Start a new topic
Discussions RISK Global Domination Feature Requests

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

135 people like this idea
57 CommentsSorted by Newest First
I feel like it is the purpose of the game to make alliances and break them at some point. It is actually part of my strategy to build alliances and break them. That's part of playing that game.
1 person likes this
Yes, yes, yes! This is a fantastic idea! Please implement this. Right now there's just no incentive to alliances.
I like and dislike the turncoat rating idea but for sur I do like the idea of having a level of commitment but for me when I make alliances it is like with anyone else for my benefit I mean ultimately I want to rule the world!!!! But I try to be honest and will not unnecessarily attack an allie but to hold you to an alliance would put you at a disadvantage rather than an advantage. I would however love to see it where you have a open chat feature but make it where the bubbles don't pop up while you r trying to play i recently lost a game only because two players constantly asked for alliance and then broke alliance to where I couldn't see for the bubbles popping up by time I got to the ignore button on both players it cost me enough time I liked one more attack getting four cards from a players last position but due to the cost in time one of the two that kept interrupting me got that spot and the cards... alliance bubbles and shared attack bubbles and if any open chat bubbles become a reality they should only pop up during an opponents turn
In my opinion, the best solution is to remove alliances and add a game chat instead. After all they are just ways of communicating your intent for the next few turns. And this is very limited at the moment. With game chat you can do exactly the same and be more clear about your intentions (I guess it's ok to have some predefined generic messages for it too, which is basically the alliance feature as it is right now or in this proposal).

Personally I don't use alliance feature at all, I rather let my actions speak for my intentions ;)


 

Thats a must, like steve i keep a notebook of cheeters but knowing if someone is trustable is definately needed.

The number of turns seems fairly complicated.  What about 3 generic levels of commitment?

I agree there should be some added features to alliances... for example, in my family, we have a Risk rule that all allegiances must be proclaimed and the intended purposes... ie blue&green are allies until red is out or red&yellow are allies for the duration of 5 full turns or purple&orange are allies for the duration of gameplay until sudden death...
Turn off

@Scottmj1990 Word!

When only one person can win, it's safe to assume alliances aren't safe.
1 person likes this

Open chat and a trustworthiness rank would be good because when you are playing with friends you have a good idea of these things, it would be good if there was some of that when playing online  with strangers.

alliances Don't have any problems with alliance but when one or two players are controlling the board they should be no alliance allowed. The game of Risk is to conquer the board so when you have an alliance with another person the one who has more 9 out 10 times is going to win.
This should add something for when there are two people left because then it will be bad for either person when they have to attack
I never make alliances because I know they are fleeting at best.you will be trying to dupe the other player and to me that is not flying straight (imo) I stand alone
Derrick Kidwell, I agree 100%.
Login or Signup to post a comment
Topic merged into this topic:
More topics in Feature Requests
See all 1496 topics