Balancing 2 player games

by **max is gr8** on Wed May 30, 2007 5:33 am

Subject

Well the subject is as simple as at the moment 2 player games are not balanced. I thought when we where having 2 player we would have to bribe neutrals and so on but in fact we get a 3 player game with useless neutrals which means whoever has the best territory allocation wins

In one game I got europe and although I had no territories to defend someone who got oceania could break my continent time and time again.

<Body>:

* Suggestion Idea: To improve the system so that 2 player games are balanced
* Specifics: add active neutrals so we can bribe them to fight for our cause
* Why it is needed: It will prevent the game being one sided and will add deeper strategy to the game
* Priority** (1-5): 4

by **Skittles!** on Wed May 30, 2007 5:39 am

How are we meant to 'bribe' the neutrals?

by **max is gr8** on Wed May 30, 2007 5:40 am

cards

I can scan the rulebook for you and post it on photo bucket do you want that?

by **firth4eva** on Wed May 30, 2007 5:42 am

your sig is wrong max. only 2 stripes

by **max is gr8** on Wed May 30, 2007 5:47 am

remember the old scoring system I had 3 stripes on that until they changed it

by **RobinJ** on Wed May 30, 2007 7:07 am

Great idea - I've been campaigning it for ages - I know this isn't Risk, it's CC, but those rules are the best and the way the game is meant to be played. I'll see if I can find my old rule book...

by **max is gr8** on Wed May 30, 2007 7:43 am

http://www.hasbro.com/risk/default.cfm?page=gameinfo_2player

Online rules

by **gibbom** on Wed May 30, 2007 7:44 am

If you want a third active player, play a 3 player game.

You can often overcome a bad drop through good strategy. If you can't hold europe and another player has oceania, there's no point trying to defend europe - position yourself to attack oceania.

by **max is gr8** on Wed May 30, 2007 7:46 am

I had no units near oceania the closest units I had where in europe and they had 2 countries in each continent

by **RobinJ** on Wed May 30, 2007 7:58 am

max is gr8 wrote:http://www.hasbro.com/risk/default.cfm?page=gameinfo_2player

Online rules

That is exactly what I meant - word for word. How does everyone not see how much skill this type of gameplay takes - it is fantastic to play and has so many additional aspects to it.

by **detlef** on Wed May 30, 2007 8:40 am

I don't think it matters because it would appear 2 player games are fundamentally flawed and will basically come down to luck regardless. Be it luck in deployment, cards, or dice. A vast majority of the strategy in the game is deciding who to attack and who to leave alone in hopes that they'll make an attack that works to your advantage. For example, If I have SA, rather than attacking the guy who has Africa, I just make Brazil a very unattractive target and hope that he goes after the dude who's got Europe. Something like that. In a two player game, it's pretty freaking obvious who you should attack, so you go ballistic on each other and the one with the best luck wins.

by **detlef** on Wed May 30, 2007 8:45 am

RobinJ wrote:
max is gr8 wrote:http://www.hasbro.com/risk/default.cfm?page=gameinfo_2player

Online rules

That is exactly what I meant - word for word. How does everyone not see how much skill this type of gameplay takes - it is fantastic to play and has so many additional aspects to it.

Well, in light of this, I take back much of what I said. However, it really does seem like a set of rules made up to make 1 v 1 tolerable in the event that you couldn't find a 3rd or 4th to play a proper game. something that is obviously much more likely at home on a board game than at CC.

by **RobinJ** on Wed May 30, 2007 8:49 am

This should definitely be an option (in response to the poll) because some people really did want to play 1v1 with a passive neutral. It wouldn't be fair to make this the norm but it should definitely be implemented as another game type

by **max is gr8** on Wed May 30, 2007 9:09 am

It will be useful for tounaments and would open a new style of play

by **poo-maker** on Wed May 30, 2007 9:18 am

I agree that the 1 v 1 option depends alot on your drop and luck, but it still kicks ass.

Theres no-need to change it.

by **SirSebstar** on Wed May 30, 2007 9:48 am

2 player games are unbalanced.
But they are great fun to play...
I wonder what will happen, as in I do not think its a lasting invention, but the options it offers are just great.
Look at haw many games have already been played with the 2 player option.. way cool....
Open to abuse as well, but hey, I just hope it gets monitored.

by **max is gr8** on Thu May 31, 2007 4:28 am

But what I'm saying is it is more strategically enjoyable at the moment I've played 3 games and the person whose gone first has won yet with active neutrals the game is balanced

by **demigod** on Thu May 31, 2007 6:38 am

poo-maker wrote:I agree that the 1 v 1 option depends alot on your drop and luck, but it still kicks ass.

Theres no-need to change it.

having played 4 or 5 now (not that that's a whole lot) i've found that

i) initial drop does play a major factor, as does
ii) who goes first

i would like to see an adjustment so that 50% are neutral and the rest evenly distributed = 25% each. may make the chances of awesome drop much less likely...

by **max is gr8** on Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:52 am

I want to see more opinions here

by **alex_white101** on Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:25 am

well ive just played my first 1 vs 1

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=477560

took all of about 6 minutes, i got dealt oz and he knew it was over so suicided, it does seem a bit uneven.........

Balancing 2 player games

Should this be implemented

Balancing 2 player games

Who is online