the next forum risk

[Zekamalikyd]

what would you like in the next forum risk?

here's my list

• 2v1's, 2v2's / joint attacks
• sea expansion with no limitations (no pre-made routes and being able to do it from the start
• bombing
• venator plz

[Zekamalikyd]

Bombing is a mechanic that makes the game slower and more tedious. Sea expansion with no limitation is overpowered and unrealistic.

k, not the limitations you decided would be nice like you can only expand through certain route, and you can't do it in the first 3 turns
bombing would serve to decrease the attack/defend score by 5% and would could only be used 5 times and you have to wait 4 turns to bomb again

[CommieBuffalo]

Maybe if two countries join together the two players become Generals and they thus have two actions each round, one more each player. Maybe divide the big country based on what it was before so each one has a "Province" with own army under its command.

[Zekamalikyd]

Maybe if two countries join together the two players become Generals and they thus have two actions each round, one more each player. Maybe divide the big country based on what it was before so each one has a "Province" with own army under its command.

wouldn't that be the same as having 2 separate countries? i do like the idea but it's basically the same

[VladVP]

• The ability to help your allies out in battles, without having to neighbour their enemies. (But maybe just neigbour your allies?)
• A better tech-tree where you, for example, get bonus defence or attack points or increased maximum expansion roll or increased minimum expansion roll, instead of useless abilities like bombing or building
• Unions, which basically give two countries the same colour. I mean, why not? The other Vlad is all wild to get this implemented.
• Maybe sea provinces, to simulate maritime power distribution? So, for example, you can choose to expand into, and attack sea provinces, at the same time that you're attacking or expanding on land. This could be a good way to get over the sea.

[VladVP]

[*]Unions, which basically give two countries the same colour. I mean, why not? The other Vlad is all wild to get this implemented.

Me, PABH, Shojump, Buffalo and Nufan join the game, we make an union and proceed to steamroll anyone.
It's simply a horridly overpowered mechanic.

I meant that the colour of each countries who enter the union changes to the union colour. (Or maybe a shade of it! o.O)
Nothing else. It would only have de jure meaning.

And also, alliances where all members are neigbours would steamroll everyone in the same way... UNLESS of course we restrict how much allies can help each other...

[CommieBuffalo]

Maybe if two countries join together the two players become Generals and they thus have two actions each round, one more each player. Maybe divide the big country based on what it was before so each one has a "Province" with own army under its command.

wouldn't that be the same as having 2 separate countries? i do like the idea but it's basically the same

It means we could have an ending with a single Empire winning instead of having only two man standing and forcing them to fight over. That way, if there are, let's say, 3 countries in the end, and they are all allies, they could merge forming an Empire and insta-ending the game.

[Zekamalikyd]

Maybe if two countries join together the two players become Generals and they thus have two actions each round, one more each player. Maybe divide the big country based on what it was before so each one has a "Province" with own army under its command.

wouldn't that be the same as having 2 separate countries? i do like the idea but it's basically the same

It means we could have an ending with a single Empire winning instead of having only two man standing and forcing them to fight over. That way, if there are, let's say, 3 countries in the end, and they are all allies, they could merge forming an Empire and insta-ending the game.

deathmatch would be more interesting >:

[VladVP]

wouldn't that be the same as having 2 separate countries? i do like the idea but it's basically the same

It means we could have an ending with a single Empire winning instead of having only two man standing and forcing them to fight over. That way, if there are, let's say, 3 countries in the end, and they are all allies, they could merge forming an Empire and insta-ending the game.

deathmatch would be more interesting >:

Then force victorious empires to split up, as they win.

[Shojump]

For me the mechanichs for the V6 are good, with sea routes and without bombing. It makes the game faster, dynamic and harder (you should think where to have your capital and stuff like that).
Overpowered countries are just illogical for this game which is about strategy, thing I see you dont really get vlad.

Maybe we should use the conquered capitals like something to add to the battles equation. I mean defeating a country can be really hard and maybe we should have a "headquarter" or something like that where the conquered capital is and give the player some extra % of battle force.

Or maybe add something like how much far you are from your capital your effectivity is lower and you need to take another countries capitals and use them as repeaters of your battle power.

Dont allow that capital changing, you have one and that's it if you lose it you should have played better.

