So We Played "Risk" Tonight...

I think the lineage system in Elemental is planned to be a system that will influence who the loosers will capitulate to. If you are the big bad Raven x wolf that is exterminating your neighbours, then they could start to capitulate to the nice Brian empire who has good relations with everyone.

If this is gamebreaking or not is dependant on the settings of the game. How small will the kingdoms be before they surrender? If they give their last city and a few remaining units, it is no problem. If three kingdoms surrender to Brian at the same time, each with a couple of cities and a decent army, then you have a problem.

It is a bit like the vassals of CIV IV. I dont like that system and play with vassals turned off. I dont like the Europa Universalis functionality of marrying and watching who is related to who either. In general I am not fond of such fiddly mechanics.

Therefore I hope that Elemental will have a new fresh take on this!

Thoughts:

Play Agricola, Setters of Catan, or even Ticket to Ride instead of Risk.

I don't think anything was wrong with Brian's STRATEGY!  You had a well developed strategy, and I suppose Brain did too, and this is what I would expect out of Elemental.  I don't think you should feel ripped off and such a massive popped up soon, because that was GREAT strategy.  Wouldn't you do it if you were in the position?  If you didn't you would not be playing to win.

As in all games, Elemental you are going to play to win.  Even if you are small, there should still be some sort of strategy to get you back in the game, even if it is a small possibility, as long the rules are still followed.  For it will be the rules that determine the strategy (and CHEESE!) for the game.

Enjoy!

Sounds like the most drama packed game of Risk I ever heard of. I am reminded of the Dwarf Fortress motto, 'losing is fun!'

yea, Brian's strategy, of completing your kill upon Carl to take Carl's cards, was ... well ... a good strategy in Risk. Its perhaps more evident in 6 player games of Risk however.

one could write a  paper on why "Risk" is a bad game.  (in fact, I think somebody has... which would be why it was often brought up for poor design choices in my school).    That being said, I love risk.

The problem with risk is it is too focused on luck, and not focused on... well, anything else.  There is a little bit of strategy, such as heavily defending bottlenecks, or spreading all your guys out 2 to a country rather than 1 so its harder to steam roll.   But for the most part it all bows to dice.   If you have rotten luck, 1 guy who keeps rolling 5s and 6s will flatten your 40 troop army.  (I've seen it happen)

I should hope there are  a few strategies that might allow for a 'reversal' at some point where the underdog suddenly comes out on top,  but it had better not be all luck.   Luck is a poor element to base a game in my opinion, as it degrades the value of the players playing it.

You're wrong, the sheer volume of rolls in RISK cause the the "luck" to become a non-factor.  RISK is all about the decision made by the player.

games like candyland or snakes and ladders are what you're thinking about

Wait, what? You played a three-player game of Risk?

That was a mistake!

Diplomacy is where it is really at.  One army per territory... no dice, just good diplomacy

About the amount of luck in risk.

The luck is not in the dice, but in your opponents. One rookie could hand the game to a random player by doing a bad move (or many bad moves).

The economics associated with "jiffy-pop" armies from risk are so ludicrous as to even give congress pause.  The cards add an element of strategy to blitzing other players, but detach it from reality to a very great extent.  Certainly the card collection rule was obviated by machine guns and explosive shell artillery, or WWI would have played out way differently. 

One thing I love is building units, and that just does not happen with "jiffy-pop" economics.  If you could suddenly darken the plains with an instant horde, they should all be raw recruits with at best marginal coordination and continuous logistics hits.  When thrown against an army of veteran troops with good leadership and solid logistics the only contribution hordes should provide is  to next year's crops, because they will be better fertilized with so much blood. 

Another advantage of veteran units is that they should be character farms, generating heroes when well tended.  One of the problems with Risk as a simulation is that troops are meaningless blocks of wood (or plastic for you newbies) that can be thrown away and regenerated instantly.  Good games reward care for good troops.

