#Risk Idea: Different Alliance Types

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

deft canopy
#

Introduction:
I have observed that alliances can have multiple different functions, sometimes you just want to be able to negotiate your way into a position on the map. Sometimes you want to create a pocket for effective card collection. Sometimes you just don't see yourself as enemies. Sometimes you see yourself as an unbreakable team in face of a greater enemy.

Idea:
My idea is that the core functions of alliances should be able to be displayed so you both get a clear understanding of what you want to gain from it.

General info:
Entente is mandatory in any alliance. The other types are individually added and can stack.

Alliance Types:

  • Entente
    The basic alliance type, which allows for direct communication. Its purpose is to let players negotiate and improve relations without a formal alliance.

  • Trade Pact
    An agreement to help each other to take cards.

  • Neutrality Pact
    An agreement to not attack each other, possibly to have open borders.

  • Coalition
    A collaboration against other opponents.

gloomy zenith
#

I like the idea here. Hoping you get some good conversation on and eventually send it to #risk_ideas .

eternal bloom
#

Would help with the amount of people coming and blaming alliances when they get back stabbed

gaunt ravine
#

trade pact could simply be a new a new icon for "hey let's trade cards"

#

maybe allow the current communication by default

#

then you get rid of the "ally everyone" step that's common for non-fog games

#

"share vision" is an important alliance type if you want to change the system

deft canopy
#

Maybe different levels of vision too. See all your territories or see your bordering territories too.

deft canopy
gaunt ravine
#

if people don't want to get any messages they can always mute others

fringe hatch
#

I'm not sure this proposal would change the game the way it's being discussed.

This falls under the umbrella of improved communication.

If you've ever played the board game in person or watched/participated in a game with voice chat, you will appreciate how much the game shifts from game strategy to verbal manipulation. It's a completely different game experience.

Having free text communication would lead to similar results, not to mention all the headaches for content moderation.

The current approach taken is emotes as a way to signal intent. These emotes can be true intent or a form of manipulation.

Alliances takes communication 1 step further, the ability to send private emotes.

The proposal for more alliance types is essentially more private emotes. More options to communicate intent or to manipulate.

My question is why would I ever signal the least level of alliance?
Even if I have no intention of working with this player I'm going to offer/accept the highest trust tier. Why tell them I don't trust them or want to work with them? That makes them more susceptible to working against me.

It's the same as using fist bumps. If a player comes by your border and offers a fist bump, you reply with thanks or a fist bump of your own. Even if you plan to break them. No need to signal that you are their enemy.

We already have complaints about people breaking alliances as it is. Can you imagine the outrage every time some one has a non aggression alliances gets betrayed by their "ally"?

At its heart I feel like this proposal is meant to give players greater confidence in their allies. I believe it would do the exact opposite. It will allow savvy players to lull unsuspecting players into a false sense of security.

My contention: more communication options = more avenues for psychological manipulation.

deft canopy
# fringe hatch I'm not sure this proposal would change the game the way it's being discussed. ...

Signalling a lower level of alliance shows that you are genuine and down to earth. Getting all levels easily and believing them probably means you are naive. You have to consider an alliance validity based on position, true strategic benefit, not just optimism. It becomes a useful tool if you know how to align it with your allies intent. Also unlocks a deeper level of deception which is double sided. I personally have no problem with betrayals, not what I tried to reduce with this proposal. Just to increase clarity when your intents are aligned.

fringe hatch
#

So if a player signals he wants a coalition, as you called it, when would you not accept that request?

deft canopy
#

I would assess if that coalition has any purpose. Would not accept it if I see there is none.

#

Usually neutrality would be enough for friendly neighbor. Then ask for coalition when the opportunity arises.

sweet comet
#

Good fences make good neighbors. We need better and more kinds of fences in Risk and not more names for types of alliances. Anyone who agrees with me 110%… you and I have confirmed our “two peas in a pod” level alliance and should now go get ice cream sundaes.

deft canopy
deft canopy
# gaunt ravine "share vision" is an important alliance type if you want to change the system

'Share Vision' can be divided into 3 parts which creates multiple combinations.

  • Seeing ally troop counts or not
  • Seeing adjacent territories or not
  • Seeing foe troop counts or not

7 visibility levels:

  1. Only seeing your own territories, your troop counts, and adjacent territories and their troop counts. (Default)
    With alliance
  2. Seeing only ally territories but not their troop counts.
  3. Seeing only ally territories and their troop counts.
  4. Seeing adjacent territories to your ally but not ally troop counts and not foe troop counts.
  5. Seeing adjacent territories to your ally and ally troop counts but not foe troop counts.
  6. Seeing adjacent territories to your ally but not ally troop counts and foe troop counts.
  7. Seeing adjacent territories to your ally and ally troop counts and foe troop counts. (Current with fog alliances)
gaunt ravine
#

don't stop there, enable negotiations about visibility of every single territory

#

oh, and fuzzy troop counts, +-5 added

deft canopy
deft canopy
# gaunt ravine oh, and fuzzy troop counts, +-5 added

I also considered this. Another thing is to keep visibility as the last state before you lose ongoing visibility. Let's say you lost a territory and the enemy had 8 there at the moment. That 8 will keep showing until you see that territory again.

fringe hatch
gaunt ravine
#

finally a reason for 5 minute turn timers

gaunt ravine
#

I see some synergy with the scenario editor they want to do

#

each turn, you create the scenario you want to share with your ally

deft canopy
deft canopy
gaunt ravine
fringe hatch
sweet comet
deft canopy
gaunt ravine
#

no one wants to read 5 rule books before playing the game

sweet comet
#

“Your Air Force has successfully strafed my pirate ship, but the pirates were all out to lunch. You can expect an invasion of angry buccaneers coming ashore on every sea adjacent territory you possess as soon as their out of office memos are reset to back at work.” << The kind of slightly more detailed message that we must be able to send in game.

deft canopy
#

Lol

#

I have been thinking about water territories and ships exclusive to them.

sweet comet
deft canopy
#

Simple idea but how it works in detail?

sweet comet
#

I can’t find the original posting. Appears it got deleted or is in an archived channel. But here is my rehashing of it a while ago.

#1211814442883481620 message