Risk map aesthetics?

[Cocaine]

Hi everyone,

Many of you know me as the creator of an upcoming Risk Europe map tournament. I have been working on this map since December. I'm pleased to let everyone know that the map is complete. Before I post more on here, I would like your opinion on the art I created. Share your thoughts :) As for the triggers/units/balance. Many of you know me as Moltke on AOE3.. We play all my versions almost on a nightly basis to figure bugs/glitches and so on and make it balanced. We, the community that plays risk have together worked on this map. All that is left to do now is to host a tournament.

For those curious about population control, I have two versions of this map. One with unlimited population.. And the other version starts you with 50 population limit and your population increases by 1 when you kill an enemy unit.. To prevent camping, encourage micro, and overall strategy Which map would you prefer to play? With or without population control?

[edeholland]

I wanna quote @HUMMAN for a good suggestion from your previous thread:

Cool idea, in order to convert exponantial growth to more lineer, you can increase the amount of units should be killed by some paremeter. Like until 200 pop killing one unit grants 1 pop, until 300 killling 2 units grants one pop, until 400 killing 4 units grants one pop etc.

There should definitely be a population limit for any competitive scene and it should not be allowed to increase infinitely.

What I think is good:

you start with 50 pop. Every trade post you control gives you +10 pop. This pop is removed when you lose the trade post. This encourages fighting for more trade posts, which is exactly what you want, right?

[Cocaine]

I wanna quote @HUMMAN for a good suggestion from your previous thread:

Cool idea, in order to convert exponantial growth to more lineer, you can increase the amount of units should be killed by some paremeter. Like until 200 pop killing one unit grants 1 pop, until 300 killling 2 units grants one pop, until 400 killing 4 units grants one pop etc.

There should definitely be a population limit for any competitive scene and it should not be allowed to increase infinitely.

What I think is good:

you start with 50 pop. Every trade post you control gives you +10 pop. This pop is removed when you lose the trade post. This encourages fighting for more trade posts, which is exactly what you want, right?

Yes I agree, I can put a top cap on pop limit :) As for the mechanic, I think the units killed is better because it will make people want to micro? And actually save units instead of throwing them all into battle? Ultimately imagine a scanerio where one player controls 20 trade posts, and u control 6.. U will never be able to beat that player. What if he was just luckier to build on more than u?

My way, it eliminates that issue. Even if someone has 40 trade posts but doesn't fight, their population limit will not increase. I think what I have here is good to be honest
As for the linear growth, I can definitely implement this :)

[edeholland]

I wanna quote @HUMMAN for a good suggestion from your previous thread:

Cool idea, in order to convert exponantial growth to more lineer, you can increase the amount of units should be killed by some paremeter. Like until 200 pop killing one unit grants 1 pop, until 300 killling 2 units grants one pop, until 400 killing 4 units grants one pop etc.

There should definitely be a population limit for any competitive scene and it should not be allowed to increase infinitely.

What I think is good:

you start with 50 pop. Every trade post you control gives you +10 pop. This pop is removed when you lose the trade post. This encourages fighting for more trade posts, which is exactly what you want, right?

Yes I agree, I can put a top cap on pop limit :) As for the mechanic, I think the units killed is better because it will make people want to micro? And actually save units instead of throwing them all into battle? Ultimately imagine a scanerio where one player controls 20 trade posts, and u control 6.. U will never be able to beat that player. What if he was just luckier to build on more than u?

My way, it eliminates that issue. Even if someone has 40 trade posts but doesn't fight, their population limit will not increase. I think what I have here is good to be honest
As for the linear growth, I can definitely implement this :)

If somebody has the least amount of trade posts, he should lose, right? Isn't the goal of the scenario that you get all trade posts and if you have 3 times more than another player, you can't win?

I feel in any competitive setup, every player will have the max pop amount eventually. So there has to be a way to decrease pop, either by time, lost units or lost trade posts.

