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
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
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.

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.

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

@Scottmj1990 Word!

Turn off
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...

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

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


 

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
Yes, yes, yes! This is a fantastic idea! Please implement this. Right now there's just no incentive to alliances.
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
I see no need to change the current alliance system, and frankly I would be upset if the current system was changed.  I use alliances in every game, but I never really trust my allies and I always consider the possibility that my allies will attack me.  How do you know if your allies are trustworthy?  Watch what they actually do in the game.  Does your ally build up their armies in countries that border yours?  They're probably going to attack you.

Furthermore, everyone has a different idea about what an alliance means in the first place.  Some players clearly think an alliance means you can't attack any of their countries, even if they only have one or two troops in that country.  Others are completely ok with an ally attacking them as long as it's not an attack on a controlled continent.  So the idea of a sort of alliance score wouldn't really work because everyone has a different idea about what an alliance is.  Alliances are always eventually broken in this game.  That's simply the nature of the game.

The problem here is that people want the game to be easier and more predictable.  That's no fun.  They don't want to have to think about the game from the perspective of their allies, because that's hard.  The game is entertaining because it really makes you think strategically.  It makes you consider your opponents/allies immediate objectives and strategies.  Is it frustrating when I make an alliance with someone and they immediately attack me?  Yes, of course.  But that's part of the game.  When you make an alliance you are taking a...risk.  That's literally the name of the game.

If you make an alliance score, or make rules or stipulations about what alliances are and how everyone should abide by them and give scores on who honors them, you take away a big part of the risks (and the fun) inherent in the game.  The risks are part of what makes Risk fun.  Needless to say, I really like the ambiguity in the current alliance system.  I think they are a key feature of the game.
Thanks SMG for a great suggestion and for such considered and informative replies when needed. I think the principles in what you have described are excellent and would be a significant improvement to the game.
Login or Signup to post a comment
Topic merged into this topic:
More topics in Feature Requests
See all 1477 topics