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

@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?

Login or Signup to post a comment
Topic merged into this topic:
More topics in Feature Requests
See all 1501 topics