Rebellious Territories

[Chuuuuck]

Add a game type called "Rebellious Territories" (or something to that affect)

• It improves the site by offering another variable to the game and much more strategy.

Specifics:

• When rebellious territories are turned on the game starts the same way it normally does. The territories a player starts with are considered that players "home territories" meaning the locals of those territories support that player and are friendly towards that player. A player doesn't have to do anything to keep their home territory unless it is attacked by an opponent of course.
  
  However, when you take another players territory, that territory is not one of your home territories. So with rebellious territories it will tell you as a player how many armies you must keep on that territory to keep them from rebelling. If, at the beginning of a players turn, he has less armies on a rebellious territory than is required to keep down a rebellion, then there is a chance (maybe 25-50%) that the territory will rebel. If the territory rebels it will be announced in the game log and that territory will automatically return to a 3 for the player who it is a "home territory" for.
  
  The number of armies needed to keep a rebellion down for each territory should vary at random for each territory from either 2, 3 or 4. The number should stay constant throughout a single game but should change from game to game just like the drop. There should be a way to identify which territories are home territories for which players.
  
  This would change strategy greatly because when a player goes on a run of attacks they now have to think about leaving armies behind to keep down rebellions in their path. It also effects strategies because instead of attacking territories and conquering them they always have the option of just tapping down their home territories that are owned by opponents and hope for a rebellion so they pick up extra armies.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Adds an extremely fun game variance that I think would attract a VERY large number of players. I have played a game variance like this in the past and IMO it is the most fun game type I have ever played. It has gotten to the point for me where standard games are too dull, boring, and repetitive but a game variation like this would bring in much more excitement and strategy. I have never tried something like this with teams but I can see how it could grow in popularity also. I welcome any feedback.

[00iCon]

Ugh... realism

DO IT!

[slowreactor]

I like it, reminds me of the Total War series.

[chephren]

Interesting idea...honest question though: do you think it will INCREASE the luck element to the game? Where territories are "predictable" it generally means that good strategy will win the day if dice and cards are fairly even. But with territories acting "unpredictably" then surely the luck element goes up, as opposed to the strategy element? Unless I'm misunderstanding something...which is quite possible.

[Chuuuuck]

Interesting idea...honest question though: do you think it will INCREASE the luck element to the game? Where territories are "predictable" it generally means that good strategy will win the day if dice and cards are fairly even. But with territories acting "unpredictably" then surely the luck element goes up, as opposed to the strategy element? Unless I'm misunderstanding something...which is quite possible.

I don't think the luck goes up. I think there should be a certain % of a time that the territories rebel if less than the amount needed is holding the territory. This % should be known. Players with proper strategy can take this % chance into their calculations on their moves and be able to make the most positive expectation move for themselves.

Another option is to not have a % of chance. Just say every territory will for sure rebel if it is not owned by the player whose home territory it is and has less than the number of armies needed at the start of their turn. I am willing to accept suggestions here. I just know this game type has proven to be extremely addicting to me in the past. It would be especially fun on larger maps where you have the options to go through and tap a lot of territories or go in and try to secure bonuses.

[Queen_Herpes]

Cool idea, make it happen!!!

[00iCon]

perhaps the longer a player holds a territory, the more likely it is to rebel when the opponent takes it. Tht's what's so annoying about the 1 territories i keep away from the frontlines. the opponent gets a spoil set and breaks through, wreaking havoc. But when a territory rebels will it become neutral or yours? And will neutral territories rebel?

[Chuuuuck]

perhaps the longer a player holds a territory, the more likely it is to rebel when the opponent takes it. Tht's what's so annoying about the 1 territories i keep away from the frontlines. the opponent gets a spoil set and breaks through, wreaking havoc. But when a territory rebels will it become neutral or yours? And will neutral territories rebel?

It will not go to neutral. It will go to whoever the locals support (i.e. the person who started with that territory). Neutral territories will not rebel, however if someone conquers a neutral territory then it can rebel back to neutral.

[00iCon]

Here's an idea, why not just play Battle for Iraq or make another map with this concept in mind.

[wolfpack0530]

To add onto this idea:

Perhaps when you finally secure a continent bonus, and hold it for one turn, then those terts now all become "home terts" for you, and they cease to be rebellious. Kindof like uniting a Kingdom under one ruler (which of course is you ) Then if someone breaks your bonus, that tert becomes rebellious against your foe.

[army of nobunaga]

another great idea... will be ignored and lost.

Thanx for posting.

[Chuuuuck]

How do suggestions work exactly? Are they for the most part just ignored and then taken off the list? Or does some one actually look at them?

[72o]

How do suggestions work exactly? Are they for the most part just ignored and then taken off the list? Or does some one actually look at them?

The first one.

[00iCon]

You have to accumulate millions of views and thousands of posts.

[Chuuuuck]

Well I guess no one really likes the idea.... even though it is probably the most fun version I have ever played.

[pmchugh]

Well I guess no one really likes the idea.... even though it is probably the most fun version I have ever played.

Meh it looks quite fun to me, but I don't have much to add. Sadly the best way to get a suggestion implemented atm is pot luck.

I would definately give this a shot, as it would add a whole new dimension to game play.

[DeadCenter]

I think this is a unique & cool idea. Would be a cool option to be able to choose from. Also reminds me of the Total War series.

[Chuuuuck]

I think this is a unique & cool idea. Would be a cool option to be able to choose from. Also reminds me of the Total War series.

I agree, what is total wars?

[JoshyBoy]

How do suggestions work exactly? Are they for the most part just ignored and then taken off the list? Or does some one actually look at them?

The first one.

Errr... no guys. There are some changes coming which will change the way the Suggestions forum is run.

[Queen_Herpes]

Well I guess no one really likes the idea.... even though it is probably the most fun version I have ever played.

I like it...but as mentioned by other users, you need to market the suggestion and encourage posters to comment on this thread. This sug might take a lot of programming, so it would be a while b4 implementation...

[GSP JR]

This is an interesting idea. I think the details really need to be worked out to common agreement though.

For instance, will the amount needed be a set requirement or will it vary depending on the luck of that particular territory? Will it be consistent for every territory on the map (as determined at the start), or be a territory by territory decision made when the game is initiated? What happens with neutral territories, should they rebel or should they be happy for leadership, or what if neutrals can basically be conquered without having to have more than one army, thus making some of the neutrals essentially non-rebellious?

I like the idea of territories changing thier allegiance after a certain number of rounds, but should this concept only be applied to neutrals, or to all "foreign" territories? Should holding a continent make the "locals" switch allegiance (I like this idea, but implementation could be tricky). I think the continent concept adds an interesting point in it being worth the effort to secure a contenental bonus, not just run across the board killing whoever you can get a hold of.

What happens when a person is eliminated? Do their original home territories revert to neutral or do they become home territories for the person occupying them at that point?


There are probably some other questions that would need to be worked out, but this is what comes to mind right now. I like the idea, I think you should update your original post with concise descriptions of the various scenerios that would have to be taken into account when implementing something like this.

[Joodoo]

Reminds me of this game, which takes forever to finish (I've tried playing solo on it).
But adding politics to the game seems strange. I think as a game based on RISK it should be simple and stick to luck and military strategy.