Skip to Content
 

Risk-like game in need of advice

16 replies [Last post]
Qundar
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969

Hi,

This here is an idea I had the other day for a new game, and it's been bugging me ever since, but I wanted to see if I could get any advice here on bgdf. You all seem to be pretty darn smart people to me, so I thought, why not? So, here goes:

Name of Game: High Risk

Genre: strategy/wargame? (think Risk on steroids)

Players: 2-8?

This idea sparked from the desire to have a game like Risk, only much better. Risk is fun and all, but too basic, and sometimes too easy (control just Asia and Australia, and you got it made). IT's also too confining for me: not enough territories, no navies (weren't naval battels real big back then?), and not complex enough. So, the other day, while playing Risk with my siblings (thrashing them all the way from East Africa to New Gineau), I thought to myself, "Wouldn't itbe cool to play Risk on a real map of the world?" And so it began. Next came the idea of having a navy. Then, the following day, my Dad gave me the idea of the title for the game. And I also thought of trying to have some sorta secretive aspect to the game, where you can sectretly put a plan into motion, but also somehow prevent people from cheating with this. And of course, since this would be a more complicated game, and for older players, more than likely you could introduce a way to have diplomacy (but how do you do that, and prevent 7 people from ganging up on one poor sap?). I want people to be able to forge (and break), peace treaties and alliances, as well as trade resources. Or, you could even allow powerful players to conquer a weaker one, and turn them into slaves. Using their army and navy on their turn, and sapping them of their resources (though possibly angering the weak player's allies, or maybe causing him to gain some allies, some people love to help the underdogs). Possibilities abound. And threaten to overcomplicate the game.

Ideas and problems that I've run into include the secretive part (how do you allow someone to secretly start sneaking a large army into a territory to attack, yet keep people from cheating with stuff like this?). Exactly what era is this in? (I can't remember what time frame Risk takes place in.) I also hope to have a map with correct terrain (to give attackers and deffenders penalties and advantages). As well as the latitude/longitude grid patter, to allow players to have to fight for countries one square at a time, which means a player could still hold onto control of a country just long enough to get reinforcments, and preventing the attacker from gaining a territory bonus. And that would help with navies, as then you wouldn't have to bust out a ruler everytime you wanted to move your ships, just move them a square at a time. And why just the basic battalion? Why can't you have infantry, cavalry, and artillery? As well as supply lines. And galleons and troop ships on the seas. I also want to include a few resources such as loyalty (of your subjects), gold (a measurment of wealth), and also natural resource areas. For example, if in your territories you have 6 forests and 2 metal mines, you could build up to 3 ships per turn. And of course you'll get new units based on your territory holdings, but what if you're in bad need of troops, and fast? Why not initiate a draft? You would loose some loyalty, and maybe not be able to get more recruits the normal way for a while, but it would help in the short term. Or what if money was needed? How about, for a loss of loyalty, you could increase taxes, and get more gold?

As you can see, this game could easily become overly long and overly complicated. I like complicated and long, but even I have my limits. So I am in need of ideas and suggestions and advice. I've yet to work on the actual mechanics and systems (such as movement/purchasing/fighting/etc.), as I am still in the brainstorming phase, with new ideas bursting into my mind all the time. So I figured you guys (and gals) could help me, as I'm still a newbie in all of this. I don't want this game to be too complicated (though I would like to make some of the rules optional, so people could play simple or complex games if they wished), and I don't know how much stuff to add before I reach that point. So, guys, can your collective minds aid me in this quest for global domination?

Live long and prosper, Qundar out.

P.S. Should I put this also in the journal section?

P.P.S. Any and all comments are welcome, even if it's to tell me my idea sucks. Or that it's too overdone, or just not workable. I welcome all thoughts.

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Risk-like game in need of advice

Quote:

P.S. Should I put this also in the journal section?

No. Your post meets the criteria to stay posted in the game design forum. You've asked specific questions to specific issues. The journals are to be used when you're just posting your game idea for others to read about and you're not really looking for specific feedback.

