New Gamemode??

I remember playing the classic board game and their was one other game mode, this was Objectives, where you were given an objective (EG: Kill a player, Conquer certain territories, or even control an entire continent). I think the games might be a bit more interesting because you never know when someone is going to win the game, so people cant just sit back and do nothing for 2 months. Thoughts on this gamemode?

It is definitely interesting, but it is a lot of programming work to get it all done. Further, the objectives would have to made for every single map, which also adds strain to the cartographers for every map they want to enable on this game mode. I really like the idea, but the amount of effort involved makes it something we can probably not get done any time soon.

There is an idea to have the assassination game mode: so every player has to kill another player (fairly distributed). This idea is map independend and could therefore work. I'm not sure if we ever get to making this though, as implementing another game mode is not that easy... But if you say: conqueror this region and that region and than you won, than it's really had to make it fair for all maps. As a matter of fact, it's not that fair on the world map either.

From my research I can say the Objectives are usually called Missions. "Mission Risk" is common in most of European countries, in US it came later as a variation. In Europe as well, increasing turn-ins came later as a variation. The missions are 14, they include: - conquer 24 territories of your choice (or 18 with 2 troops each); - conquer 2 specific regions (or 2 specific plus 1 of your choice); - kill one specific opponent. It is not fair at all: everybody know some missions are harder and some easier. The most unpredictable thing is when you have to kill someone other: when you have to kill the strongest on the board you have no hopes, when you have to kill the weakest you can achieve an hilarious easy win. Things are much more fair if everybody has to conquer a certain number of territories. This is why we have a Domination mode, mostly ideal for Fixed or Capped cards games. Anyway the Assassination mode -- where [i]everybody[/i] has to kill someone and [i]everybody[/i] has one that has to kill you -- may be interesting. It creates special dynamics, because you want to defend yourself and everybody that is not your target, but at the same time you want to weaken your target and the player that wants to kill you -- without weakening him too much though! I think there are 2 main variations of the assassination mode: - if someone other kills your target you directly win the game; [i]or[/i] - if someone other kills your target then you inherit his own target as your new one. I don't know what is better though...

I prefer the one where you inherit targets. There is more room for strategy, you can kill a weak rival to avoid other player to get an easy win, for example. Otherwise games would most likely get ruined much faster with a bad move/unlucky attack.

Yes, you should be able to kill a player (player A) for his cards, and then kill your target (player B). If you fail in the attack on player B, than player C, who's target was player A, will have to get a new target - the target that player A had. His fault for not protecting A...

First of all, wow! You bought your rank at last Matty! Second I was thinking on the same lines as you Matty. You should be allowed to kill a player for their cards and use them to kill your target, this way most of the players are unaware of who your target is and you can create clever decoy strategies, beside it being a fairer game.

The second option is the most wanted but there's a weak point in it. If we allow every random assignment of the targets then it is possible that (when someone kill your target) you inherit the mission to kill yourself. For example I have to kill A, but someone other kill him, so now I have to kill B, but he has to kill me so now if someone kill B, my new mission will be to kill myself. It cannot work. The solution is simply to put all the players in the game in a random order and then the first has to kill the second, the second has to kill the third and so on... And the last one has to kill the first, so closing the circle. That way it is guaranteed that nobody will ever get to kill himself.

For Risk 2 pc game. The missions are 14, they include: - conquer 24 territories of your choice (or 18 with 2 troops each); - conquer 2 specific regions (or 2 specific plus 1 of your choice); - kill one specific opponent. as The_Bishop says. Some missions are unfair, but kill missions are the ones you hope for, and can be fun. There was a euro version and a US version with some slight differences for mission objectives. [b]euro version[/b], if someone eliminated your 'kill' mission, then you got an alternate mission objective. It could be another kill, or one of the mentioned above. The [b]US version[/b] (which was mostly played by online Risk users) is there is no change of mission if someone killed your kill mission. If your opponent is killed by another player (probably for cards and hoping to collect and kill his own mission on that turn) then you will win as soon as it is [b]your[/b] turn again, [i]if you are alive[/i] so it's a risk killing someones else's mission Kill missions are fun. paranoia sets in.. skilled players will disguise their mission.. play the game as you would normally for the sweep. The new player will likely make it obvious who their kill is, therefore it will be prevented, by skilled players putting up blocks etc. Fun, and challenging either way.

I think this idea could be implemented but would need to be done so with extreme limitations like only having a certain map or certain maps available for these options and maybe even for a certain number of players as it would likely be impossible to make it doable for all the maps available with all of the options in a fair manner. This is a good idea but might be one that is done in the future and not to immediate as there is a site rewrite in progress and a lot of manpower and energy is being directed into that at this time. If anyone has any ideas in how it could be implemented in a reasonable way without too much insanity, please feel free to discuss them here further. It will help to see if this is even possible and if it is, how we can make it work well.

@The bisshop: good point, but in the case of a circle it'll work. @Aeronautic: I bought this rank a long time ago, I just recently gained some juicy points from a friendly player who rolled some bad defensive dice.

Please state what you think would be the ideal map set up for Missions, because I can utilise this when making a map and set it up with a suitable Missions game-play. It could then be the first versatile map where e.g. all regions are worth the same and have the same defences & territory amounts and so it could be used for DM, Caps, Dom & Missions. If it's worth pursuing, I will work the game-play on the Gallipoli Map to suit all game types? (Edit): If the programmers would like to test a new Highlighting system too, I can make separate Regions & Territories that are more illuminated as spare images to overlay the map image using programming and screen positioning, to make it look like they are lighting up for various purposes.

I think we have no problem to set a [i]Mission[/i] mode in World Classic, just following the traditional missions as they are in the board game. If we want the same in other maps then things must be studied well, but I think it's doable. Missions probably will never be perfectly equal, as the Capitals aren't. I'm available to do that work if needed, it's the kind of job I like. Really I'm already studying how to do it in World Expanded using "continental super-regions" for missions, instead of normal regions. But the major problem I think is how to show the missions graphically. Well a mission is a sentence and can be displayed everywhere, let say for example along the red bar. But if a mission means to conquer certain regions, how do you explain what regions they are, if regions are not named on the map? Many of the most popular maps have not region names in the mini-map. Should we (not me, I mean the programmers) develop a region-highlighter function? Maybe, but this make things even more complex. The [i]Assassination[/i] mode is similar but without territorial missions: "killery" missions only. It is something that works in every map, it doesn't require a special graphic/programming job and it doesn't require to study every map one by one. Since much more simple. And according to what Hoodlum says the "killery" missions are the most funny. He also suggested a possible third way to solve the problem of someone other killing your target: you win the game if you survive till your next turn. I know there are higher priorities right now as Cireon said. But it's nice to collect ideas for the future. From my point of view would be nice to have both gametypes implemented: Assassination for every map, and Mission too but only for a strict group of maps, as said by Elysiums. EDIT: Ops sorry Aero we posted at same time. I can tell you that territorial missions normally include one large region and one small, normally not bordering eachother (except the case of Asia + Africa that is also the largest territorial mission). The smallest of the large regions -- Europe -- is so associated with one smallest of the small regions -- SA or OZ -- so it's too easy and it is compensated adding a third region by your choice.

@Bishop you posted the same time as me, so please also look at the previous post.

From a programmers perspective: If I mplement a new gamemode, it's going to be kings or (/and) assassination (which is the one I talked about above). I wouldn't implement missions anwyhere even close to soon. So don't do too much work making a map for that, as it might not come there. I don't know about Cireon or Vexer of course, but knowing how much time they have... I don't think so.