1 vs 1

by **coolpsp** on Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:21 pm

yes i know this is open to multi's but i believe this is a good idea.

so you could have 1 ffriend vs another but to make this more succesful i think the winner should get no points and the looser looses none so there is no benefit for multi's

so what do you think?

by **AK_iceman** on Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:33 pm

Check the to-do list before posting a new suggestion.

Two Person Play Option is already pending.

by **Zackismet** on Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:35 pm

Quick question- when the 2 player game is released, how will the territories be divided?

As of now the maps divide territories so everyone gets the same amount, leaving extras as "neutral".

However, in a two-player game, there will only be one extra territory, if any. The player that goes first will have a substantial and unfair advantage in their bonus if they use it wisely to lower the other player's bonus. The game will simply be a coin flip, whoever goes first wins- no skill.

by **hecter** on Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:37 pm

What are you talking about? I think that that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

This is at Zack btw.

by **Aries** on Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:48 pm

I also find that a bit dumb, cuz what if you had bad luck, or you make a mistake, or next turn he takes over some of your countries?

by **Wisse** on Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:49 pm

i agree with hecter

by **Zackismet** on Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:03 pm

on the smallest map, the first player will get 5 (from 16 territories)- they could easily take a small continent or remove 2 of the other player's territories with those. Then when that other player gets 4, they -might- be able to take 2 back, but it's very unlikely. I don't know about you guys- but i hardly ever win a 6v3 after a 7v3. Anyway- the player who went first, since there are no other players to focus on- will continue to dominate in that fashion, gaining more territories that the other player has any hope of getting back unless they're lucky with cards or rolls.

On the largest map the first player will get 18 armies... i don't even need to say how much of an advantage they could get with that.

That other shitty Risk online club (Grand Strategy) already has 1v1 and they had the same problem until they restricted the maximum amount of territories one person could own in a game at the beginning.

sooooooo stfu hecter.

by **Wisse** on Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:05 am

Zackismet wrote:on the smallest map, the first player will get 5 (from 16 territories)- they could easily take a small continent or remove 2 of the other player's territories with those. Then when that other player gets 4, they -might- be able to take 2 back, but it's very unlikely. I don't know about you guys- but i hardly ever win a 6v3 after a 7v3. Anyway- the player who went first, since there are no other players to focus on- will continue to dominate in that fashion, gaining more territories that the other player has any hope of getting back unless they're lucky with cards or rolls.

On the largest map the first player will get 18 armies... i don't even need to say how much of an advantage they could get with that.

That other shitty Risk online club (Grand Strategy) already has 1v1 and they had the same problem until they restricted the maximum amount of territories one person could own in a game at the beginning.

sooooooo stfu hecter.

every ehard of world 2.1? you get 50+ countrys at the beginning so a 100 bonus? something like that the one that begins win

by **alex_white101** on Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:08 am

yah too much would be decided on the drop, maybe noone could get any continent bonuses for the first say 2 rounds?

by **RobinJ** on Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:30 am

This is not how 1v1 is played idiots!

You actually have yourself, your opponent and 4 neutral armies (each a different colour) - all the territories divided out equally as possible between the 6 groups. The aim of the game is to "bribe" the neutral armies to attack your opponent under your command along side your own. However, they can turn on you at any time (roll dice for it) and become neutral again, or even switch to your opponent's side. Anyone understand? Get the classic RISK game and you will see what I mean in the instructions manual - it is not simply 1v1 with just yourself and your opponent there!

by **dominationnation** on Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:45 am

I think it should be a regular game of 1v1 but for the first 2 rounds you only get 3 troops no matter what

by **Zackismet** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:34 pm

Wisse wrote:
every ehard of world 2.1? you get 50+ countrys at the beginning so a 100 bonus? something like that the one that begins win

yes... you dumbass. for every 3 territories you get 1 more army. Each player would have at least 54 territories ( i can't remember the exact number). They would then recieve at least 18 armies, not including bonuses from countries they may initially own.

So wisse, stfu as well.

by **alster** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:46 pm

I find this to be an excellent idea. Two players, even split of territories. All I need to do then is to join as no. 2 for all such freestyle games set up by privates and the points will flow like cheap wine in a Mexican whore house. Cannot wait!

by **AK_iceman** on Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:50 pm

alstergren wrote:I find this to be an excellent idea. Two players, even split of territories. All I need to do then is to join as no. 2 for all such freestyle games set up by privates and the points will flow like cheap wine in a Mexican whore house. Cannot wait!

You crack me up sometimes.... especially when the joke has some truth behind it. :wink:

Edit: Nice signature, I think I've seen that quote somewhere before.

1 vs 1

is it a good or bad idea

1 vs 1

Who is online