elimination and cards

Ok, you already have an analiser program. I would love to make one with some variable parameters as the wilds percent and the way to play them (also number of territories and ''2 armies'' rule for having average values, useful for the fixed match).

Now I'm too busy with work for do that... Maybe when I will be on holidays. But I thank Vexer if he can let me now how the code works. I will ask you at the rigth time

I absolutly agree with 2 wilds in a set

Also 3 wilds in a set, why not? Some times can be a necessity!

The discussion about "elimination and cards" have been interrupted from long, but I want just let you know in this period I have played many games here and I am convinced the D12's rule is better than the common rule, for not stalemating the game*.

[*Not always! For example in the game we referred to, I had a very strong blocked capital against two capitals less strong and free to move. I could not attack them little by little because everytime one of them had the possibility to eliminate the other for getting a double turn-in! To be honest there was the way to win but I was not such a good player... ( Since I lost!]

It's weird no one of us considered the new official rule by Hasbro! (see Vexer message) I guess they put the limitation for turning in to 6 cards, for the same reason you put no limitation to the double turn-in. Hasbro new rule can make more players holding 5 cards and help to get 8 cards, necessary for a double turn-in. Anyway I think it's a failure because they have tried to make the double turn-in easier, making the single turn-in harder! Since the game stalemates more often than the older rule!

Thanks Dominating Twelve. Take care guys!

I believe that you should be able to turn in a set, and all sets if applicable, upon eliminating a player. It shouldn't matter how many cards you have. Else, allowing a double turn in at six (6) or seven (7) cards is unreasonable.

Hi Glanru, sorry for the delay on reply to you.
Your proposal is reasonable and to be honest I said it too. The problem is to test how it works in the game.

So now I can see 3 way to trade after defeating a player:
- limited turn-in with more than 5 cards (the common rule);
- free turn-in with more than 5 cards (DXII rule);
- free turn-in always (Glanru's rule).

DXII is in the middle. It's a little strange because creates a great gap between what you can do with 4 cards (nothing!) and what you can do with 6 cards (double turn-in!). This is how DXII players are used to play and honestly I think it works well.

I really can see other 2 options more extreme:
- no turn-in (italian rule);
- extra turn (my rule).

In the italian game there isn't the duty to trade with 5 cards, since it is normal that a player can have 6 or 7 cards and he will trade them at his next turn.
My rule instead is like Glanru's rule: free turn-in, but you also receive reinforcement troops! It's definitely an extra turn.

For now I think most of people don't want to allow these options and really most of people can't understand the difference between the first one and the second one.

My idea is always the same... More options, more fun!

One day maybe we'll can allow these in some section like "advanced options" when a player set a game.
Obviously we need some test before allowing them.

For now, would be great to explain, somewhere in the site, the reason why we use a special rule. If not else some new player can think there is a mistake in the game program, as I thought the first time.

There is alot to do, and this is not very important.
If you propose however what I should add and where, I'll put it there ;-)

I am planning on adding a FAQ section on the differences between this site and the board game.

The original 1959 rules clearly state "...a player may never hold more than five cards..."

The 1959 rules also clearly state that when you eliminate a player and take their cards, you may turn in as many sets as possible, regardless of the number of cards held.

These rules were reprinted word for word in the 1963 second copyright rules. In 1963 the rule adding two armies to each territory held in a card set was introduced. There is no limit.

The rules were not reprinted again until the 1975 copyright, and that's when all the trouble started. That's when the senseless "gotta have six cards" rule cropped up. But obviously, this was not intended in the original Albert Lamorisse game.

1959
http://boardgames.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=boardgames&cdn=hobbies&tm=10&f=10&tt=14&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Risk1959.PDF

1963
http://boardgames.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=boardgames&cdn=hobbies&tm=5&f=10&tt=14&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Risk1963.PDF

Thanks James, nice to know that our rules adhere more closely to the original. We appreciate your knowledge.

You're welcome. It is important to note that Glanru's comment (post#18) is exactly correct. When you eliminate an opponent you should be able to cash as many sets as you have, without any restriction based on how many cards you are holding.

If that's not the way it works here, I would suggest making the change. It would be another step toward perfection.

Well, we have been playing it where you have to have 5 cards to turn in for so long it makes change difficult. I can see how being able to turn in after a kill as long as you have a set could mean shorter games...and less games where the turn in gets ridiculously high. This may in fact be a better solution to the problem than my proposed 'kill card' game option where you get a bonus card for killing a player. It would also be more user friendly because i regularly get messages from players who claim there was a glitch cause they didn't get to turn in after killing someone when they didn't get a combined total of 5 cards.

I was somewhat dismissive of glanru's suggestion when I first heard it but now that I know that was in the original 1959 rules I think I should take it more seriously.

But I would like to know what the rest of the site thinks.

I have talked about this before somewhere on here, the rules are as Vexer stated. I have been playing Risk for over 20 years and have literally played games on the board that has lasted for days. Using two or three sets of men, beer caps that counted as 50 men... If we would of thought of this in my group we would of changed it as well. Believe me we changed alot too, and would add our own options as well. One thing we would do when we got tons of men like that is we would roll the dice for 5 and 10 men instead of one and two. Would offer the option at the beginning of battle if both men agreed instead of losing 1 they would lose 5 men instead of 2 would be 10. Fight 300 man wars at 1 and 2 would take forever with dice.

Wow...I have read and re-read this thing, had a couple drinks...Sorry..Still on vacation. I like it...I like it alot. If I kill someone and end up with only 3 cards out of the deal I get to immediately turn in. If I have a match.

Man GREAT input jamesjulius...Way to know the real rules. I have never known that before until just now.

I think would make the game in fact harder, with more battles and less sitting around building. Also just knowing that a opponent can come anytime and kill you for even 1 card, especially if they hold a wild. when the numbers are right will make a person re-think alot. I also think this adds more to the having a wild card thing in the first place.

My personal opinion is it should be implemented top priority, As jamesjulius put it...Puts us even closer to perfection.

I think its a very good idea to do this.
Apart from that its more logical to be able to turn in when you are able to turn in, it wont be discouraged to kill someone if youre total card amount doesnt add up to five. Especially when you have a wildcard, it will end games quicker.

I was thinking about an idea to these games with no end; it’s not “ready” but I am blocked so I guess it’s a good moment to share it and see if somebody can improve it.
It`s quite similar to yours, Vexer. The idea is to give some extra troops to the player who thinks he can win the game in one turn, if he doesn`t get it he would be eliminated. Who can use these troops and the amount of them would be decided in something similar to an auction.
I’ll try to explain it with an example.
There are 4 players A, B, C, D. All of them know that from the 12 round in any turn can start the “auction” (the exact turn should be decided randomly). Let´s imagine that starts in the 49th turn, and the initial amount of troops are 20.
49th turn. Player A’s turn. Amount of troops = 20 “A” thinks 20 troops are not enough so he doesn`t ask for them.
50th turn. Player B´s turn. Amount of troops = 23. “B” is not sure if he would have enough troops to win adding these 23 troops to his reinforcement, but he is afraid of player C, who has 5 cards and 26 troops may be enough for him, so B asked for these troops (that’s why I say it works as an auction). It`s necessary to “save” the board in this moment, let’s call it scenario 1. After receiving these troops, now there are just 2 possibilities:
1) B wins the game in this turn. Nothing else to comment.
2) B doesn’t get the victory in this turn → B is eliminated and we have to come back to scenario 1 but with the B’s provinces as neutral. If some player was eliminated in B’s attempt he would be back on the game.
I think this suggestions is much easier to play than to explain, but unfortunately I guess it won´t be easy to program.