Game of Risk world map idea/suggestion

[gaunt birch]

I wonder for a Game of Risk world map idea/suggestion if there could some how be a nuance hybrid combination crossover between computergame Europa Universalis 4 world wide map (https://www.mapchart.net/eu-iv.html) and various differen individual Game of Risk world maps. And then potential possibly there could be up to 25 to 45 human and/or computer players.

[stone hedge]

It would create a unique experience for sure. A game where the map retains EU4's provinces and trade routes but integrates Risk's turn based mechanics and straightforward gameplay. You could have up to 25 to 45 players territories or negotiating alliances also keep the general battling for global dominance theme. My biggest issue is it would probably be hard managing a game with 25 to 45 players especially online even with are current day tech it would require strong servers and a user friendly interface to keep things running smoothly. And then there’s the question of appeal, EU4 players might find it too simple, while Risk users might feel it’s too complex.

Still, if someone could figure out how to balance all that, it could be an amazing multiplayer game. I mean, who wouldn’t love a game with both diplomacy and strategic battles. It’s definitely an ambitious idea maybe the kind of thing a indie developer could pull off again if balanced.

[gaunt birch]

I guess I was thinking one of the potential possibilities is that it would potential possibly nuance work better with Game of Risk's tournament matches game play. With the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGlgxtV2wAc and the different individual Rounds of the Risk Legends Tournament!

[stone hedge]

Tournament scene would be much more complex its to late for me to get into that lol...

And again it raises my biggest concern with the idea "And then there’s the question of appeal, EU4 players might find it too simple, while Risk users might feel it’s too complex."

[gaunt birch]

And imagine offline pass and play with pcs and humans players multiplayer or even single player against pc players

[gaunt birch]

But board game risk players have game titles such as Risk Legacy

Castle Risk

Risk Junior Board Game

Risk: The Lord Of The Rings

Risk Europe

Risk Napoleon

Hasbro Risk Strategic Conquest Game

Risk 40th Anniversary Collectors Edition

Risk Black Ops Limited Edition

Risk Halo Wars Collector's Edition

Hasbro Risk Battlefield Rogue

Halo Legendary Edition

Lord of the Rings

USAopoly Risk Rick and Morty

Risk Express

Game of Thrones Risk

Risk: Starcraft Collector's Edition

Rustic Risk

Risk: The Transformers Edition

Risk: Lord of the Rings Trilogy Edition

Risk Godstorm

Risk Godstorm

Risk Junior: Narnia

Risk: Metal Gear Solid

Risk: Starcraft

Risk: Plants vs. Zombies (2013)

Risk Europe

And so many more.

[stone hedge]

The concern is that blending EU4s depth with Risk’s simplicity might not appeal equally to both audiences. Risk players often look for quick, streamlined strategy, while EU4 fans expect intricate, multi layered mechanics. The challenge isn’t about Risk’s flexibility it’s about finding a balance that satisfies both camps without losing what makes each game great. That’s where I think this concept gets tricky less then risk current ability and resources.

RIP lol

message did not get released

[gaunt birch]

I guess I was thinking sub-territories within territories within nation states/kingdoms(depending on type of government) within Empires(again depending on government) within continents.

[stone hedge]

I think the challenge lies in whether it stays true to what Risk players love while still appealing to players who enjoy more intricate strategy. Finding that balance would be the key, and honestly, if it can be done, it could be an amazing hybrid for sure.

[gaunt birch]

Also in my own family with the simplier(not as many/less amount of gameplay factors and factors of complexity) Risk games whether the Board game risk game titles risk games or the tablet digital version of Game of Risk games it eventually repeatedly constant continously becomes predictable on who wins over and over again.

[stone hedge]

That’s where I think adding layers, like sub territories or government structures, could actually help. It would make the game less about who has the best grasp of basic tactics and more about managing a variety of elements, which could create more surprises and shake up the predictability. But again I trying to say it would be a massive challenge finding a way to add depth without losing Risk’s accessibility.

