Start a new topic

Alliances rules to show level of commitment

IDEA: The alliance request feature used in-game is updated to allow you to specify levels of commitment. At any point, a player can still break an alliance, but if he/she breaks the terms of the accepted level, this will count towards their public TURNCOAT statistic (the % of alliances that they've broken). The TURNCOAT stat will let other players know how trustworthy they are.


[NOTE: These levels are just suggestions. Feel free to suggest others or different approaches]


  1. Level 1 - flexible arrangement, no specific commitment.
  2. Level 2 - Agree not to attack each other's wholly owned continent or the largest connected empire of the other. Any other territory is available for occupation.
  3. Level 3 - Agree not to attack each other for 2 turns.
  4. Level 4 - Agree not to attack each other for 3 turns
  5. Level 5 - Agree not to attack each other for 4 turns

HOW TO VOTE FOR THIS FEATURE? Tap 'Do you like this idea?' below


86 people like this idea

A better idea would be to have an option between 1 to 3 turns and make it built in to the game that an allegiance can't be broken.

6 people like this
Not needed. I keep a notebook and record alliance breakers. When I see them again, I make an alliance with them then crush them first chance I get.

4 people like this
I do see what you're saying Steve, but it's nice to know you can count on an allegiance for a certain number of turns. I make allegiances for strategic reasons, and there's also a point where you have to break an allegiance or it puts you at a disadvantage. With a set number of turns you're not stabbing someone in the back when an allegiance no longer benefits you

3 people like this
Alliances mess up multiplayer for me. Can I just have a setting to auto turn down alliance requests? Otherwise make this rating for trustworthiness. They must end the alliance and wait a turn or else they are turncoat rated. If a player has a much lower turncoat rating than me I want to ignore them automatically. I never ever see their alliance requests.

1 person likes this
Also I do allow a few attacks just for border corrections. If you try to finish a continent that is fine. Why would I want an ally that didn't want to claim a continent. That would make them a turncoat for attacking unless you have a way to change rules. If they attack my claimed continent that is what I consider a turncoat. Easiest solution? Change attacks on alliance mates to stacking armies cooperatively. That breaks the fortification rules. You can now use an ally for unlimited fortification. So make it you get 1 stack "attack" per turn. If I withdraw all my armies from a territory with allies troops stacked on it then I am giving up that territory. Border adjustment without turncoat by both players agreement.

4 people like this
Perhaps there can be a penalty for breaking alliances before said amount of turns? Maybe you do less damage to them whall its up? or there can he a rep bar, and if you are true to alliances it goes up, and if you back stab it goes down? I also like the idea of having levels, but instead of pre set levels maybe you can costomize the number of turns, so it can be more strategically used, it will also show how much commitment you really have. And lastly does anyone else think that if your aligned with someone you should be able to request territory from them? Like if they have a place in north america and you really want to get the whole county bonus, instead of having to destroy there country and risk them thinking its a full on attack, shouldnt there be a feature to avoid that? Id really like alliances to play a biger role in the game ^-^

4 people like this
Alliances are meant to be broken at some point, otherwise you have missed the point of the game. If everybody have an alliance there are to passive and boring games. Trust me, I have played to many lol :)

4 people like this
This idea demonstrates a lack of understanding of the actual game of Risk. Alliances are made to be broken, making any sort of stat visible will only make it harder to make alliances thus will lead to less alliances being broken. That kind of defeats the whole point of the game.

3 people like this
To be honest it's more mysterious and exciting now, the unknowing nature of what your enemy is going to do give a psychological layer to the game. It's not just an algorithm for winning it's kind of a game of the mind. Haha

1 person likes this
This could be kind of awkward to were for example if you need to just take over a one territory to get your next territory card if there's high numbers round you other than the person your allied with your kind of stuck

1 person likes this

"This idea demonstrates a lack of understanding of the actual game of Risk..."


Samh, I just wanted to clarify a few things here. We worked with Hasbro for over a year when we developed RISK: Global Domination, dissecting every rule from their 1993, 2003, 2010 releases plus other variations. We distilled this down to what Hasbro considered a "classic" version of RISK. So, rest assured we are very familiar with the actual game :) 


Hasbro has released multiple board and gameplay variations of RISK and continue to iterate on the core rules, including the notion of player alliances. For example: 


  • Castle RISK release in 1986 introduced the concept of a forced alliance or truce with the Diplomat. 
  • RISK II was an official game published by Hasbro Interactive in 2000 and includes 3 levels of alliance, ranging from "You agree not to attack each others continents..." to "You agree to not attack each other at all."

What Hasbro has done so well with RISK over the years, is to preserve a total respect for their classic and beloved version(s), without ever remaining static. They've pioneered really creative adaptations of the game, for example the evolving rules and deliberate player customisation in RISK Legacy (where players are encouraged to tear up and dispose of pieces and write their own rules into the rulebook). 


In this spirit, we are looking for new ways to further evolve alliances (and many other aspects of gameplay) into something more meaningful and appropriate for RISK on mobile. We've received many requests from our player community on this, which is why we set up the forum to give everyone a platform to share and discuss. 


We have total respect for your perspective here, but we believe that, collectively as game developers and players, we can add something new and meaningful to the RISK canon without diminishing the game. This concept is just a starting point, so everyone is welcome to pull it apart and add new suggestions. –Lee@SMG




5 people like this
SMG so listen then. Don't add this "feature" then, if you understand so good. Add something more creative than this.
Lee, great response and much appreciated. One of the things I love about Risk (the board game) the most is the over the table banter, the promises you make to your friends and the under the table alliances you swear to each other, only to break them the moment it becomes in your favour to do so. 

Perhaps an open chat feature on the game could accomplish this? The reason I don't like the idea of any sort of visible stat to show how many times you've broken your alliances is that it serves as a marker to other players that this is a tactic you use effectively. I believe it essentially punishes a player for being good at the game and would lead to alliances being completely pointless in the end as no good player would want to use them. 

 Once again, thanks for the swift and lengthy response, you've done a great job with the game so far, which is probably why I'm not so keen on any unnecessary changes. Sam

2 people like this
*I had made paragraph breaks on that post and didn't mean to put a question mark on the end...
Login or Signup to post a comment