Artillery is the King of Battle

[Crazy Frog]

I have a pet peeve... that the Battles follow some form of realism through the play and way units operate.

Here is a an example of a good thing: The Cavalry symbol (like a chess knight) in Waterloo map can attack both the unit next to it and also the one that is two spaces away provided there is no impassable object.. fine.. wonderfully done.

Now.. an example of something that don't fit. the artillery pieces enter into long distance combat where the other units are at the other ends of the map... but even lowly infantry is allowed to return fire and kill off the artillery during the exchange.
Artillery is "Indirect Fire" and is NOT susceptible to damage from return fire from troops that are not directly adjacent to it... or in the case of the Knights above two spaces...

If the Unit would not ordinarily be able to attack the artillery emplacement then they should not be allowed any return fire.

Now you may think this would make artillery too powerful... but the artillery would need to be limited only in its number of attacks per round. IE: One Volley per Artillery unit so you better make it count. or... One Volley per group of 5 cannons and then putting 5 men on one cannon emplacement would count allowing you to take one volley... 20 would allow you to make 4 volleys etc.

What think ye?

[The Neon Peon]

This is a RISK like (but RISK unrelated ) game, not an actual battle.

If you want to imagine that it is a real battle, then consider the amount of troops you have on the artillery as boxes of ammunition. When you attack, the amount you have goes down by varying amounts - sometimes you hit the target with the first shot (you win both rolls) and still have the rest of the box to spare, sometimes you have to take several shots (win one roll, lose the other), and sometimes your aim is just way off (lose both rolls).

[neanderpaul14]

Now.. an example of something that don't fit. the artillery pieces enter into long distance combat where the other units are at the other ends of the map... but even lowly infantry is allowed to return fire and kill off the artillery during the exchange.
Artillery is "Indirect Fire" and is NOT susceptible to damage from return fire from troops that are not directly adjacent to it... or in the case of the Knights above two spaces...

If the Unit would not ordinarily be able to attack the artillery emplacement then they should not be allowed any return fire.

Only the infantry near the artillery can attack it, and this is very realistic in terms of Napoleonic warfare, as cannons were quite often overrun by infantry units. Artillery during that era were not the super long distance pieces of today, they were down in the thick of the fighting, often in front of the infantry.

[00iCon]

This is a RISK like (but RISK unrelated ) game, not an actual battle.

If you want to imagine that it is a real battle, then consider the amount of troops you have on the artillery as boxes of ammunition. When you attack, the amount you have goes down by varying amounts - sometimes you hit the target with the first shot (you win both rolls) and still have the rest of the box to spare, sometimes you have to take several shots (win one roll, lose the other), and sometimes your aim is just way off (lose both rolls).

I was pondering the same thing, but that's a good explanation!

[Crazy Frog]

This is a RISK like (but RISK unrelated ) game, not an actual battle.

If you want to imagine that it is a real battle, then consider the amount of troops you have on the artillery as boxes of ammunition. When you attack, the amount you have goes down by varying amounts - sometimes you hit the target with the first shot (you win both rolls) and still have the rest of the box to spare, sometimes you have to take several shots (win one roll, lose the other), and sometimes your aim is just way off (lose both rolls).

What is the point of a Risk style game if not to simulate Warfare in the most realistic way conveniently available?
Of course there will always be dice involved... and limitations... but is the goal not to try and simulate the real thing?

[Evil DIMwit]

This is a RISK like (but RISK unrelated ) game, not an actual battle.

If you want to imagine that it is a real battle, then consider the amount of troops you have on the artillery as boxes of ammunition. When you attack, the amount you have goes down by varying amounts - sometimes you hit the target with the first shot (you win both rolls) and still have the rest of the box to spare, sometimes you have to take several shots (win one roll, lose the other), and sometimes your aim is just way off (lose both rolls).

What is the point of a Risk style game if not to simulate Warfare in the most realistic way conveniently available?
Of course there will always be dice involved... and limitations... but is the goal not to try and simulate the real thing?

Absolutely not. If Risk is an attempt to simulate war, it's a spectacular failure. What Risk is is a fun dice-based board game with a military theme. I think Conquer Club's proven that the theme could be anything, from politics to crossword puzzles; warfare is simply the most common flavor.

[petrie000]

i believe the most accurate way to describe Risk is a "military strategy simulation". your the Supreme Leader of your empire, you move around your armies to position them for attack and defense. the individual battles are up to the generals of the armies involved.

i've always been curious to see what an 'artillery dominated map' would play like, i.e. maps with many bombardment spaces covering choke points or something along those lines, but without the ability to edit maps myself i've never really been able to explore a few ideas i've had over the years.

[Crazy Frog]

i believe the most accurate way to describe Risk is a "military strategy simulation". your the Supreme Leader of your empire, you move around your armies to position them for attack and defense. the individual battles are up to the generals of the armies involved.

i've always been curious to see what an 'artillery dominated map' would play like, i.e. maps with many bombardment spaces covering choke points or something along those lines, but without the ability to edit maps myself i've never really been able to explore a few ideas i've had over the years.

Thats the type of thing I was aiming at... to have the given units have some sort of realistic limitations and benefits... at a glance the Icon of the Unit would tell you what they can and cant do... in accordance with the map terrain limitations...

Ok... Is there any game that you know of that I am describing? Because when I searched online with the key words "turn based strategy war game" this is pretty much all I find. Or some warcraft stuff... not interested... I like taking time to think out the strategy and move.. wait for apponent... Chess but with more realistic units etc... I thought about making my own but I dont have the Computer knowledge of how to create it.

I could figure out the Mods and stuff ok... but the technical would kill me.