yes 3 player is find unless you got secret alliance in the game and you make it adjust and it wouldnt be easy and make it real time then it wouldnt last that long then we would see the best of the best i like to play with some of the alliance to see how good they are with out their allianceqeee1 wrote:I think winning a two player game doesn't take a lot of skill, it just relies on luck and correct deployment. Anyone can hit a perfect game in those two areas pretty quickly. The real skill element in any Risk game is psychological, which only really comes into play in 3 player+ games.dagreatbroomhead wrote:*cough* back on topic...
i think have 2 player games would be good because i think it would create alot of competition and new kinds of tournaments, and epically find out whose the best of two people.
Two Person Play Option[Done]
Moderator: Community Team
-
larry holland
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:46 pm
- Location: where i lay my head
Well you wouldn't lose that many points for losing... I think its a good idea, except for multis.qeee1 wrote:dagreatbroomhead wrote:*cough* back on topic...
I think winning a two player game doesn't take a lot of skill, it just relies on luck and correct deployment. Anyone can hit a perfect game in those two areas pretty quickly. The real skill element in any Risk game is psychological, which only really comes into play in 3 player+ games.
Iainarm, son of the great Iainleg, son of the great Iainhand, son of the great Iainfoot...
7 arColeman wrote:The way 2 player games are usually (and should be) handled is that the game creates 3 players, but one of the 3 is neutral and doesn't do anything.
If such a game existed I'd like to play Molacole and go second all the time. I don't really see your argument. Dice rolls aren't guaranteed in the first person's favor and attacking first usually (debatable) doesn't make sense.
I'd like to see this in. Duels are great. It would be nice to legally have them.
What I was trying to point out is that if we played a doubles game the first person would get 7 armies and be attacking with 10 troops against any single territory. If troop placement allowed it the first player would be able to get a bonus, secure it and lower his apponents bonus of 7 to 6 just by attacking him once and also be up a round with a bonus.
In a 2 player game with 1 nuetral player deployment that would be a different story and I think the whole game would revolve around where the nuetral troops are deployed. Locations like iceland,north africa, siam, middle east and kamchakta could have a drastic impact on the game making it very unbalanced.
-
wrightfan123
- Posts: 601
- Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:58 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Looking over every baseball team's schedule to try to determine who will win the World Series.
- Contact:
2 Player Games
What? Yes, I know it is on the to do list, but I don't think it is something that is seriously going to happen any time soon. Which frankly sucks. I'm treating it as a new suggestion, because I think it needs a new look at and more urgency. 
Why? 2 player games have always been a favorite of mine in the board games. It requires a different kind of game play and thinking then larger games and the conflict tends to be more interesting. Plus we could get some real tournament structures going without doubles games, and I have no idea how I'll implement my latest tournament idea without it, unless I can hire people to deadbeat, and who wants that?
How? In the board game version of this site 2 player games are really 3 player games where the third player is a neutral army that never moves. This is how it needs to be done on the site or the imbalances caused by turn order and whatever else are going to be too great.
When? Shortly after lack gets back? Seriously.
Why? 2 player games have always been a favorite of mine in the board games. It requires a different kind of game play and thinking then larger games and the conflict tends to be more interesting. Plus we could get some real tournament structures going without doubles games, and I have no idea how I'll implement my latest tournament idea without it, unless I can hire people to deadbeat, and who wants that?
How? In the board game version of this site 2 player games are really 3 player games where the third player is a neutral army that never moves. This is how it needs to be done on the site or the imbalances caused by turn order and whatever else are going to be too great.
When? Shortly after lack gets back? Seriously.
Warning: You may be reading a really old topic.
-
joeyjordison
- Posts: 1170
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:10 am
Yeah, that was another thing I like about it. I'm sure there is a way to get around the abuse potential.joeyjordison wrote:would be really easy to abbuse for multis although i suppose it doesn't exactly take a lot of brains to create 2 multis....
i like the idea tho because it would allow real showdowns between 2 enemies
Warning: You may be reading a really old topic.
-
alex_white101
- Posts: 1992
- Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:05 am
You realize that I realize that, and that I'm a jerk who doesn't care, so I'll be as impatient as I damn will choose to be? Awesome.alex_white101 wrote:you realise programming this stuff doesnt happen instantly? it takes hours to create and implement them. it is pending which means someone (lack) will work on it. dont be so impatient.........
Warning: You may be reading a really old topic.
-
Dancing Mustard
- Posts: 5442
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:31 pm
- Location: Pushing Buttons
Coleman. I like your style.Coleman wrote:You realize that I realize that, and that I'm a jerk who doesn't care, so I'll be as impatient as I damn will choose to be? Awesome.alex_white101 wrote:you realise programming this stuff doesnt happen instantly? it takes hours to create and implement them. it is pending which means someone (lack) will work on it. dont be so impatient.........
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
