Add a 2 Player Game Option

[madeinchinain85]

Probably has been mentioned before, but...
How about a 1v1 option. I personally think those games are kinda boring, but it might be kind of fun, and be used to settle grudges...

edit: added a poll

[lackattack]

I considered it at some point and never made it available because I felt there was no demand. so, let's hear from the people: who wants 1 v 1 ??

[moz976]

I think it would be cool to have a place for grudge matches. That way people couldn't complain when they lost.

[max is gr8]

you could also have it up to 8 players I've played it on risk 2 so it'll probably work on cc.

[love monky 2]

i think id be kool and you could have the top two ppl play each other and ya 8 would be kool to play with

[SprCobra]

It be cool it would show who is msot skileld as tehre would be no third palyer to get in the way
and evryone can chant FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

[Marvaddin]

Well, I suggested a prohibition of alliances in 3 players games, but people disagree that... But now, I suggest a prohibition of alliances in 2 players games... and I dont expect a NO!!!

[madeinchinain85]

Eh, I guess there isn't much demand for 1v1. On the plus side, you can do an almost like 1v1, by befriending a sponser to set up a private game for you and your opponent who will act as a deadbeat in the game.

[joetalk]

I dont think there is a better way to play risk than one on one!!!!!!
I've been playing that way for years and I believe that it really shows the skill levels of each opponent.

[ZawBanjito]

Wouldn't it make it real easy for people with double accounts to cheat? As it is, the only real notice we get for cheaters is when people notice them in games.

Also, I've never played a 1v1 game before but wouldn't everything depend on the initial placement, i.e. who got more countries in which continents? Wouldn't they be over before cash ins could make any difference? I've no clue, I've never played one. Nor would I.

[Pedronicus]

Here is an idea for spicing up the 1 v 1 game.

3 armies (but 1 is neutral)

what about that?

[Marvaddin]

This neutral player already is an option in the Risk "1" game for computer. And he doesnt attack, but he deploys some troops each turn.

[lackattack]

Wouldn't it make it real easy for people with double accounts to cheat? As it is, the only real notice we get for cheaters is when people notice them in games.

Very good point ZawBanjito! Now you have me thinking 1 v 1 should be out of the question because a multi can easily inflate his/her score.

[dagreatbroomhead]

isn't it already as easy to do that with 3 accounts?

[moz976]

as demonstrated by our first captain yes it is.

[madeinchinain85]

isn't it already as easy to do that with 3 accounts?

agreed, given 1v1 makes it easier in some cases, 3 way also increases the gains. I don't think 1v1 will make it any much easier for cheaters

[love monky 2]

ya it wouldnt make it any easier just add a new leavel of fun to the game

[ZawBanjito]

Well, how about this? Make 1v1 games, but make them points free, with no affect on ranking?

I just can't understand how it wouldn't make it easier for multis to game the system. As far as I can see, every single multi caught so far has been caught because someone played with them and got suspicious. That's the main point.

There's numerous ways to game the system... what if I'm about to slip below 1000 points and become a private again (a situation that currently concerns me)? A quick 1v1 with my multi and I've got 20 points. Heck, you don't need a multi... I could talk to my friend who's a cool guy and'll roll over for me. I'd do the same for him. There's no third player to throw a spanner in the works, to complain about secret alliances, or maybe (talk about annoying) win. You create 1v1 games and you're basically giving people a quick, easy and largely unnoticeable - because who has the time? - way to get free points.

[oman]

1v1 ruins a lot of the strategy