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 Oldest First

Great feedback Samh. This is the kind of input that will really help shape the game this year and beyond.

1 person likes this
One thing that should be done regarding alliances: If I'm in alliance with someone, I tend to keep that border lightly guarded. Sometimes though, (S)he will leave or disconnected, the AI takes over and attacks me. Have the AI honor alliances for one turn so I can adjust as necessary. Yes, I realize the human could do the same thing, but I trust the human more than the AI. Also, if the human breaks the alliance, I have the option of seeking revenge and blowing up both our games. No satisfaction doing that to a computer player.
1 person likes this
Like I said on a similar thread. There should be a built in alliance break request. Both parties would have to agree to break the alliance just as they both have to agree to make it. At home we have a mandatory 3 turn alliance if made. If we need to attack eachother we make it mutual agreement and move on.
1 person likes this
I made a post regarding this except I emphasized the aspect of actual communication. I believe it would be very beneficial.
I don't know about so many levels but the alliance feature definitely needs improvement. Especially a way to show others when a player is untrustworthy.
I like the turn numbered alliances idea. The alliances have little to no value right now. Having the choice of how many turns an alliance could not be broken would add a whole new level of strategy to each game. Now people can't shotgun alliances out soon as the match starts because it would they wouldnt get to attack their turn
The present solution gives it real world feeling. It is like adding UN to the game. Now you have to show what your intentions is, by playing. Pretty much like card game Bridge. Nah this would make it boring and simplistic. Now you have to analyze your players move and look for their intentions in their gameplay.
Perfect!!!! Love the idea of being able to tell who your playing with and if making an alliance with an individual is worth it ir not. Breaking an alliance before you attack the previous Treaty, I thinkbis commendable. That I think should not go on said "TurnCoat%". Rather attacking your allie while having an alliance should. When it comes down to you and your allie, no one else left, you have to break the alliance. That is what I do. Before I attack.
Eventually you will break the alliance when it favors you. I think a way to communicate( text or speaking) to your alliance would be definetly a greater pro. You could understand your partner and then lock into a term option.If that's not possible, I disagree with the arranged rule treaty
This is stupid. The app should be like the board game whenever possible and you can break alliances in the board game at will.
1 person likes this
I truly like this idea , in every way , maybe you could use a specific troop (spy ) or something to acquire the information about a player that way you have to work twords getting it , so the unknowing of what your alliance partner is still there until you achieve a certain goal , maybe trade in troops, or collect 3 cards of a certain type , like every all the ideas keep them coming
I like the idea a lot! It would be nice if there was someway during your off-turn to mark any targeted territories specifically controlled by a player with whom you have made an alliance with. Only visible between you and that player. That player could then signal his/her approval or disapproval for each of the marked locations. This would be useful in situations when you want to barter territories with another player that you have made an alliance with or are need to fight through a friendly, fully-controlled continent to attack a mutual enemy.
I would simply like a reputation score so when a player breaks an alliance they get a negative score and if they hold up alliance they get a bump up. So when someone asks for an alliance you can see there reputation before accepting
1 person likes this
Derrick Kidwell, I agree 100%.
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
Login or Signup to post a comment
Topic merged into this topic:
More topics in Feature Requests
See all 1493 topics