Capitals on the World Map

While thinking about where to put the Capitals in my Oregon Cities Map I first thought about the World Map. It turns out that the capital positions have never been fined tuned since they were first set up. When looking at the list, I found a few problems that I think should be fixed. The first problem is that East Africa is used, but it is a border. From East Africa you can take over all of Africa and still be able to launch attacks to other capitals from your capital. This is a huge advantage that no other capital has. With every other capital you end up blocking your capital in by taking the region. The other problem is with spacing. This is most obvious in the 4 player game. The Europe and Asia capitals are close to all the other capitals making it easy for them to launch an attack from their capital to whichever capital is the weakest. The North America capital and Africa capital however are much farther away from each other. Glanru and I went through the following capitals placement list and made some suggested changes. We thought long and hard about it and argued over it quite a bit. We also made tables and did some statistics to come up with what we think would be a much better setup. On the left side is the current list. On the right is the proposed change. Each section of the list is followed by a reason for the change. 2 player game - No change Kazakhstan Western US 3 player - No change Ontario Northern Europe Mongolia 4 player Quebec >> Western United States Scandinavia = Scandinavia East Africa >> Congo China >> Mongolia Reason: Decreases the distance from the North America capital and the Africa capital for balance 5 player Ontario >> Alberta Peru = Peru East Africa >> South Africa Scandinavia >> Britain Mongolia >> China Reason: Some capitals were too close, some too far. Changed so that each player has 3 enemies that are 4 territories away. 6 player China >> Irkutsk Western Australia >> India East Africa >> South Africa Peru = Peru Northern Europe >> Britain Alberta = Alberta Reason: no need to put a capital in Australia yet when there is another way to do it and be balanced. This way the average distance to the closest 3 capitals for most capitals is 3.66 territories away. 7 player Irkutsk = Irkutsk India = India Western Australia >> Eastern Australia Congo >> South Africa Peru = Peru Scandinavia >> Britain Ontario >> Alberta Reason: Used the balanced 6 player set up but added Eastern Australia. Used Eastern Australia instead of Western Australia so that it wasn't so close to India which already had the shortest average distance from all the other capitals. 8 player Peru >> Argentina Congo = Congo Western Australia = Western Australia India = India Irkutsk = Irkutsk Greenland >> Northwest Territory Western US >> Central America Scandinavia >> Britain Reason: This way every capital is at least 3 territories away from the nearest capital. In the current version, Greenland and Western United States are only two territories away from each other. Unfortunately the only way to do this was to have a capital on a border (Central America). It would be great if everyone would check our work and make some suggestions of their own. It may not be perfect, that's not really possible, but is it better?

This makes sense. Could a capital be in Aust. for an 8 player game or better, on siam? Joking of course. ;)

Yes, I helped Vexer with figuring out the above list. Arguing withy my brother can be fun. Of course that means I also looked it over and agree with the proposed changes. For the record: capitols and capitals meaning two different, yet similar things is stupid use of language.

Yes i agree East Africa cant be capital , as u said : you can take over all of Africa and still be able to launch attacks to other capitals from your capital. and as i see you´ve found more problems . I know that WORLD MAP will change little , so is right time to decide and make some changes about these mistakes too. I didn´t notice these problems before , good work.

yeah, i didn't think about that. The world map will have to change a little because of Hasbro's copyright. In the mean time I think we should go ahead and change the capitals and then adjust them later if the change in the map makes a difference.

Hopefully the world map won't have to change dramatically because of Hasbro. With all the new sites for playing risk on, Hasbro has got to be losing alot of its members because you can play free on sites like this one.

In the board game a player gets to place their capital where they want as long as they own the territory it would go in order of who is first. at the beginning of the game before any men are placed. What do you think of maybe that option.

any way it goes I also I agree that the capitals do need fine tuned.

but then, somone could set one up in siam and have a chep advanage

As someone who always seems to get screwed with initial drops, I would be quite upset if I had no where good to place my capital. And I really don't like the idea of someone being able to put his capital right next to mine. I like it the way it is, it just needs a little fine tuning. If no one disagrees with the what we've come up with, then I say let's get it changed.

Even if the proposed change is not a perfect solution, or the best solution, it is significantly better than what is currently available.

we can't have best positions for capitals. try to use advantage of each positions.i never complain about it except capital in Ustralia continent

I have now updated the world map capitals to the new positions that I suggested.