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 Popular
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.
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...
Search results for "To cut down on cheating why don’t u scramble what everyone sees instead of a login name that everyone sees. let them see player # 1-#5 and for every new game u get a different assigned number so know one knows who u are on that particular game unless they are talking to each other on the phone or computer that would be much easier to catch cheaters. This way everyone starts on an Evan playing field. Or no names just a color "
Search results for "To cut down on cheating why don’t u scramble what everyone sees instead of a login Ame that everyone sees let them see player # 1-#5 and for every new game u get a different assigned number so know one knows who u are on that particular game unles are talking to each other on the phone or computer that would be much easier to catch cheaters. This way everyone starts on an Evan playing field. Or no names just a color "
Derrick Kidwell, I agree 100%.

"This is stupid. The app should be like the board game whenever possible and you can break alliances in the board game at will."


Just my 2 cents.  You cannot fully compare the board game to the computer game.  When you are playing the board game, you know if 2 players are allied.  You are right there with them.


You have no way of knowing if anyone is allied in the online game until it is too late.

Betraying an ally (breaking their continent) should result in the immediate reduction of all the traitor's territories on the  board being reduced to one troop. Breaking an alliance needs to be made on your turn before their next turn to avoid this punishment. In addition, use the turncoat percentage. But keep all information in a big laid out second screen like before - the new layout installed today is garbage and makes the game unplayable. Get that stuff off the main screen! I cant see Australia. It slows the game down massively to check if you've reduced the other player to 11 with this new stupid format. Also add a Hurry Up! Button. If a player does not move within ten seconds for three turns in a row, they miss the next turn completely.

You’re soft Paul. In the actual board game your position isn’t reduced if you break an alliance so it shouldn’t in the app either.
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
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 clearly see that the conflict is just because of the players who like playing in different game modes. I mean War Fog, Alliances On/Off, Balanced or Random Dice. Any important new feature should be thought separately for each of these otherways someone like and others dislike new features. 

Yes, yes, yes! This is a fantastic idea! Please implement this. Right now there's just no incentive to alliances.

I would love it if you could just add this in the filter option to disallow alliances.  If I'm hosting a game, I would like to be able to dictate whether or not I want alliances to exist.


Let's just see how much the average person cares about the option to have alliances.  I bet most would prefer the option to NOT have an alliance as an option i their games.


But if I'm wrong...well...I guess I won't be choosing the "No Alliance" option for very long if no one will join my games.  But at the very least let's try it out and see what the consensus is.

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.

alliance option = cheating

players if they know how to play is to attack the biggest player

plus the dice is not risky enough and more win/losses / roll needs to happen to stop easy steam rolling out payers

Login or Signup to post a comment
Topic merged into this topic:
More topics in Feature Requests
See all 1476 topics