-Darke

Gogolski
Gogolski's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Risk-like game in need of advice

Qundar wrote:

Quote:
Ideas and problems that I've run into include the secretive part (how do you allow someone to secretly start sneaking a large army into a territory to attack, yet keep people from cheating with stuff like this?).
A simple way to do something like this goes as folows:

1] Whenever you receive reinforcements, you can give up your turn to secretly put these reinforcements in a territory. (reinforcements can be received because of a continent or because you can trade three cards of a kind/different cards)
=> You begin your turn by taking the reinforcements and anounce that they are to be placed secretly.
=> You then take a piece of paper and write down the name of the territory they have been shipped to. (this may be a territory you control, or one controlled by another player.)
=> Put the piece of paper face down and place your reinforcements on top.
=> Your turn ends. You can not battle or move this turn.
* You can have a maximum of two territories with secret reinforcements.
** You can have a maximum of five reinforcements on one territory.

2] Revealing secret reinforcements.
=> At the beginning of your turn, you may reveal your secret reinforcements and place them on the board if you control the territory that they are in.
=> You do the rest of your turn as usual (= 1] placing reinforcements; 2]batling; 3]moving)
* You could in one turn reval two territories if they are different ones.

Just an idea...
Cheese!

PS: Could you please edit your post for better readability? Just press edit and put an extra enter between each paragraph. The massive textblock is harder to read... TnX.

Challengers
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Risk-like game in need of advice

Hi Qundar!
Your idea is definitely workable. My first suggestion to you is to start on a small scale and add stuff one piece at a time. There are two reasons for this:
1. You get to try out stuff sooner.
2. It is impossible to weave all of the elements into a cohesive unit at once.

Have you ever tried to program a PC? How about write a story? Both of these creative endeavours require a bit of planning up front. Same with game design. For me, the difference with a game design is that, if I am basing it on an existing game (RISK), then I already have a framework.

My oldest three boys and I have created quite a few flavors of RISK, so I know you can do this. Here are some ideas (some of which have nothing to do with RISK):

Check out Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. To me, it represents the best of the space-based conquest genre. You'll get a feel for how different elements of the game fit together. It has resource gathering, expansion of territory, diplomacy and back-stabbing, military units galore and technology research (which leads to advances in military might, economic exploitation, ecological enlightment and scientific serendipity).

To sneak a large army into a territory is actually unrealistic, but here is what you could do: give each player some uniquely colored chips. Each chip has a number on it. One a player's turn, he could take a slip of paper and write down how many troops and armor make up the invasion forces.
Turn the paper face-down, write a chip number on it and place it in plain sight (maybe tucked under an edge of the board). Now, the player "deploys" his chip to the board. It can be revealed on a later turn. Other players can't attack the chip, however, if the territory is taken from the chip's owner before the invasion can occur, then the player removes the chip and the slip of paper. Presumably, the invasion force would have included the visible troops on that territory, so the force can no longer exist.
The total size of the invasion force does not have to equal the total number of troops and armor currently available (otherwise, there would be no point to secrecy). Instead, the total size is a "bet" that the player can, on a future turn, bring forward that number of troops from all territories that he controls within a specified range (or radius? or within air-lift range?). Perhaps an invasion could be some super-move that accelerates deployment at the expense of vast quantities of resources.
I say that sneaking is unrealistic because troops have to mass at the border and you can't really hide that.

Regarding the "poor sap": I would not spend too much time trying to control what a group of players decide to do. That stifles creativity. Besides, the poor sap is going to be one of two things - either a despot who has been terrorizing the other governments, or a weakling in world affairs who is ripe for conquest and enslavement (polictically sensitive game element, by the way, perhaps you could just say that the conquered player expeditiously switches allegiances :) )

And now, for the economic model: I love the idea that you have for forests, mines, workers and loyalty. These ideas can be seen in Empire Earth II. Study that also. I suggest that you abstract the concept of money. Think of RISK, you don't spend x dollars to deploy your troops. Nor do you feed them. The idea is there though, in the fact that you can only move from one territory to a connecting territory. (Unless you are playing the variation which allows for longer advances through connected territories.)

One way to abstract the economy is to create a guns-or-butter system.
Perhaps each player could have a chart with a scale from 1 to 10. The player places a pawn on the scale to show his guns-to-butter relationship.
The closer the pawn is to 1, the more resources the player collects per turn. The closer the pawn is to 10, the more capable his military production is per turn. The pawn can be moved only one number at a time (eg: from 3 to 4 or from 3 to 2). Furthermore, the pawn can only move after particular events:
1. Diplomatic meeting: player A and player B agree to reduce military build-up by sliding their pawns one space toward 1.
2. Military supremacy: the player with the most territories can unilaterally advance his pawn one space toward 10 whenever a new territory is claimed.
3. Economical Advantages: players taking a resource-rich territory can unilaterally advance their pawns toward 1.