[hexed epoch]

I have a list of map ideas written somewhere but can't remember where offhand, some of the things I'd love to see that I can remember off hand are;

• 3d maps (you effectively get a joystick to rotate the map) - think of a cube where all 6 sides have territories on them
• randomly generated maps based on geometric shapes (wouldn't have to be, but easier to make sure shapes "fit" together) - as an add-on to this, static vs dynamic (so territories can move, continents can rotate / etc - initially I thought it'd be great to have a max full of hexagons, and those rotate at the end of each round if they're "owned" - could move 1-5 times (back to start) even
• super-maps (think world map, split into continents, which are split into countries, which are split into regions, each with their own bonuses and/or modifiers for being held and/or captured)
• combined maps (connected by sea lanes) - for massive multiplayer battles across a map pack (or multiple)
• platformer-style maps
• these could be combined with a few above too, but you could have ladders / gaps / doors etc (imagine RISK campaign exploring that in fog 😅) - and the territories are horizontal OR vertically connected in passages, but can have 3 or 4 width (so you can cut through them and go around big stacks)

[stone hedge]

The idea is interesting, but doesn’t it risk becoming overwhelming? If players have to manage bonuses across continents, countries, and regions, somewhat like hearts of iron it might feel more like a complex simulation game and less like the streamlined strategy Risk is known for. That said, if implemented thoughtfully like maybe making those layers optional or modular it could appeal to a broader range of players. The platform style maps are a cool twist, but they could run into the same problem do they add meaningful strategic depth, or just make the game feel gimmicky, in my opinion risk is at its best when it’s easy to pick up and play but still rewarding for long term strategy. Adding too many unconventional mechanics might risk losing that balance.

I think the challenge here is figuring out how to innovate without losing the simplicity and accessibility that’s always made Risk what it is.

[hexed epoch]

Because of the massive territory difference between existing maps & if the ones I mentioned were added, it'd much more likely only really apply to;

• single player(where campaign levels are fixed, or special event SP time frames)
• massive multiplayer (allowing dozens / hundreds of players to access the game at once) - so it's more suited to "clan style" games than MP games as we see them today
  So it's a good chance that when a specific "type" of new feature is going to be active for you and your fellow 50-100 member team, that it'd include a tutorial to walk you through how it works & explain scoring system/elimination system - people would only really be encountering a smaller subset of variations together at a time, and it's a great way to completely turn existing strategies upside down - each needing brand new strategies

[stone hedge]

True that it might work better in single player or massive multiplayer settings. But even within those setups, I still think there are some challenges to consider. For one, in massive multiplayer games with 50-100 players or clan style battles, how do you handle pacing? Risk already slows down a lot in larger games, and adding tutorials or complex scoring systems and possibly new mechanics could make it even harder to keep players engaged especially if they’re waiting a long time for their turn. For single player campaigns, I can see the appeal of fixed maps and time frames. But if the maps and mechanics become so specific or tailored to certain scenarios, does it risk losing the broad appeal of Risk’s streamlined strategy. Too many variations might create a steeper learning curve that could push away more casual players.

[hexed epoch]

Yeah they're kinda separate from map ideas, but things like "same time RISK" would ease some of these (meaning everyone can make moves at the same time, and when everyone has ended turn, next set of troops are given)

[stone hedge]

I certainly see where you’re coming from, and I agree that something like "same time Risk" could help with pacing issues in large multiplayer games. It’s indeed a clever way to tackle the pacing problem while keeping the flow of the game more dynamic. That said, I think there could be some challenges with resolving simultaneous actions, like if two players target the same territory or if negotiations and alliances are happening in real time. Part of Risk’s strategic depth comes from reacting to others moves and planning your own in response, and I wonder if same time gameplay might trade some of that depth for speed.

[hexed epoch]

Realistically if you have 100 players on a map, you'll only care about the area you're trying to capture (anyone also trying to capture it will be at war too quickly) - and it means everyone is effectively having mini battles to progress - but yeah definitely some downsides too