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 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.

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.

I would just make a penalty for breaking an alliance, something that would cost someone troops.


If someone attacks 1 territory with 1 army in it that is not in a full continent, no penalty (sometimes you just need a card)


If the game is down to 2 players, no penalty (there is really no alliance)


If you break an alliance and your alliance partner / opponent has the next turn, no penalty (give them one turn notice to fortify)


Otherwise, if a player breaks an alliance by attacking or by just breaking it on the player page, for their next turn, every dice roll vs the old alliance partner should be lowered by one.  The alliance breaker would be at a significant disadvantage as every 6 turned into a 5, etc.


This would be a good deterrent to those who make and break alliances just for strategic advantage.

 

1 person likes this
So here’s my theory for how the alliances should work. First thing to address is that I’m mainly focusing on how you can be put at a big disadvantage in some games. So here’s how to fix that, I think there should be a setup to where you and the other player can decide on (my idea of/my own system) a commitment level. Level 1 would be the thickest level of commitment, once both of the players become the last ones on the board the game ends with both of them being claimed the winners. However, the players will split the reward, so for example, in a ranked match when the allied players win, they each only receive half of the rank points than if they won the game by themselves (This theory/system gets pretty complex once I get through all of this.) Then this is the spot I come stuck at, I can’t exactly say how to setup the other levels but I would be glad to hear someone’s take on the level of commitment system with my theorized rules. But now for the rest... When you agree to set one of the thickest levels of commitment with the other player, both players will share territories (if you have all of North America but your ally has Alaska you will still receive bonus troops from controlling North America) and can share the amount of troops received during draft phase (if no region is claimed by either player, both will receive the default 3 troops each. I was thinking that the troops you get from the amount of territories you claim can be combined with your ally but that would be too op so it would be best to set it so both players earn troops by the amount of territories they each own alone.) and can even place their own troops in their ally’s territory (example: Green claims all of North America and their ally, Blue, owns all of South America. Blue’s turn goes last and they don’t have any troops to defend their territory before their turn comes but Green can place troops in Blue’s territory to help defend it.). While allied, the player’s can’t attack each other’s territories. Now one problem I do see with this (mainly because I love to be in alliances with multiple players for fun) is the fact of what if the player you’re in an alliance with is also in an alliance with another player? Well the simple solution to that would be that when you go to accept the alliance request, the game will also send an auto alliance invite on behalf of the third player (or at least give you a notice that both of you are in an alliance with this one player) if you don’t accept the alliance request, the level of commitment with both alliances will be automatically lowered to the thickest level to where the troop sharing and territory sharing are not included (or basically setting it to the way the alliance system is like now, but again it can differ once other ideas are implemented/suggested). But if you do accept the request to be alliances with this third player, of course things will be changed such as how much troops each player gets during draft and the rewards for each of the alliances players at the end. If you decide to break the thickest level of commitment with your allied partner, you would get a penalty and bad alliance rating (throughout games, it will show how good of an alliance partner you are), but there could also be a way to make this seem a bit more fair by setting an attack cooldown time limit, if you attack the former ally in a certain amount of turns you will receive a bad rating and maybe a penalty, but this timer won’t matter if you own a territory that would otherwise make the former ally the owner of that region (basically, if you own a territory that would complete your ally’s collection and you decide to be a dick by breaking the alliance you get a bad alliance rating no matter what... however I guess there could be a way to fix that since technically the other player wouldn’t be able to claim that territory before you break the alliance since you can’t attack them during the alliance, maybe there could be a friendly fire system so certain attacks on specific territories won’t count against you or your alliance rating) I think that’s it, I probably had another idea for this but I can’t remember exactly so I guess that’s just it for now. I hope that whoever reads this has a nice day.
You try to play "nice" and honourable just to be attacked by your own ally. There should be something in place so that you have to brake an alliance before you can attack your supposed ally, additionally it should only be available during the end of your turn to not give an unfair advantage (personal opinion). This game has much potential though with some rough edges... Happy gaming to you all!
1 person likes this

Hello! I have played this game for a few years now. Bought it as soon as I played it as well, and the expansions packs too :) I LOVE the new features with the addition of pre-set comments, new/improved emojis and the alliances with the addition of basic communication. Now my only qualm right now is with the alliance feature. A vast majority of the time, people use alliances to see (when using fog) yours as well as other players location on the map and then attack you. Now I would like to voice my opinion/suggestion if there can be a “percentage” next to someone name of how “trustworthy” they are as a teammate. So when you look at their name and see the alliance request option, next to it you’ll see whether or not it’ll be a good idea to even team up with them or to go against them. So if you do an alliance with someone, if you don’t warn them that you need to attack their territory then you slowly lose your trustworthiness as an alliance member. Or if you ignore their suggestion to attack another player(s). And you gain points as you don’t attack them (let’s say you border your alliance member, you don’t attack them even if they have only ‘1’ troop stationed there since they trusted you in good faith to not attack them).  Or if they suggest you attack ‘Blue’ player and you do so. It seems to me, that alliance option is abused and it’s a 3/4 shot that they are going to attack you when it benefits them before they warn you of breaking off the alliance and allowing a 1 turn “warning” before it’s fair game again. Just as in alliance making of the past with various countries, they had some sort of background knowledge of who they may or may not enter an alliance with. What their character (percentage of “trustworthiness”) before they joined forces. Just a thought~ Thanks for reading!!!!!

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 "

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 really like the idea of more on the alliances. Really I would love a more open chat. There are things I want to get across sometimes and can't. For example..i need to attack this one territory Im not taking you over.....yet

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

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. 

Login or Signup to post a comment
Topic merged into this topic:
More topics in Feature Requests
See all 1493 topics