Armies and Small Maps

[shaddowfire]

With all these new maps coming online, I'm finding a problem with the number of armies you get each turn. In the classic map, with 42 territories, the number of territories divided by 3 rounded down makes sense, works and is very balenced. This also works in the World 2.0 map, and any map with more than 42 territories. Where the problem lies is with all these new maps with less than 42 territories. If there are less than 42 territories, each territory you controll becomes more valuable. For example in my current game on the australia map, I clearly have more territories than all the rest of the players, but I have less than 12, so I don't have an advantage for how "strong" I am. What I'm trying to say is because of these smaller maps, we need a new system base on the percent of the map you control. I've toyed with this, and what I came up with is this, (it is based off of the classic map. The percents come from the number where you gain more armies, 12, 15, 18, 21, ect.)

less that 27% = 3 armies per tern
27% - 34% = 4 armies
35% - 41% = 5 armies
42% - 49% = 6 armies
50% - 56% = 7 armies
57% - 63% = 8 armies
64% - 70% = 9 armies
71% - 77% = 10 armies
78% - 84% = 11 armies
85% - 91% = 12 armies
92% - 99% = 13 armies

Obviously at 100% of map controll you've won the game.

This new system would also make the world 2.0 map more like the origional risk, you would still only get 3 armies on your first turn, and the game would play slower. Also you would never see those huge numbers any more.

I apologize for not having this earlier.
Priority 4

[Haydena]

Sounds very interesting, I kinda like it. Not sure what others would think of it though, maybe you could have it as an optional but I think lack has said somewhere he's against having too many options for a game.

Interesting idea though, maybe only on maps under 42 territories. As any above that you said worked fine.

[titantides5]

i agree...it makes sense to me...and thats all i really have to say lol

[AndyDufresne]

Different number of country maps allow for different gameplay and strategy.


--Andy

[wcaclimbing]

Different number of country maps allow for different gameplay and strategy.


--Andy

Thats his way of saying no


like i always say, if you dont like it, dont play it that way

[shaddowfire]

Different number of country maps allow for different gameplay and strategy.


--Andy

True, but what I'm saying is the small maps don't really work out with the current system for recieving armies. On the small maps having 12 territories, usually means you've already won, where as in classic risk having 12 territores doesn't mean anything. See the problem?

Sadly I wasn't really putting this up as an option, either we switch to this system, or we don't. The more options we have the harder it is for lackattack.

[khazalid]

good idea. it doesnt even need to be optional, id be happy with that as standard for all maps

[Lone.prophet]

what andy say is in small maps territory grab isnt a very good option so it requires a different strat

[shaddowfire]

Yes it does involve different strategy, but really it involves army build up, instead of conquering the world. Also it focuses on continent bonuses. But what I'm trying to say, is you aren't rewarded for what you do take over. Like on the classic map, if you take asia, you immediately get 4 armies for countries, but in the Australia, if I take over Western Australia, I only get the 3 plus the bonus. It really isn't worth it to take that bonus over, the reward isn't worth the risk.

[Lone.prophet]

thats what the game is about

[boberz]

if it has to happen it should be an option because if it was compulsory the whole balance of some of the new maps (large and small) would be changed.

[shaddowfire]

How do you think the balence of some new maps would change?

[Jamie]

I personally don't like the world 2.0 map, but the reason people like it, is because of the amount of armies you get in the beginning of the game. If you do your suggestion, I don't think many world 2.0 lovers would like it too much. I personally think World 2.0 is stupid in the sense that whover goes girst in a 3 person game, can immediatley take control, and keep control of the game. Any Captain who started 100 3 person World 2.0 games, and went first in all of them, would probably win at least 90 of them, if not more. Back to the subject though, no, I don't like the idea.

[Genghis Khant]

I don't like the idea either. When planning a move to weaken an opponent you know where you are with [3 territories = 1 man], but if you had to calculate percentages then most people, including myself, would end up with a real brain-ache.

The best solution is to have fewer players on the smaller maps. I'm playing a 4-player game on Australia which I think is just right, while I recently played 6-player on the British Isles which was too crowded.

Just set up, or choose, your games wisely.

[shaddowfire]

Jamie, this idea would make the World 2.0 game strategy more like the strategy used in the classic map. If you like playing classic risk, this new system simply means regaurdless of the map you will always be playing risk.

you can take rough guesses with percentages...i know when i have 1/4 of the world or 1/3, or 1/2. They aren't that hard. Also, actually finding out what percent you have of the map is really easier than dividing by 3. In both versions you total your territories, and in my proposed version, you divide by the number of total territories, and don't tell me you can't do that, because every computer made has a calculator on it.

I don't want to force some maps to be played with less players, each map should have the ability to play all variants. Also along with you idea of small maps are good for less players, we still have the problem of each territory worth more than the reward for actually taking it. Especially in the Ireland map, once you have 12 territories you've pretty much won the game. That makes those 12 territories worth as much as 21 in the Classic map. That's not really worth it, when we use the same system to calculate armies.