Okay, I'm done for now. If you like the guns-or-butter system, you can probably come up with several this-or-that charts to handle your other issues, such as loyalty-vs-rebellion, diplomatic-vs-tyrannical, etc.

Have FUN!

Mitch

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Risk-like game in need of advice

One game you might want to look at as a successful implementation of a "more complicated Risk" is Samurai Swords, which I've heard described, aptly, as "Japanese Risk on steroids". It includes more unit types, diplomacy between players, intrigue (there's a Ninja that can assassinate leaders or spy on others' plans), and it's a great game. Unfortunately, adding all of those bells and whistles adds tremendous length, and the result is a game that takes 6 hours to play, and as a result, hits the table relatively infrequently on most people's tables.

So, if you don't want your game to spiral out of control, you'll probably have to truncate some aspects of Risk. Make combat a single-roll resolution, reduce the number of territories, etc.

Another thing you need to worry about is your complaint that Risk is too "easy", which I take to mean that there is a best strategy. If a simple game can have a best strategy, then just imagine how hard it will be to playtest a complex game to be sure that there isn't a best strategy in your game. So, just keep in mind what you're signing yourself, and your playtesters, up for. Starting small is definitely the way to go here, and only add systems to solve specific deficincies you see in the game.

I don't think it's bad to make an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink list of all the aspects you'd like the game to model, just don't be afraid to whittle that down. I'd look to do this with an eye towards both a tight integration of mechanics and the chances that a subsystem will present the player with an interesting decision.

For example, adding terrain effects will probably add a fair number of rules but not much else. Moreover, these effects aren't really appropriate for a world-scale strategic game. They'd make more sense in a detailed simulation of a single battle.

Best of luck with your project,

Jeff
[/i]

Gogolski
Gogolski's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Risk-like game in need of advice

Qundar wrote:

Quote:
I want people to be able to forge (and break), peace treaties and alliances, as well as trade resources.
Here's some very simple ideas for a militairy and an economic alliance:

Each player has two militairy aliance cards and one economic aliance card. Every round before batle or moves, a player may ask other players to forge an economic or military alliance.
You can only forge one alliance each round and you can never have two military alliances with the same player.

Forging a militairy alliance:
1] Two players agree not to attack each other, and they pass one of their militairy cards to eachother.
2] They both choose a territory that borders on a territory of the other player and they place two extra armies on it.
3] The player who's turn it is may not attack from this territory or move from this territory during that round.

Breaking a militairy alliance:
The moment a player decides to attack the player he has a militairy alliance with, he breaks the alliance, AND he must destroy one army automaticly before every battle with that player during that round.

Forging an economic alliance:
1] Two players agree not to attack each other, and they pass their economic cards to eachother.
2] They both receive a card now if they did not battle AND did not move during a turn. The maximum number of cards they may have in their hands is raised to six.

Breaking an economic alliance:
The moment a player decides to attack the player he has an economic alliance with, he breaks the alliance, AND he must discard one of his cards. If the other player has six cards in his hands, he has one card too many since he may now only have five cards. The player that breaks the alliance may blindly choose one card and put it on the discard deck.

Just another idea...
Cheese again!

Qundar
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Risk-like game in need of advice

Hi,

Wow! All this overnight! Great, thanks for all the advice people. I haven't time to comment on any of your ideas specifically, but I will as soon as I can. I need to let these ideas brew in my mind first before I comment. Just wanted to say I received them all and am very grateful. Please, please keep them coming. I'll write more later. ttfn

Live long and prosper, Qundar out.

P.S. Hey, Gogolski, I edited my original post, is it better now?

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Risk-like game in need of advice

Before making your "More complex risk", have you played a war game which is more complex than risk? If not, do so. And play a lot of them. This will make you familliar with the various elements of a war game. My suggestions are : Axis and allies (all versions), Bells of War, Samurai Sword, Diplomacy, and many other.

When you have tasted all the elements of a war game, now you can choose what elements you want to keep and which element you want to drop. You might also have better rules ideas for certains elements.

By the way, the time period in risk is around 18th century. Time period can be important because in WW2, there are planes and sub. The strategy is different.

Qundar
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Risk-like game in need of advice

Hi,

OK, now to respond to the numerous responses (which I was very surprised to find so many, thanks!).

First of all, thank you, Darkehorse, for letting me know exactly what the journals were for. I'll remember that, when not looking for specific feedback.

