XML Modifications and Variations

[Wisse]

Suggestion Idea: Defenseless


Description: Locations that can be attacked by adjacent territories, but lose the option to attack back due to them being a seige type of weapon, ranged weapon and or whatever you can think of that might fall into this category. This will give the option to put some key strongholds on the map that hold a lot of importance and make them pay a penalty so it doesn't become overpowering to the map. Giving them a one way attack direction so they don't get trapped.

This one, to my knowledge, can be done under the current system -- see San Francisco's Alcatraz

No because that country can defend himself

To the best of my understanding, this "defenseless" feature can still defend -- it would be better labeled "attackless".

this is what I mean:



I called it defenseless for a lack of a better word. haha lack of attack options to adjacent territories..

ok thats already possible

[Coleman]

Suggestion Idea:
Set Starting Positions

Description:
Not sure how to explain this but there should be a way to over ride the random placement and code in specific start locations based on player number and game type.

Why It Should Be Considered:
I dunno, it was an idea. I'm pretty sure this can't be done with xml anyway, but I thought I'd put it out there.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

[JupitersKing]

Fortress Spaces

These would be strongholds on the map, either on border edges or inside a territory, that would give a bonus dice to the defender, allowing them to roll up to 3 dice per attack-- though only the top 2 would count toward casualties.

The Fort wouldn't count as a territory for bonus purposes either since its a military instillation and doesn't 'produce' anything.

This would allow spaces to become very important to the strategy of the game. I think we need this option to give mapmakers another option in creating good playable maps.

JK

[No]

[/img]

[Guiscard]

Suggestion Idea:
Random Bonus

Description:
A territory (or possibly continent) gives a random bonus each turn within a set of parameters.

This could, for example, simulate re-enforcements from off the map when you hold, say, an airport. You would get between 1-5 re-enforcements per turn decided randomly to simulate the unreliability of re-enforcemnts in a war time situation.

A further option could be to include negative numbers, which really makes it a difficult strategic decision as to whether you should take and hold a territory. For example the parameter could be between +3 and -3.

Why It Should Be Considered:
It has the potential to create a more dynamic game. Players who look to be on a gradual slide out of the game could receive an extra boost to really make a difference to gameplay where they to receive the full re-enforcements available, or the leading player could have his strategy scuppered by randomly getting a negative bonus.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

[JupitersKing]

Variable Neutral Response

This is more suited to a 2-player 'massed army' map series I developed for table play but would work well in multies as well.

(oops, i said multies...)

Basically neutral spaces receive 1-6 armies on them instead of the normal three. The difference is that sometimes they fight you and sometimes the join your cause. When you move onto a neutral space a D6 is rolled, if the number is lower to or equal ( ># ) the number of armies the neutral defends against you normally. Thus sixes always fight while ones rarely raise arms.

If an army joins you those neutrals are absorbed into your army normally, expect they may not attack or move for the remainder of the turn they are absorbed. This is nice to add 1 and 2 men to your ranks at the beginning of the game when ranks are still thin. It can also be huge to attack a 4 or 5 and have them roll a six and join you.

The VNR option would give the game a more difficult (but more exciting) game play experience that mimics actual human psyche. It also creates strongholds on the map where you know there a 6 armies between you and South America or Africa.

JK

LACK>: [No]

[Lone.prophet]

Suggestion Idea:
Fortress and attack state

Description:
A certain territory has a bigger chance of winning a defencif trow (if the attacker trows his dice number 1 higher he still loses) or a bigger chance of winning a attack (With the same number the attacker wins). and otherwise that the defensive or attacking player has a decreased chance of winning.

Why It Should Be Considered: it will create way mroe depth in new maps to come since certain key territories are stronger/weaker now. it will also create a more realiistic view on how war is fought on certain ground.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

[HighCommander540]

Suggestion Idea: Defenseless


Description: Locations that can be attacked by adjacent territories, but lose the option to attack back due to them being a seige type of weapon, ranged weapon and or whatever you can think of that might fall into this category. This will give the option to put some key strongholds on the map that hold a lot of importance and make them pay a penalty so it doesn't become overpowering to the map. Giving them a one way attack direction so they don't get trapped.

This one, to my knowledge, can be done under the current system -- see San Francisco's Alcatraz

Being able to attack a single individual territory, by more than one. If you have more than one territory around a territory that you are trying to attack you should be ale to use all of the surrounding territories that you own. So to add more power and force. Better odds.

Some of these seem to be gameplay changes more than they're XML changes... frankly, I think this would overcomplicate the game.

Yes, I know it is gameplay changes. Also, what are you talking about over complicate? How does it make it any more complicated. It makes it more of a real fight. Which is the point of risk it is trying to simulate a war without having to lose people or have to see real blood shed. Also, Risk is to prove who is a better commander or general by strategy and luck (exactly like a real battle you have both). This would make it even more so...That is why the creators of Risk added it to their PC game.

Oh, and look at that this game is on the computer too. It would make it more real and require more thinking. To be attack on more than one side is a different battle than just one.

Many battle have been won by small forces, because together they are mighty.

[yeti_c]

Suggestion Idea:
Team Bonus

Description:
Not sure if this is XML or not... but perhaps you could have "team continents" where if a team owns all of the territories then the team get the bonus each one of their players turns... obviously these team bonuses would have to be ultra hard to get... and might only work on Bigger maps.

Why It Should Be Considered: Make team games more team oriented?

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

[Molacole]

Suggestion Idea:
Team Bonus

Description:
Not sure if this is XML or not... but perhaps you could have "team continents" where if a team owns all of the territories then the team get the bonus each one of their players turns... obviously these team bonuses would have to be ultra hard to get... and might only work on Bigger maps.

