New Gameplay by Flak

[open tusk]

Welcome @unreal bear! Any feedback from the community will show up here.
Please note that this thread discussion may be shared with SMG, but its primary purpose is for the RISK community to discuss ideas and provide constructive feedback.
If you would like to submit feedback to SMG directly, use this link.

[jaunty siren]

hell no, horrible idea

[unreal bear]

I don't really care about your opinion since you are known to say you hate every idea I post even when If I copy YOUR exact idea and posted it. You just do what your toxic 5 masters do. and I don't care if yall downvote my idea. That is pretty childish though to downvote it just in an attempt to bother someone.

[jaunty siren]

nope

[quasi bloom]

maybe she just doesn't like your ideas lol

[unreal bear]

Nah, I have been thru this with them before.

[sweet finch]

Its not in an attempt to bother you, its just my opinion

The dice is a major part of risk, just taking it away is dumb

[cunning mulch]

I wanna see what it's like (I just don't think it would ever be competitively viable)
I like maths though, game of subtraction, not too different from a game of attrition

[sweet finch]

As a relaxed version, it would be fine, I do agree with that

Ill do neutral vote instead

[halcyon slate]

I'm not sure how this would play out and if it would be anywhere as good as the original "Risk".

I'd definitely be interested to see this play out in a simulation.

[quasi bloom]

agreed

[unreal bear]

Wasn't talking about you, your good.

[unreal bear]

Yeah, that's how I play it in my head when I play pretty much. All this would do is just allow you to always get expected results without variation. It is kinda of like balanced blitz dice. Could have a cool name too. Really thinking about it it sounds like a perfect fit in the dice settings.

[sweet finch]

My question is, do they still lose troops? If so how reasonable is it? Like is it still random or is that also set? @unreal bear

[unreal bear]

Yeah. If you attack with 10, then you lose 10 and they lose 10. If that makes sense. I mean of course you would need an 11 to attack a 10 since 1 is left behind.

A cap would have 2x strenth so you would have to attack a 10 with a 21, then he would always lose his 10 and you your 20.

[sweet finch]

Hmm interestint

[cunning mulch]

If you need 11 to attack 10, and you both lose 10, the territory you attacked would have no troops on it
(Need 1 left behind, and 1 that lands on the target)

[unreal bear]

Ah true. Good correction.

[stone forum]

I like the concept but if you attack you have no troops left at all to defend with after for that spot.Maybe you automatically lose like a certain percentage of troops but that's it?

[unreal bear]

We have already discussed and figured that out right above your comment. lol. You would really need a 12 to attack a 10. That way 1 is left on each territory.

[stone forum]

Different spin on it

[unreal bear]

Different spin on what?

[unreal bear]

It is basically the way the game is played now in everyones head. lol. I mean, who attacks a 10 before they have 12 anyways? Who attacks a cap with less than double? All it is is guarenteeing the expected results.

[stone forum]

Seen players do that on capitals usually lower lvls

[stone forum]

How much you get left over anyway love the concept

[unreal bear]

Thanks for liking it, though I feel you should have read what was already said before asking again. If the attacker has lets say 12 and the defender has 10. Each player would lose 10 troops. Attacker would have 2 troops left, 1 on each territory.

[sweet finch]

But its also guaranteeing the end troop loss

[unreal bear]

Right. So you will always know exactly how many troops you need to take something or to kill something.

We could call it "Kamikaze" dice or something lol.

[unreal bear]

@cunning mulch Really thinking about it, it should be 2 will always kill a 1. So 9 would kill 10. That would be a better way. 2 would kill the 1 and have 1 troop on each territory.

[cunning mulch]

It could otherwise support blank territories (e.g. kill enough but none left to move to next territory) would make it like manual placement (empty territory anyone can take)

[cunning lion]

I actually like this in certain contexts. Though I assume that the gambling aspect of the game is what a lot of people like about it. But let's say were playing exponential no fog. This completes the chess like nature of that zone. The game becomes truly calculable. Perhaps even in a progressive game this could incentivize more aggressive play(the major thing risk needs to do at the moment), since you can know for certain that you can make some elimination. Currently you have to be like oh well, in the worst case I will just fail this kill and lose, can't go for it. And the margin of error there can be very large. I don't like the 1:1 or 2:1 modifiers you have suggested though. That's almost certainly too high. Probably you replace that ratio with whatever the average of the current attacker's advantage is in either case. Something like 1.6:1 for caps and 1.1:1 for normal territories. All in all solid idea and i'd be fine with it being rotated into some "rotating test setting" slot that I do think SMG should develop. @unreal bear