Armies per Territory Limit

[tidalsemaj]

I would like to see an armies per territory limit placed, or at least made into an option when creating a game. When I play Risk with my friends, we always put the limit at 12 armies max per territory.

This could reduce the rampages in escalating games. I know that I stopped playing escalating games because the strategy stops once the game is down to the last two. At that point it's all about who gets the card trade in large enough to take over the map.

Putting a limit on the amount of armies on a territory will increase the level of strategy in a game. Instead of having all new armies placed on one territory, which then proceeds to territory-hop all over the whole map.

[benjikat]

what happens when all your territories have 12 armies on them? Losing hard won extra men just feels wrong... (if that's what you suggest happens)

[tidalsemaj]

Good point, didn't think about that.

That could be a consequence of not pursuing others. AKA those that sit the whole beginning of a match until they have 35+ armies on their last remaining territory, at which point they strike the most vulnerable opponent and take his cards (obviously I dislike people that use this strategy *boring*). If on your next turn you would not have anywhere to place armies, then you better gain new territory. Just like a college with an overwhelming amount of students, they have to buy more land.

Another option would be that you could put more than 12 armies on a territory if and only if there was no other choice.

I don't really like those that squat the first half of the match, so I would prefer the former.

[Coleman]

I'm for an anti-crowding flag as a gametype, but the creating a game process is already a little daunting to new users.

Sorry, 3:00 am speak... I'd call not allowing 12 or more armies on a single territory anti-crowding. A flag would be what fog is like either on or off.

So what I'm saying is I'd support this as a play option that you could turn on or off.

[tidalsemaj]

Oh, well I agree that it should be optional.

I'm a relatively new user and I found creating games and everything else rather easy to learn and use. Every once in awhile I'm like "oh whoops, didn't realize that." But creating games is pretty self-explanatory and easy, I don't think that adding more flags would make it any more difficult.

[trk1994]

i think that setting would be good. don't the original rules say something about a max of 10 armies per territory? but i think 15 or 18 would be a good number

[Bartoli]

Putting a limit on the amount of armies on a territory will increase the level of strategy in a game. Instead of having all new armies placed on one territory, which then proceeds to territory-hop all over the whole map.

my feeling says that an army limit would just reduce the strategy of an escalating game.

luck is a part of the game; but with an army reduction, it will all be about 12 to 12 rolls -- thats about luck and luck only...

strategy doesnt stop at all in escalating when 2 players are left, just make sure you got more cards then your opponent

[Herakilla]

lol the board game i have says theres a limit of however many you can fit on the territory!

[tidalsemaj]

The reason why it would increase the strategy is because instead of putting all of your armies on one territory that then proceeds to territory-hop all over the board, you would need to figure out which territories to max out in order to conquer in every necessary direction.

This would prevent someone is Central America from bouncing all the way over to Australia in one turn. If someone in NA wanted to conquer the map, they'd have to max out Alaska, Greenland, and Central, and then have to take more one turn to do so. There are usually more than one front in a war, it doesn't make sense that one can go from Central America to Eastern Australia, conquering everything in between, all in one turn. It would be better, in my opinion if they had to use a 2, 3, or 4 front strategy in order to win.

Like I said before, I simply would like this to be a game option, not a rule for all games. And I'm sure that I'm not the only person that would want to play their games like this.

[insomniacdude]

The reason why it would increase the strategy is because instead of putting all of your armies on one territory that then proceeds to territory-hop all over the board, you would need to figure out which territories to max out in order to conquer in every necessary direction.

This would prevent someone is Central America from bouncing all the way over to Australia in one turn. If someone in NA wanted to conquer the map, they'd have to max out Alaska, Greenland, and Central, and then have to take more one turn to do so. There are usually more than one front in a war, it doesn't make sense that one can go from Central America to Eastern Australia, conquering everything in between, all in one turn. It would be better, in my opinion if they had to use a 2, 3, or 4 front strategy in order to win.

Like I said before, I simply would like this to be a game option, not a rule for all games. And I'm sure that I'm not the only person that would want to play their games like this.

You persuaded me. I think I might really enjoy this gameplay.

Spread the word around about your poll. Try to get a lot of votes and catch the administration's attention.

[Risktaker17]

HELLZ NO! Why would I want a cap on territories, what bout when the cap is met on all territories.

P.S. This is my 700th post yay!

[Risktaker17]

Oh oops, but I still vote no.

[KoE_Sirius]

Bad idea....It would be like tic tac toe.
No one would win and it would be stale mate...Games could take years to finish once you have 12 on every spot.