[Cocaine]

Show hidden quotes

I wanna quote @HUMMAN for a good suggestion from your previous thread:

Cool idea, in order to convert exponantial growth to more lineer, you can increase the amount of units should be killed by some paremeter. Like until 200 pop killing one unit grants 1 pop, until 300 killling 2 units grants one pop, until 400 killing 4 units grants one pop etc.

There should definitely be a population limit for any competitive scene and it should not be allowed to increase infinitely.

What I think is good:

you start with 50 pop. Every trade post you control gives you +10 pop. This pop is removed when you lose the trade post. This encourages fighting for more trade posts, which is exactly what you want, right?

Yes I agree, I can put a top cap on pop limit :) As for the mechanic, I think the units killed is better because it will make people want to micro? And actually save units instead of throwing them all into battle? Ultimately imagine a scanerio where one player controls 20 trade posts, and u control 6.. U will never be able to beat that player. What if he was just luckier to build on more than u?

My way, it eliminates that issue. Even if someone has 40 trade posts but doesn't fight, their population limit will not increase. I think what I have here is good to be honest
As for the linear growth, I can definitely implement this :)

If somebody has the least amount of trade posts, he should lose, right? Isn't the goal of the scenario that you get all trade posts and if you have 3 times more than another player, you can't win?

I feel in any competitive setup, every player will have the max pop amount eventually. So there has to be a way to decrease pop, either by time, lost units or lost trade posts.

Well. There is a trade monopoly option yes... So the goal is eventually to win by either trade monopoly where u will need to be well defended to fend off any attack while the counter is ticking from 5 minutes. Or somehow crush your enemies via diplomacy, teaming, real world circumstances. I can think of a trigger which would encourage more fighting and less camping, if this is your concern?

Also the point of the map is not to win cheaply but somehow being faster to build on trade posts than your enemy.. It is to win by conquest, and give everyone an equal start at that.

[supahons]

I quit playing risk mainly because of the infinite amount of units and the 50 unit dragbox limit. It just gets annoying at some point to send 2000 units from one place to another, micro doesn't matter at this point anymore. Then the whole point of the game is: How can i send my units asap to key positions? It's probably a nightmare to balance it eg. with different tp-production rates, but it could be worth if you have already spend so much time creating a new map

[Cocaine]

I think the trade post population idea is worth me implementing it to try.. thank you :) but perhaps instead of 10 unite per post you get like 20-30..

[Papist]

I think trade posts granting pop is a great idea. Risk should be an active game mode rather than a passive/campy one. Right now it’s possible for someone to win simply because he’s been camping all game and controls a choke point - this change would force people to move out and fight for the map if they want any chance of winning. I’m opposed to giving pop based on kills because some civs have better units that others and would be able to snowball hard. I can already imagine Ottoman and German players feasting on Russia early in the game and becoming unstoppable because of it.

Also, if we’re talking about limits, are you open to capping the number of ships and tower wagons? I’ve seen people do some pretty stupid stuff with them (20 frigate navies, islands covered in towers so no troops can land).

[Cocaine]

I think trade posts granting pop is a great idea. Risk should be an active game mode rather than a passive/campy one. Right now it’s possible for someone to win simply because he’s been camping all game and controls a choke point - this change would force people to move out and fight for the map if they want any chance of winning. I’m opposed to giving pop based on kills because some civs have better units that others and would be able to snowball hard. I can already imagine Ottoman and German players feasting on Russia early in the game and becoming unstoppable because of it.

Also, if we’re talking about limits, are you open to capping the number of ships and tower wagons? I’ve seen people do some pretty stupid stuff with them (20 frigate navies, islands covered in towers so no troops can land).

Ships would count as 1 pop just like units. I can make towers and forts count as units too if that will solve the issue. And I will implement population based on trade post count when I wake up :) it’s a great idea for this tournament to take place. With the upper limit for population being the total number of trade posts.