Top Ten Lists

Top 10 Mistakes Made in Capitals Games

10. Joining a game with players who don’t take these mistakes seriously.

9. Running out of time during an attack.

8. Playing a map that is too large/small for the amount of players.

7. Failing to plan multiple kills in one turn.

6. Allowing one player to get substantially larger than others.

5. Attacking another capital without the ability to replenish armies from cards.

4. Failing to acquire cards.

3. Blocking in your capital.

2. Trying to secure and hold a large value country (< 2 army bonus) without adding armies to your capital.

1. Having the smallest capital. 

Top 10 Annoyances on D12

10. People who make top 10 lists.

9. Players who ruin the game because they know they are going to die next turn.

8. Players who have logged less than 500 games but act like they own the site (or literally own the site).

7. The most challenging players do not play live games.

6. Only the winner of a game receives points.

5. Players with inflated ranks because they hand pick all of their games and/or continually have points returned.

4. Players whose only strategy is self-preservation. 

3. Too many cartographers, admin, and moderators. 

2. Players who spam the chat with unsolicited advice.

1. Everyone is an expert Risk player (especially post hoc). 

Interesting

nice.

Care to elaborate about 'Only the winner of the game receives points'

Excellent lists by the way

"Only the winner of a game receives points."  I have been thinking that Risk isn't really a very good game overall. The strategy aspects of the game has potential, but because only one person can win the game, many people end up making desperation moves. These desperation moves are generally justified by, "It was my only winning move." 

I want to say, "Of course it was your only winning move; you didn't play the best strategy" (or were over attacked, but generally the former). So, in order to combat this problem, I think that some incentives could be in place for being the second person alive. I don't know if it would work. This may be a problem about Risk that cannot be fixed. Which is why the game itself is lacking.

War is...@#%&..,you win or lose.
Risk has been around the block and the only thing added was Capitals.
Guess what they have web sites for the game of Risk! I looked and did not find one for Paddlin that you control...mmm.

I think the strategy is great and shows how the "300" (movie) could work and how the only strategy is kill or be killed.

Would you would like to have the award say "Thx for losing here is some points"?

The problem would be to just last till you are the second to the last player cause you still get points. Players will not attack and just sit and wait. All I need is "Thx for playing...I had fun"

This is a game of fun...not points.

But then I am from the thought:
"If it is not broke do not fix it"

The games are broken in a lot of ways. One such way is that people will sabotage the game because they cannot win it--that is, there is no incentive to stay alive, even though you may not be the overall winner.

I think you are from the thought, "I am going to hold onto these bad ideas until I die." 

LOL
I love your thoughts...here is one for you:

"With age ...comes wisdom"

Still looking for that web site that you run...no luck so far...

"With age ...comes wisdom" is clearly false. There are way too many confused old people for this statement to be true.

What I hear you saying is this, "Risk is perfect, do not challenge the greatness of risk." Further, if someone provides feedback on how things can possibly get better, then they should first own and run a website, otherwise their feedback is meaningless. 

Here's one: "The good can always get better." 

...I hate it when people just play the same options and maps over and over again! Are you really skilled at the game of risk if you can't take the risk of trying other options...

So I had some time to think today and discovered that Paddlin's problem has already been solved. Team Games. In team games no one will be making desperate low probability "only way I can win" moves. If you can't win then you help set your teammate up to win. And you may lose but if your teammate wins then you get to share the points.

We haven't actually figured out how to best implement team games yet. And we might need to try and fail and modify to get it right.

I am not sure if you should get to pick your team or not or perhaps have an option to either pick teams or have them random. I am also not sure if you should be able to kill your teammate to get their cards. I think it would be cool if you could move into your teammate's territory and turn their troops into your troops. Or at least be able to move through their territory to get to another territory and leave their troops behind. It doesn't really make sense to have to kill your teammate's troops in order to pass through their territory.

Any other ideas out there for team games?

Vexer your idea seems ike a possibility, however getting to pick your team mate sounds wya better than getting stuck with a random person, I think this overall would prevent most ppl from wanting to play team games, atleast I wouldnt want to. But I really think Paddlin is on to something here regardless of team games. A lot of times especially in CAPS, you play a good strategy and someone else makes a mistake that causes you to lose the game. Whether it was on purpose or not, who knows, but it would be pretty cool to receive some partial points instead of zero as a result of 'your good game play' and not be punished for someone elses mistake just because it happened to be another players turn before yours. Also, Im confused with this thought of Risk being a "war", "battlefield", " has to be realistic", "areas of maps NEED to be an area someone would want in real life to conquer, for an advantage"....I thought this was just a game "for fun"? Never understood this thought.

I recall playing a "team" game with Fendi, Vexer, Noxon and I. Someone else brought up the idea and Noxon agreed to be on same team with me. Noxon and I were fortunate enough to win. We played as a team and killed each other at times when it benefited us winning the game. Then Fendi divided the points between us two.

A person should be able to choose his teammate.

Team members should be able to attack each other to help their cause on winning the game.

Cards or armies should not be transferred, would be an unfair advantage.

As long as your team wins, points are split with teammate.

I've been asking how to get this done for months and was even willing to chip in and help pay for the programmer to do it.

Think it's another feather in this website's cap if it were able to be accomplished!

I agree that team games are one way to eradicate the above mentioned concerns. 

That said, I do agree with Diddly. I would like to find a non-team game solution to the issues. It is more a problem in capitals games.

Also, I agree with Leedog and Diddly about team options.