As far as the sneaking the armies around, I like Golgoski's idea, it seems it fit what I'm thinking of. Though one thing I would change about it is that the other players wouldn't be told how many were being placed, just that they were being placed, but since the number would be written down, they couldn't cheat on it.

I agree with Challengers on keeping it simple at first, as while I like complex, going from down on up seems to make sense (but will be hard for me to do). And I like your analogy of writing, as I've written (or are writing) about 10 short stories, and it is a good match. And I love that guns-or-butter thing. I'll have to see if that'll fit in my game, and I think it will (if not with the guns and butter, than maybe with the loyalty and such, thanks!).

jwarrend, I see your point with the terrain thing, makes sense when you put it that way. Well, there goes one more complication!

Golgoski, your idea on alliances intrigues me. I don't think it will work the way you describe it, but I think it'll give me the starting point I need on getting it to go. It does seem to accomplish the problem I was having about the possibility of everyone ganging up on one person (though Challengers' point about that was good too, just something I'm gonna have to play around with to see if it works).

Larienna, no, I have never played a wargame other than Risk (yes, sad I know it is). I have however done lots of reading, I've read many rules, and I do understand the basics, so it's not like I'm a complete newbie. I would however love to play more of them. But, I always run into the same problems there: I don't know enough people to play them, and I don't got any money to buy them. See, my parents are too busy, I typically only see my friends at church and at church functions (and on the net), and my sibs aren't old enough to play anything more complex than Risk (my oldest sibling is 13, and he is old enough, but not that interested). And as far as money: I'm 18 and without a car, a liscence, and a job. Though I'm taking my liscence test here in a few days, and have applied for a job, but even then, nobody to play with. Though, I am leaving to go into the Navy in about 4 months (I'll be a cook on a submarine), so I'm sure by the time I reach my station, I'll have enough money to buy them, and enough people to play with. But that'll be a while, and I'm wanting to start getting this game into action sooner. Even if it does take 4 years to perfect, I'm itching to start it now, even if I am a newbie. What do I do?

BTW, Larienna, thanks for the time frame, I thought that's what it was, I just wanted to make sure.

So, Axis and Allies (all versions), Diplomacy, Bells of War, Samurai Sword, and Alpha Centauri? Those are all the games listed, and I know there are numerous more out there. I'll have to remember these and buy them and play them as soon as I am able. The space one and the Samurai ones sound especially interesting.

Again, guys (and gals), thanks for all the help and advice. I'm still completely open to more, as even if I disagree with you, at least it helps me narrow myself down to what I do want. I'll keep working on this in my head (haven't quite gotten beyond that stage yet).

ttfn!

Live long and prosper, Qundar out.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Risk-like game in need of advice

Well there is always a way to get in touch with a game even if you have no game, no cash, no friends.

First, you can always play against yourself. You won't be able to test correctly all the elements of a game since you know both side strategy, but it can help you assimilate the rules.

Second you can read the rules of the game. Many rule books are currently on the internet. Check also in game store if they make demo playing or tournaments, or if you can get in touch with somebody who has the game and is looking for people to play. Or sometimes, there are RPG and game club in school. You could try to find people there too.

I have played many war games and I currently don't own any war games.

Challengers
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Risk-like game in need of advice

Qundar wrote:
I am leaving to go into the Navy in about 4 months (I'll be a cook on a submarine)

Wow! the adventurer in me is excited for you. I am also scared for all of our young men going out into the volatile world. Be safe!

The opportunity to see some of the world will definitely color your creative perspective. Your games will be all the better for it. I suggest you keep a journal, not only of the places you'll see, but also of your game ideas. You'll be surprised at how much your game "morphs" from the beginning of the journal to the end.

(I did this in a more mundane setting - while commuting to and from work, on the train. :) )

Here is an alliance idea that my kids and I worked out for non-aggression pacts in our version of RISK:

On your turn, announce to a player that you'd like to sign a non-aggression pact. IF the player agrees, then you both have three chances to agree on the number of turns. Both players secretly turn a single six-sided die so that the pips equal the number of turns. Simultaneously reveal your die. If they match, you have an agreement. If, after three tries, you can't agree, then the pact is not signed.
In practice, the more powerful player tends to dictate terms by refusing to change his die. But that's part of the fun.