Granted, but often one of the criticisms leveled at 4x games is the boring late game. Hopefully there will be some kind of convergence with the different strategies available in elemental, personally I'd like to see diplomacy play a role in good comeback strategies, rather than just a firewall to hold off the enevitable. To this end, I would like to see alliances have serious trade bonuses as well as penalties for breaking them...the eco/tech agreements in Twilight were heading down that path, but a lot more can be done with such things.

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.  Risk's only economy is based on how much land you control.  TO suggest that it should be a simulation is silly.

Land generates troops. Complete continent holding generates troops. Card turn-ins generate troops.  This is economy in Risk.  You may not be used to playing with the card rules, but it makes Risk a lot more fun for people interested in a board game. Here is a link to the rules: http://www.centralconnector.com/GAMES/RISK.htm Also here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_%28game%29 Interestingly, on the Wiki is an abastract diagram of the land connection relationships which is not a simulation.  If you are playing Risk with that version of a board, you are not playing a simulation.  If you are playing with something that resembles a map, and especially if you are playing with little plastic infantryman, cavalry and artillery pieces, you are playing a simulation, although a crude one. 

It is always poor form to throw names around, but even more so when you are mistaken.  Would you consider withdrawing your statement?

Well, if you want to play a true strategy board game, try "Twilight Imperium 3rd Edition" and its expansion "Shattered Empires"; it is the ultimate Risk killer.  You basically choose to play 1 of 14 unique races, conquer planets, establish trade pacts, build fleets consisting of numerous different ship types in space and armies on planets, research tech, deploy spies and sabateurs, form coalitions amongst players in the galactic senate and flex your political power to pass laws that denounce your opponents, and a hell of a lot more.  In Twilight Imperium, strategic planning rules supreme, and to keep things interesting there is a new, random board every game.  The interesting part is that the game is not exclusively warfare driven.  You can technically win the game without firing a shot, and very few players are ever completely erradicated from the game: instead, their empire generally declines and they end up stuck on their homeworld or some fortress world.

If you are in to high strategy, check out Twilight Imperium 3rd Edition.  Good luck getting 6-8 competent players together, though   Fortunately, I've always had enough hardcore gamers to get 10 hour, 8 player games together and a wife that enjoys strategy gaming as much as I do (she gives me hell in RL if I attack her, though).

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/197269

I remember launching an attack from a single province of LOTR risk and conquering the entire world in one go. That was my greatest victory.

I remember playing a game of monopoly once and all I had on the board were the yellows and hotels on them and I won the game. I made it around the board everytime without landing once on the other players larger holdings. I'd hit tax or water works and electricity and community chest and chance and just never got hit by his major stuff and he landed on one of my yellows everytime around the board hahaha and his landings on chance or community chest would send him around the board closer to my yellow holdings too. It was one of those games where everyone just couldn't believe my SKILL hahah at rolling them die. Yes it takes skill to roll the correct numbers dontcha know? :))

This isn't congress and I haven't called anyone names, so I will not withdraw my statement.  RISK is a fun game.  Your argument that it is a bad game because it isn't a perfect simulation is STUPID.

here here. Motion to the Speaker. I would wish to push article 22, which states that there will be no further comparison between Risk and 4x games, because it only leads to miscommunication. Now if you would turn to page 5, you will realize that most risk games of 5-6 players revolve solely around the cards.

Do I grant consension by the speaker? I believe we should vote on the Bill.

Any game that relies on rolling dice, does require skill.  As random as it may seem, understanding probability is a huge advantage.  All honesty, It takes a long time for alot of people to actually understand probability, as simple as some of it may seem.  

Take this from a past college statistics instructor.

Or just call me a bad teacher, whichever you wish .

yea ... it sucks to lose a good-hero to the RNG though (Fall From Heaven), like dying at 95% or higher odds.

I love Risk always have but I got the Lord of the Rings risk a few years ago and that blew away the normal risk. Plus it can be faster depending if you play with the Fellowship or not. Very fun game. Now if only they make a computer game of that.