[Risktaker17]

Bad idea....It would be like tic tac toe.
No one would win and it would be stale mate...Games could take years to finish once you have 12 on every spot.

I agree with this guy.

[insomniacdude]

Another option would be that you could put more than 12 armies on a territory if and only if there was no other choice.

Read the thread people....

[BaldAdonis]

Risktaker17 and KoE_Sirius:
Try playing a game like this (on a real board, with good players). Instead of building to the point of stalemates like many games do now, players have to attack, both in order to expand their territories, and to take advantage of attacking dice. It's a lot more active game than unlimited builds.

Armies you can't deploy because of having 12 everywhere are lost. You shouldn't build beyond your capabilities.

[Bartoli]

Risktaker17 and KoE_Sirius:
Try playing a game like this (on a real board, with good players). Instead of building to the point of stalemates like many games do now, players have to attack, both in order to expand their territories, and to take advantage of attacking dice. It's a lot more active game than unlimited builds.

Armies you can't deploy because of having 12 everywhere are lost. You shouldn't build beyond your capabilities.

real life games are very much different from online games...

you don't want a board game to last forever, but online... what the heck...

like some others said aswell, you will just have everyone having 12 on all territories...

i like the suggestion, nothing bad aboud it. but No

[Risktaker17]

what if you are on 2.1... you can't do anything with 12 players.

[tidalsemaj]

2.1 is a huge map, maybe each map can have it's own personal cap that you can choose to turn on or off at the beginning of a match.

I believe that somewhere between 12-15 would be a good cap for the classic map because it would force people to fight more than just a one front battle.

And someone asked about what happens if all of your territories are maxed out already, well there are two solutions that I have already posted if you read the posts above.
1) An exceptions for when all territories are maxed out.
Or the option I prefer,
2) You lose those armies because you did not conquer extra territory for your increasing population, so you can not sustain that large of an army.

[Herakilla]

this is only implementable as an option so we arent forcing anyone here to do anything they want

i doubt the majority of CC would like it if all the games they made started have caps

[4V4T4R]

What if the territory cap is based on the numbers of contiguous territories that you own? I believe that risk 2 for pc had a rule like this.
It only applies for placing reinforcements, not the actual number of reinforcements there.
For example, during troop deployment you could place a number of armies on a country equal to 3+(3*number of adjacent territories that you own)
Note that this does not limit the total number of armies that you can have on a territory, only the number that you can add to it each round.

[Herakilla]

What if the territory cap is based on the numbers of contiguous territories that you own? I believe that risk 2 for pc had a rule like this.
It only applies for placing reinforcements, not the actual number of reinforcements there.
For example, during troop deployment you could place a number of armies on a country equal to 3+(3*number of adjacent territories that you own)
Note that this does not limit the total number of armies that you can have on a territory, only the number that you can add to it each round.

ive got the risk 2 cd and i dont remember anything like that

[4V4T4R]

What if the territory cap is based on the numbers of contiguous territories that you own? I believe that risk 2 for pc had a rule like this.
It only applies for placing reinforcements, not the actual number of reinforcements there.
For example, during troop deployment you could place a number of armies on a country equal to 3+(3*number of adjacent territories that you own)
Note that this does not limit the total number of armies that you can have on a territory, only the number that you can add to it each round.

ive got the risk 2 cd and i dont remember anything like that

Then it may have been the risk for Playstation, I can't recall.

[Spritzking]

i would like the gfy option on the poll in this thread.

that because the main argument for the army max is nonsense. there is no such thing as tactics anyway when you are down to the last 2:

just follow these 4 rules and it is up to the dice.

1. attack as many as possible. (attacking has higher odds)
2. do never build up defenses. (attacking has higher odds)
3. break all continents.
4. attack till it is 2-1

if you can explain me a "real strategy" you can forget about the gfy option.

gfy,

spritz

[tidalsemaj]

i would like the gfy option on the poll in this thread.

that because the main argument for the army max is nonsense. there is no such thing as tactics anyway when you are down to the last 2:

just follow these 4 rules and it is up to the dice.

1. attack as many as possible. (attacking has higher odds)
2. do never build up defenses. (attacking has higher odds)
3. break all continents.
4. attack till it is 2-1

if you can explain me a "real strategy" you can forget about the gfy option.

gfy,

spritz

This may be your 'strategy' in an escalating game, which is why a armies per territories limit in necessary, so that the person who has played worse during the first part of the game cannot break the stronger players continents with such ease.

And if that's your strategy in a flat rate or no card game, then I'd love to play a game.