseable I don't think.
I don't think I made sense.
=====
As for it being a game play option, I don't know.
--Andy
Last edited by AndyDufresne on Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
HabsNot wrote:Some people argue that it makes for longer games because they are less "wide open".
I argue that too, but as a good thing...
AndyDufresne wrote:Right now, the Cartographers can create maps where the deployment goes directly on a specified territory all the time...I think it may be manageable to make that if a continent is held, the deployment would automatically go on a territory/territories...but it wouldn't be chooseable I don't think.
I don't think I made sense. ===== As for it being a game play option, I don't know. --Andy
Ack, I see what you mean... it's not like it would be an easy fix, XML-wise. Always important when debating the merit of any option.
I don't think it's ever been an official part to any version of the board game. It is a fairly common set of house rules that could be an interesting contribution to the site. I don't know if the time spent to code such a thing would be justified by the amount of people who would use it.
If you want, you could make a thread in the callout forum asking for people who would want to try playing this way. There's no way to guarantee that they will stick to the rule, but that usually isn't a problem.
I agree the coding would be difficult for this. The idea of making the games less wide open and more tactical (i.e. less blitzkriegs from a satellite country) to me seems enjoyable. But sometimes practical implementation is more of an issue, which is likely the case here.
I'll try getting some friends of mine to play this style on a game and see how it goes. Again, it may be hard to do, as it is so easy to accidentally deploy troops without thinking or by normal habit.
why don't you set up a private game, and agree that everyone does that. Place an advert in the call out forum.
Of course you would have to rely on the players being honest, and could cause controvosy, but it would be good to have it if you want to show the mods that it works and is popular.
The best way to do this would be to have multiple deploy phases...
i.e. you get 2 armies in your drop down and you only get shown that continents territories - then once you've done that continent you get another one - until you're onto the last one where all the territories are unlocked for the last one for your cards & your territory count reinforcements...
This topic sent me looking for variants, and other versions of the rules. Sad to say, this was never an official version, though i think we thought it was when I was a kid.
I was surprised to find out the mission card version (which I never much enjoyed) is apparently very popular in Europe.
I did find some interesting variants though... 12 army limit to all territories, various nuclear options, and even a rule for martians in the game. (Basically a form of agressive neutrals) I think that would be a hard version to play, table OR on line.
Anyway, I'd suggest anyone interested do a google search, just to see what is out there.
Last edited by Piestar on Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I realy don't understand people who OBJECT to new game options!! If you don't like a new game option posibility, don't play it. The only reason I can see not to suport a new game option is if it would be to hard to program.
Mr_Adams wrote:I realy don't understand people who OBJECT to new game options!! If you don't like a new game option posibility, don't play it. The only reason I can see not to suport a new game option is if it would be to hard to program.
My sentiments exactly! Well said Mr. Adams. (John Quincy?) Unless there is a legitimate issue with the programing required, I don't see why every reasonable game option doesn't make it to the bottom of Lack's to-do list.
Mr_Adams wrote:I realy don't understand people who OBJECT to new game options!! If you don't like a new game option posibility, don't play it. The only reason I can see not to suport a new game option is if it would be to hard to program.
My sentiments exactly! Well said Mr. Adams. (John Quincy?) Unless there is a legitimate issue with the programing required, I don't see why every reasonable game option doesn't make it to the bottom of Lack's to-do list.
There is a such thing as too many options. It could cause the "Game Finder" and "Start a Game" pages to become very cluttered, as well as the game panels as well when they are listed under "My Games", "Join a Game", or "Game Finder" results. Likewise, because of all of the clutter, it could deter many new players from diving further into the site because of how "confusing" it might look on just the join game screen.
Not to say I don't agree with you. I do, to an extent, but there is some good rationale behind the opposition
hulmey wrote:well i played it this way and i was raised in the UK. So there must have been a version like this LOL
If you find an old version of the game (original game with the wooden pieces), I think this was one of the rules. I grew up playing on my grandfather's board which had the wooden blocks and ovals. I could swear the rules said continent bonuses are to be deployed on the continent held. But again, official or not, this rule seems to be very common among Risk'rs. So I think if it was programmable without much difficulty it would be worth including.
Mr_Adams wrote:I realy don't understand people who OBJECT to new game options!! If you don't like a new game option posibility, don't play it. The only reason I can see not to suport a new game option is if it would be to hard to program.
This would be insanely hard to program, but Lack may have a good idea on how to go about it. I don't.
Found this whilst searching for an unrelated duplicate suggestion ... so excuse the necrobump.
I actually quite like this idea. It definitely increases the strategy/skill element.
And from a programming point of view I am confident that it not be particularly difficult. As an illustration consider the current implementation of deferred armies. The interface changes so that you can only deploy them all on one territory and the code manages perfectly well with keeping these deferred armies separate from the start of turn ones. Similar 'multiple deployment stages' would be straightforward enough for continent bonuses too. And the dropdown list of territories on to which armies could be deployed would be easily modified too. Instead of "all territories owned by player" as currently appears this would simply need to be "all territories owned by player within current bonus continent".
FREE M-E-Mbership and simple rules. Conquer Club - it's not complicated.
random me statistic @ 13 December 2008 - 1336 posts : 232nd most public posts (not counting Tower of Babble) of all time.