Mitch

Qundar
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Risk-like game in need of advice

Hi,

Larienna, I would do all those things, believe me I would. I'd love too. But, remember: no car, plus no job, equals no money. I have 60 cents to my name right now. What else I do have is set aside for specific (and truly necessary) items. So I have to wait until either I do get a job or I when I ship off to the Navy. And then it would all be solved and I'll be able to do all this, and I will own and play wargames (and all these other games I hear about on the site here). Sigh, I'll just have to wait another 6 months until I'm able to do all these things. Gr. But when I get the chance, I'll do what I can do do this stuff. It sounds really fun to me.

Challengers, I'm very excited too about going, it's gonna be a lot of fun. I love to cook, and the thought of serving on a sub is exhilerating. And I do hope to travel the world, on leave if necessary. That should give me plenty of experiences to start with, to help me with my cooking, writing, and board game designing (my three favorite things to do, in descending order). And thanks for the idea of a journal, that's a great idea and one I'm sure I'll use.

Anyway, I like your idea of making non-aggression treaties, but it's too random for me. I'd like players to actually talk it out and such, secretly if need be (just have them leave the room in that case). But thanks for the idea. Who knows? After I get my game in motion, that just might be what I do. I'm still new to this and haven't quite figured out what will work in my game, and won't know until it gets farther in it's process.

Thanks, all, and keep it coming! ttfn

Live long and prosper, Qundar out.

jwalduck
Offline
Joined: 09/06/2011
Risk-like game in need of advice

One idea for secret armies I saw somewhere else here on BGDF was faux troops. The general idea was that when you got new troops you got a number of faux troops as well. Real troops were marked with a dot under their base, faux troops without.

During the game the faux troops move around the board as normal units, obfuscating the the movements of real troops.

In a battle the attacker would have to prove the troops he is using are real before he can factor them into the attack.

When attacked the defender has to reveal and remove faux troops. But an attacker can tie up his force attacking a phantom army.

Preferably once revealed real troops would stay revealed. Which might be hard with the Risk peices.

Qundar
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Risk-like game in need of advice

Hi,

Faux troops? I like it I like it! It would take some figuring to see if it would work with my game, but I think it would. It's a great idea, not exactly what I was looking for, but I think it might work better, and I think I might like it better too. Though I'm too tired to make any real decisions right now. Gotta get some sleep as tomorrow I take my test to get my driver's liscence. So g'night all!

Live long and prosper, Qundar out.

Johan
Johan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2008
Risk-like game in need of advice

Hi Qundar

A lot of people start to make a better game out of Monopoly, Trivial or Risk (bin there, done that) with different experience and result (my Risk experiment failed because of I was too inexperienced (I was 14 at the time) and wanted too much).
I think that the idea sounds interesting, but I think you should remove Risk from the equation. If you start with some game and try to improve it, you will also get everything else in the game (things that works in that game can be problems in you improved game). You will be forced to continue with a format that maybe is not the best for your game. Things in the game that are connected to each other and are hard to break as turn order, how to use combat dice, reinforcement, movement, player's interaction, how to win, unit representation and so on.
Your main problem will be that for every complexity you add to the game, you have to simplify the game. Otherwise you will end up with a longer game with a lot of down time for the players.
So I would suggest that you drop Risk as a base and then start to build the game around the components you really want in the game. You have a good start, build from that.

// Johan

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Risk-like game in need of advice

A reason why I insisted that you play war games first is to make sure you do not re-invent the wheel. Which mean, do not re-invent rules or system that already exist. You should take what is already existing and then decide to improve, remove or create new stuff.

Anyways, one thing for sure, is that you will have a lot of potential players in the navy and there should probably have a lot of war games around.

Qundar
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Risk-like game in need of advice

Hi,

Thanks for the advice, Johan, that is a very sensible idea. I can see how the way I was heading might work out. I like your way better. I think I'm gonna try not to make a better Risk, but make my own Risk like game, built on my own desires and wants and ideas. My own systems. That would probably work better. Thanks.

Larienna, I will be sure to do that once I get in the Navy. As you say, there should be plenty of people to play with, and I should have access to more wargames (I have access to none right now, other than Risk). I wouldn't want to accidentaly make a game that someone else already did. I will work a little on the game now though, even if it is just in my head and some jotted down notes. I don't want to loose the ideas, but I do want more experience in the wargame field.

Wow, I never thought I'd get so many responses to my question! You guys (and gals) are great. Thanks a ton.

Live long and prosper, Qundar out.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut