Limit armies per territory

[-Wolverine-]

Maybe I am the only one. But it seems rather unfair for a person to deploy 30 armies on a single territory, only to "clean" everyone out.
Game 165570 is a perfect example. The Green was backed into Australia, no hope for survival, but he comes out with 30 armies and kills everyone. If it had been actual RISK he would have been eliminated.

Every game I have lost, being three (to no wins ) has been to people using this strat.

I know in the actual RISK game you are only allowed 12 per territory. I don't know if using the number 12 in a trademark infringement or whatever, if so use a different number. 15 would be good.

Anyone agree? Or am I a whining n00b?

[Captain_Kris]

If you really want to put a limit on steamrollering, put in the requirement that you must advance a minimum # of armies into a conquered territory equal to the # of dice rolled.

It would require a bit more thought on the attack pattern.

It would probably also require a bit of programming to make the # of dice rolled an option.

[AK_iceman]

This is a Non-Hasbro World Domination game, not the popular board game Risk. You will notice not everything is exactly the same.

[-Wolverine-]

Better idea, make it a game option. Like fortifications, allow the player who starts a game to decide if the territories should have limits or not.

[Anarchist]

i agree it should be a game option

However also with Risk if you have a General,you can have up to 352 units

[Jamie]

I have been playing the actual board game risk for years, and I can tell you right now, there is no rule saying how many men you can put on a territory. I have won Risk games in the manner you just described, and I know the rules by heart.

[XenHu]

I have been playing the actual board game risk for years, and I can tell you right now, there is no rule saying how many men you can put on a territory. I have won Risk games in the manner you just described, and I know the rules by heart.

You're right and your wrong....

It isn't a rule(in the boardgame) but it is suggested as an option(see the back of the rulebook)...


-X

[spiesr]

I have often played Risk with a limited aarmies per territory and dicovered a problem with it, bottlenecks, such as the one to get to Austrialia. A person could own the rest rest of the world but not be able to get into Australia for a long time because it would be X vs X (wich usally has the defender win) until the big player gets lucky and takes it. I had a game go on like this for 3 or 4 hrs until one player finally gave up.

[Phobia]

we already have an option, it's called no cards. no cards certainly controls the amount of armies one can deploy, and there are no massive deployment surprises.

[Jamie]

Then I am right that there is no rule stipulating an amount of armies per territory. Because it is listed as an option, does not make it a rule. What you just described is called a house rule. Many people are surprised to find out that placing a $500 dollar bill in the middle of a monopoly board is not a rule, though many people do it. I myself won't play monopoly that way, nor would I play risk in such a way that I can only place a certain amount of men on a territory, as that takes away skill and adds luck, and would also prolong a game on a website where the average game takes several days.