4 Vs. 4 Option

by **eye84free** on Wed May 10, 2006 2:17 am

instead of just a trip. game how about the option of 4 on 4 team play only.

by **moz976** on Wed May 10, 2006 7:17 am

I don't know if I like this idea. With 8 people on the board it would be way to crowded and would probably take a lot to program.

by **Derwiddle** on Wed May 10, 2006 7:24 am

Ditto that, it could get a bit hectic. Not to mention there have never been 8 players in a real riskboard anyway. It's always been 6.

by **Black Jack** on Wed May 10, 2006 7:32 am

It's always been 6.

Uuuhhhh, I suggest some research :wink:

Risk variants, including online versions, with more than 6 players... are common as Hades.

More than 6 players are permitted in RiskII... the authorized sequel.

Lack stated, in another thread, that upping the number of players... is no big deal.

The problem right now, is that no suitable maps exist at CC... at this time.
[/quote]

by **Derwiddle** on Wed May 10, 2006 7:35 am

Really? I was just thinking of the Classic risk board. :shock:

by **wacicha** on Wed May 10, 2006 7:52 am

the main problem at this time would be 1 team playing before the other teamthe first team would have the definite advantage

by **UTGreen** on Wed May 10, 2006 2:00 pm

Yeah, things would swing so wildly between teams turns that i don't think it would be terribly fun or strategic... then again I'm not that big of team games in any capacity. Maybe if you rotated turns so teams didn't go all at once? Still, people complain about waiting around on a 6 person game, why make the move into 8 without some compelling reason.

by **onbekende** on Wed May 10, 2006 2:01 pm

other idea, when one looses, no big deal

by **Haydena** on Wed May 10, 2006 2:11 pm

This is why people have been making larger maps.

by **eye84free** on Wed May 10, 2006 2:57 pm

if it was 8....space it...2 go on a team at a time. meaning 2 on one team plays the 2 on the othe so on and so fourth...

by **eye84free** on Wed May 10, 2006 3:03 pm

just one of those crazy ideas...

by **kingwaffles** on Wed May 10, 2006 5:24 pm

I think it could definetly work and be a lot of fun, it would just require one of the larger maps such as London Postcode, Freakshow's gimongous map, or THE world map. It wouldn't work out any of the maps we have now.

by **eye84free** on Wed May 10, 2006 5:32 pm

UR RIGHT...THE BIGGER THE BETTER.

by **corner G** on Thu May 11, 2006 4:22 pm

I think it's a cool idea. even if some people dont like it, others mite

by **Blitzkreig** on Fri May 12, 2006 3:58 am

I get frustrated enough playing with one deadbeat let alone having to deal with three.

by **agarvin** on Fri May 12, 2006 8:58 pm

Derwiddle wrote:Ditto that, it could get a bit hectic. Not to mention there have never been 8 players in a real riskboard anyway. It's always been 6.

The classic board just has 6 continents. But there are at least a couple maps here that have 8 continents--Crossword & Montreal I can think of offhand. It could be interesting, at least if they stagger the turns. 4 teammates going in a row could make for a devestating attack.

by **eye84free** on Fri May 12, 2006 9:55 pm

ur right...it would...it would be a good place to try alternating the teams in there positions...

by **jamie_hayes** on Sat May 13, 2006 6:58 pm

yes it could possibly work but we would need a bigger more open map 4 this to really work , the only problem i can see is that it would get EXTREAMLY annoying if someone went into to a "4 on 4" game just to waste time

by **hunny** on Sun May 14, 2006 9:48 am

Yeah we could get some one to make a special 4 on 4 map 4 this couldent we?? that would make it exciting and unpredictible :shock:

by **Red Army** on Sun May 14, 2006 10:15 am

Sure, I have no problem with this option... I just won't join any game with more than 6 people, but if it pleases others, good for them.

by **spinwizard** on Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:20 pm

why was this rejected?

by **maniacmath17** on Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:37 pm

well this was made back when all the members of one team would go and then all the members of the other team would go instead of alternating turns between teams. So back then the 4 v 4 would have given a definite advantage to the first team but now I don't see a problem with the option.