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 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
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 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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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 made a post regarding this except I emphasized the aspect of actual communication. I believe it would be very beneficial.
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
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

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

1 person likes this
*I had made paragraph breaks on that post and didn't mean to put a question mark on the end...
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
4 people like this
Login or Signup to post a comment
Topic merged into this topic:
More topics in Feature Requests
See all 1478 topics