Risk: Team9000 Edition

Io_Reign said:
The land claiming just now was incredibly unfair. You said a small piece of land has the same value/power as a large piece, but fae claimed like 40+ areas while david claimed a measly 10.

Edit: Please note, all factions attempting to contact pyke, please add me, ustulo, and allimon to whatever diplomatic ventures or anything else regarding us.
Click to expand...
David picked an island. This has some obvious consequences. Not to mention that David picked his choice after Faeirie and Batteofomega claimed portions of Europe and tbarius claimed Canada. I fulfilled his action log wishes and did not cheat him, nor anyone else. Everyone got the same opportunity to look at the map and pick a location to place their nation.
 
Io_Reign said:
The land claiming just now was incredibly unfair. You said a small piece of land has the same value/power as a large piece, but fae claimed like 40+ areas while david claimed a measly 10.

Edit: Please note, all factions attempting to contact pyke, please add me, ustulo, and allimon to whatever diplomatic ventures or anything else regarding us.
Click to expand...

I expanded into Portugal during Weaseltits' first year. I didn't know that a bit of North Africa came with the package.
 
Allimon said:
Can we haz statistics of how much land/tiles each country owns?
Click to expand...
Creeper said:
Okay_face.jpg
:eek:kay:
Click to expand...

*cough*
 
Allimon said:
It's nice to know how people are doing relative to others, given the fact that all land is 'equal.'

What effect does land have on attacking people?
Click to expand...
Don't worry, I'm working on it.

What effect? Well, let's say you are attacking a nation whom you generally surround on the same continent. You have a greater chance of claiming land from them. However, if you attack a nation with forces on a continent that the majority of your land isn't on, you have a less of a chance to conquer them.

If the nation wishes to "defend" (like Wooty's nation) they have an even greater chance of successfully defending from attack.
 
Allimon said:
given the fact that all land is 'equal.'
Click to expand...
Allow me to rephrase this. What I meant by saying that all land is equal is that they hold no numeral advantage over each other. A nation with 30 territories may hold more surface area than a nation with 60. This is often the case. I should say that larger territory pieces are the most valuable, in terms of usefulness.
 
Creeper said:
Allow me to rephrase this. What I meant by saying that all land is equal is that they hold no numeral advantage over each other. A nation with 30 territories may hold more surface area than a nation with 60. This is often the case. I should say that larger territory pieces are the most valuable, in terms of usefulness.
Click to expand...

Does it have an effect on attacking strength, though?

Beside the surrounding/superior land on a continent. Are the superior land numbers also applying to all battles?
 
Allimon said:
Does it have an effect on attacking strength, though?

Beside the surrounding/superior land on a continent. Are the superior land numbers also applying to all battles?
Click to expand...
Territory numbers do not equal attacking power.

It basically goes like this: Land mass + number of territories on continent of which you are attacking an enemy nation + a small chance of randomness = power in a given attack.
 
I'm finding it hard to determine how much territory may be taken during a battle. Given that the map contains so many small territories, is there a legend or something that defines how much territory equals a certain region? For example: Let's say I want to attack my country and take the territories in S. America. Would each small territory constitute a battle, or would that whole southern tip be taken in one swoop? Also...would it have been prudent to just give every nation a moderately equal swath of land that butt up against each other? That would have made for faster gameplay, IMO. I would like to know the specific formula/program you're using to determine battles so I can better calculate odds/risks. I'm not one to go willy-nilly into battle without knowing if I have a fair shot at it.

Also...some of those colors are hard for me to distinguish apart...kind of color blind...a bit... :cautious:

Furthermore: I don't like how everyone is allying with everyone already. It makes attacking a specific nation more difficult, and will only slow things down. How in-depth can these alliances be, anyways? Is it simply an armistice between nations, or can one ally nation provide another with troops?
 
I think alliances should have a deeper meaning. I should be able to attack my enemies through my allied nation, provided ofcourse the distance isn't too great. Also, the rules should allow for allied nations to win the game together, without having to fight eachother in the endgame.
As for how attacks work, other then what Creeper explained in his post above, I have no idea. This isn't like any grand strategy game I've ever played. How much land would an attack conquer in one turn? Would I possibly already be standing on doors of my enemy's capital, or would there be some sort of initial standstill, allowing my enemy to respond? I have to admit, I severely underestimated how much land could be claimed in one turn.
As for the colors, yes, they can seem confusing at times. You should have made it more clear that you could pick other colors then what was shown on the list on the map, and the possibility of having details like dots or stripes.

Overall Creeper, you've done a good job, but this could see improvement. I'm interested in helping with the planning of the next game. The rules could have been clearer, and examples should have been shown.
 
is it too late to get in on this?

*edit* looks like things are already in full swing, I will bide my time and await the next game. Liberatoria shall rise from the ashes and join in next game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top