[Fleischgeruch]

Unions - no, extremely OP, practically unbeatable, destroys whole point of game unless coupled with some significant disadvantages.
Global sea expansion - no, it can be as absurd as going from new york to sidney in 1 turn while some poor bastard can't go from ireland to scotland because he's unlucky.
Empires - no, Deathmatch - yes pls.
2v1, 2v2, anything that's not 1v1 no, see Unions.
Bombing - maybe if it would be highly insignificant, like 2% combat score reduction, and bombing country has to border enemy.
Tech tree - no, makes game too complex and tedious to do all the math for every player. Everyone hates math.
Everything else - no pls.
Now listen to this useful shit:
- Make diplomacy official, introduce things like Alliances and NAPs, with penalties for breaking them (like unable to war 1 round after breaking alliance, or some -x% score)
- Do NOT expand in a single line. Enforce 2 tile-wide minimum during normal expansion, 3 tile-wide minimum when conquering territories.
- No trading of territories between countries that don't border, and don't allow capital trading.
- No people who are known by the community as dumb faggots allowed.
- Sea expansion is easier but less rewarding (eg. min. roll of 3 but every successful one gives only 1 terr.)
- Since a country can just surrender and its capital disappears, make every extra controlled capital more rewarding, maybe +5% combat score.
- and STICK to the damn suggestions that you've accepted

[Zekamalikyd]

bombing would kinda help, you bomb a country, its score gets reduced, becomes easier to conquer said country which would make it disappear faster
which should make the game a tiny bit faster
that said, i don't get how you say it makes the game slower

also, i guess the sea expansion could have some sort of "effective range"

and i guess we can have rules for unions, like only smaller countries can unite, or balance them out, like take 20% of the union's score

[VladVP]

Global sea expansion - no, it can be as absurd as going from new york to sidney in 1 turn while some poor bastard can't go from ireland to scotland because he's unlucky.

That's why I suggested dividing the sea up into territories, as to create two separate forms of military power. That would – first and foremost – make sense when compared to the real world.

Tech tree - no, makes game too complex and tedious to do all the math for every player. Everyone hates math.

So basic addition and modification of parameters is complex and tedious? gg fleisch

Everything else - no pls.

So you're saying no to something that you haven't heard or seen yet?

- Make diplomacy official, introduce things like Alliances and NAPs, with penalties for breaking them (like unable to war 1 round after breaking alliance, or some -x% score)

I disagree with this one. It would be VERY unrealistic. Where would that inability to attack come from in real life?

- Do NOT expand in a single line. Enforce 2 tile-wide minimum during normal expansion, 3 tile-wide minimum when conquering territories.

I actually like this idea. Agreed.

- No trading of territories between countries that don't border, and don't allow capital trading.

Agree as well.

- No people who are known by the community as dumb faggots allowed.

But how and who is supposed to go around and label people as unworthy of participating in forum risk?

- Since a country can just surrender and its capital disappears, make every extra controlled capital more rewarding, maybe +5% combat score.

Maybe it's a better idea to let their capital be after they've surrendered? I mean, an entire city or whatever can't just disappear all at once, can it?

- and STICK to the damn suggestions that you've accepted

We will stab you in your sleep, if you don't, Zeka.

[Zekamalikyd]

i probably won't make the next forum risk
i'm extremely lazy
you would have weekly updates
i just made this thread so kmaj (or ven (or anyone who wants to make the next forum risk)) would have an idea of what to add to (or delete from) past forum risks.

- and STICK to the damn suggestions that you've accepted

We will stab you in your sleep, if you don't, Zeka.

kmaj accepted my 2v1/2v2 suggestion. didn't make it to the actual game.
guessing that's directed to him.

[Fleischgeruch]

So basic addition and modification of parameters is complex and tedious? gg fleisch

I'm not saying it's impossible, just makes the game less fun (yes, tedious). I'm not sure if you or your boyfriend know of this thing called strategy, but if you did it properly and if we had many factors affecting score, you'd spend a few hours a day calculating doing the math for all the probable outcomes. Now it takes only minutes.

So you're saying no to something that you haven't heard or seen yet?

No you moron, just that what has already been said.

I disagree with this one. It would be VERY unrealistic. Where would that inability to attack come from in real life?

If you played any real man's strategy games (which are by the way more realistic than forum risk) you would know that betraying agreements with other countries reduces your country's stability and reduces the happiness of your loyal citizens. That in turn can have many outcomes, including less people willing to enter army service OR if we're talking medieval here, fight less effectively in battles due to lower morale.

But how and who is supposed to go around and label people as unworthy of participating in forum risk?

Spend time with the community and you'll soon know who the lepers are. The game host has or should have the right to deny entry to any participant or even kick them from the game in progress.

Maybe it's a better idea to let their capital be after they've surrendered? I mean, an entire city or whatever can't just disappear all at once, can it?

It can, in the same way that you destroy every other city in a territory. (hint: city in v6 = capital. Every territory has at least 1 city in theory). People run away, houses demolished, everything burned.

We will stab you in your sleep, if you don't, Zeka.

tbh I'd be much more comfortable with someone like kmaj running the show.