Why It Should Be Considered: Make team games more team oriented?

Lack Label (Mod Use):

I like this idea a lot. Imagine a map like world 2.0 with team bonuses split for holding a whole continent! That would definitely make that map even more popular

[Contrickster]

Suggestion Idea: Max troop limit

Description: Allow the map maker to select designated territories which can only be occupied by a certain amount of troops.

Why It Should Be Considered: It will allow for ideas like my paratroopers idea to exist without being abused. It could be used on maps to prevent a player from sweeping the board in a single round during esc. games. It can also give the option to prevent people from massing up troops and suiciding on somebody.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

Molacole, please read the thread first before posting to avoid repetition. Overloaded Territories is a subtle extension of this basic idea

[fluffybunnykins]

I like the set starting positions idea that a few people have mentioned. It would make the historical battle maps more realistic & would open up scenario possibilities, such as exploring/conquering new lands (every player starts with just one territory & the rest of the map is neutral)

[yeti_c]

I like the set starting positions idea that a few people have mentioned. It would make the historical battle maps more realistic & would open up scenario possibilities, such as exploring/conquering new lands (every player starts with just one territory & the rest of the map is neutral)

Yeah scenario risk could be pretty cool...

Imagine scenarios with fog of war... that'd be cool...

On that point I guess Fog of war could go into XML - visiblity length could be defined here - although actually this would be best as an option on game start wouldn't it... please ignore my ramblings! (Shame they're sober ones too!)

C.

[Lone.prophet]

Idea
Fog of war

how does it work
you can only see the surrounding countries so no country that doesnt border one of your countries

Why cause it will create a dynamic gamefield with suprises.

diffuclty: [No]

[yeti_c]

Idea
Fog of war

how does it work
you can only see the surrounding countries so no country that doesnt border one of your countries

Why cause it will create a dynamic gamefield with suprises.

diffuclty:

Game Play change - and on the todo...

However a better suggestion would be

"Permanent fog" on some territories... you can only see into the territory if you own it or are attacking it...

C.

[ClessAlvein]

There's a slight problem with "Fog of War" - if it's implemented, then spectators would have to no longer be able to view the game. If they could, then what would prevent one of the player from gathering satellite intel by asking another player to tell him the army positions?

[Wisse]

There's a slight problem with "Fog of War" - if it's implemented, then spectators would have to no longer be able to view the game. If they could, then what would prevent one of the player from gathering satellite intel by asking another player to tell him the army positions?

i recomend to not let them see it but let everyone see the amount of countrys every has (not the amount of armys)

[Molacole]

There's a slight problem with "Fog of War" - if it's implemented, then spectators would have to no longer be able to view the game. If they could, then what would prevent one of the player from gathering satellite intel by asking another player to tell him the army positions?

i recomend to not let them see it but let everyone see the amount of countrys every has (not the amount of armys)

if you don't allow everyone to see the amount of countries everyone has then it will give people who use greesemonkey an advantage over everyone else making the game style very unpopular to those who don't have greesemonkey and know what it does...

[Wisse]

There's a slight problem with "Fog of War" - if it's implemented, then spectators would have to no longer be able to view the game. If they could, then what would prevent one of the player from gathering satellite intel by asking another player to tell him the army positions?

i recomend to not let them see it but let everyone see the amount of countrys every has (not the amount of armys)

if you don't allow everyone to see the amount of countries everyone has then it will give people who use greesemonkey an advantage over everyone else making the game style very unpopular to those who don't have greesemonkey and know what it does...

read it again...

[The_Devil]

Suggestion Idea: Bonus After Atking

Description: You get a bonus if you own a continent before your turn, but if you conquer another continent you can take an extra bonus

Why It Should Be Considered: Then freestlye players don't have to wait for the next person to move to get their bonus (that they got)

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

[The_Devil]

Idea
Fog of war

how does it work
you can only see the surrounding countries so no country that doesnt border one of your countries

Why cause it will create a dynamic gamefield with suprises.

diffuclty:

Game Play change - and on the todo...

However a better suggestion would be

"Permanent fog" on some territories... you can only see into the territory if you own it or are attacking it...

C.

I think you copied this from final conquest..

[yeti_c]

What's "Final Conquest"

C.

[neoni]

Idea
Fog of war

how does it work
you can only see the surrounding countries so no country that doesnt border one of your countries

Why cause it will create a dynamic gamefield with suprises.

diffuclty:

this was my idea too, would be amazing

[mibi]

holy crap... i didnt even know this thread existed until now. i have some reading to do.

[mibi]

Suggestion Idea:
Simple X for Y Bonuses

Description:
Lets say I have a group of 15 territories, lets call them power plants. I want to be able to do this:
3 Power Plants +1 Army
6 Power Plants +3 Armies
9 Power Plants +5 Armies
12 Power Plants +7 Armies
15 Power Plants +10 Armies

Why It Should Be Considered:
Technically this is possible with the current xml but it is impossible to do without millions of lines of code on our end using combinations of positive and negative bonuses. There should be a better way.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

great Idea! this should definitely be implemented.

[mibi]

Suggestion Idea:
Set Starting Positions

Description:
Not sure how to explain this but there should be a way to over ride the random placement and code in specific start locations based on player number and game type.

Why It Should Be Considered:
I dunno, it was an idea. I'm pretty sure this can't be done with xml anyway, but I thought I'd put it out there.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

great idea!... would be very good for some situational maps.