Anti tortoise playstyle suggestions

[lt_oddball]

It annoys me (and presumably others as well ..see feedback on Benjij) greatly to play against people who seek a corner of the map and build up all the time avoiding any confrontation and only at the very end come out and quote "surprise" the remaining players.
It helps if a number of other players are fools, of course , to make this lowlife "tactic" a succes...but as you have guessed, there are a lot of fools at hand.

Now, the RISK/CONQUER game philosophy is to CONQUER , ATTACK, be AGRESSIVE .. otherwise they would have called it "BUNKER" iso "CONQUER".

So help us with simple software measures to discourage this a-social playstyle.


I have a suggestion:

1) Keep track of a players Armies on the map (A), number of lands (B) and number of attack dice throws (D). If after his turn D is far below a threshold which depends on (A-B) then he'll lose immediately a number of new armies his next turn (in real life similarity; for having to nourish too many armies at a too small area (too small crops..soldiers starve or get mad).

Example: round 8: you start with 14 lands and have in total 35 armies in the field. You get new armies 4 plus 3 for a bonuszone and place them in your bonuszone. You attack a small army of 1 in your outer perimiter to obtain cheaply a card. You throw 3 attack against 1 defense and win.
You started the turn with 14 lands, 42 armies and you end the turn with 15 lands, 42 armies.
The threshold is (e.g.) use of 30% of your active armies like this:
(A-B)x0,30 = 9 and you have used 3 attack dices once; 3 is less than 9 hence you'll loose (9-3)/9 of your renewal army in the following turn.
So instead of getting (the same) 7 new armies, you'll receive 1/3 *7 = 2 armies the next turn.

That'll teach them!

Of course the threshold needs to be tuned, but something like this is very easy to implement.


Or do you have better suggestions ? PLease add them here.

[cena-rules]

I have a better suggestion

GFY

[sully800]

I'm afraid drastic gameplay changes like this will never be implemented. It goes completely against the traditional system of "risk" and the variants on the boardgame. Building quietly is a common strategy as is capturing continents, as is accumulating cards and waiting, as is targeting players one at a time, etc. It's all part of the game and I don't think attempts to change it would go over well with most players.

[wcaclimbing]

Just find a strategy to beat it!
1. start a thread in the Strategy forum.
2. Just figure out what to do. its not that difficult to figure out.

[Coleman]

Yeah, I know this isn't flame wars, but really GFY. You can't expect the whole site to change to suit your play style and counter one that doesn't agree with you.

[Genghis Khan CA]

If the tactic works, why not use it? Seriously though, this would take away a lot of strategy and choice in the game, so I don't think you will get much support at all... it just promotes blindly attacking and not choosing a wise time to strike.

This is the best tactic in escalating though, preserve your armies and then strike when the cards are higher in value... this is a very aggressive game type, but it's about choosing the right time to be aggressive

[AAFitz]

if you cant make a winning move, you shouldnt make a move, attacking when it means your death is just foolish if not suicide...if the game drags out because of it, so be it...better than making stupid moves and losing a lot of games quickly

[Rocketry]

Personally i am a fan of removing continent bonuses. I like to sit back and collect armies on one state, if i see a player being too aggresive, and taking a continent i find it upsetting. Especially as they are then rewarded for doing so. If we are to teach the world to live in harmony, we should introduce a bonus for people that have not made any kind of warfare for a select number of rounds.

Man, its risk!

Rocketry

[lt_oddball]

I have a better suggestion

GFY

GFY ? give free yoghurt ?

Yeah, I know this isn't flame wars, but really GFY. You can't expect the whole site to change to suit your play style and counter one that doesn't agree with you.

again gfy ? ?
Any progress in any system comes with people daring to propose a change. So don't be afraid of suggestions..it might be implemented under game options anyway.

If the tactic works, why not use it?
This is the best tactic in escalating though, preserve your armies and then strike when the cards are higher in value... this is a very aggressive game type, but it's about choosing the right time to be aggressive

Depending on the threshold value we can make it as mild as is desired by the community.

Man, its risk!
Rocketry

Then you should be won over by my argument.. It is RISK not BUNKER or STRONGHOLD or MAGINOT LINE or SIEGFRIEDLINE or ATLANTIC WALL or IWO JIMA.


Another alternative would be to allow attackers to use 4 dices against max 2 defense dices per attack. That would bring the moment of attack also more forward for those incredible builders.

[misterman10]

I have a better suggestion

GFY

[Ishiro]

If you think there is no risk involved in the turtle strategy, then I don't know what to tell you... like every other strategy, it has advantages and disadvantages.

[wcaclimbing]

you are RISKING a lot by just sitting there:

1. A single country is really easy to kill if you turn in cards. (they could kill you)
2. Your opponent might clear out the rest of your opponents and get a ton of cards.
3. If they manage to get a continent bonus, the armies they are getting will probably be more than what you get, so eventually they will pass you.
4. you become a huge target eventually and your opponents may team you.

[Banderaguy]

best suggestion ive heard is GFY!