A Bit Surprised

So I am playing my first live game. Apparently, we start with all of our initial armies spread out, and there is nothing in the settings to let us place our initial armies where we please. I've never played Risk this way. Okay, I have a few times, but even the basic board game version lets you place your initial armies into which territories you choose. Not being able to do this gives the game a really slowly start for me and just seems to put everyone at the mercy of the dice.

If my memory serves me well, I believe the reason why it was never adopted as an option, even though it was talked about many times, was because manual placement takes an eternity and also in an open environment such as this, it gives the opportunity for cheats to team against other players in a 3p game for instance. However when the "Drop" is automated, even cheats have to overcome what they have been given as a start position before inflicting any Damage or Blocking another player, making things more transparent. There are a lot of ex-board players here and they have all seen the benefits of the automatic placements over the pitfalls of manual placements. This is sort of like one version of the board game that I used to play where the cards were your random placements, by being dealt out to all players and then collected after the placement phase. It has been talked about again recently and perhaps one day there will be the option of the initial 1 or 2 troops being randomly assigned and then the requirement to manually place the rest, just like the board game above.

I would be interested in more suggestions of how this can be implemented. The main issue is time convenience. choose option would take a long time, and even RISK 2 hasbro version where you could use this option, players 99.999% of the time chose the random settings, although after the random placement happened you got to chose where to put your troops. Most other risk variants keep it random also. Here is the topic discussion on it. [url=http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&id=1409]CLICK HERE[/url]

I don't mean initial [i]territory[/i] assignment. I mean having all of your armies divided equally among all of them at the start. That's the problem.

I know i never actually played the original risk, or any other risk besides d12, but i enjoy the speedy start randomly assigned territories gives. Also think of how long term games woth this would be.

@Augustus, I think you missed this bit? [quote=aeronautic]It has been talked about again recently and perhaps one day there will be the option of the initial 1 or 2 troops being randomly assigned and then the requirement to manually place the rest, just like the board game above. [/quote]

Yeah. Honestly, that doesn't take long. I know from experience. Additionally, I feel like just getting the game started takes longer because all your units are spread all over the place, and maybe not so favorably as with other players.

I also just looked at your games and to be honest, if you are used to playing a certain way at another site, you will of course need to acclimatise and I believe instead of playing Fog games, it would be advisable to play without the Fog for a while to see how things are working and how the other players utilise the tools they have at their disposal here at D12. Also it makes it easier to ask questions when everyone, including staff, can see the map and players positions. Also you could put a message in the chat of a created game explaining that you are a seasoned veteran from another site and invite higher ranked players. You will have the opportunity to play at a higher level more suited to your abilities and to ask questions as you go.

I'm not saying it's a bad way to play. The last game like that that I played before this one had about seven people in it and ended in a victory for me. It's just not my preferred play environment because it leaves it a lot more subject to the dice and is a slower start. Not even having the option to choose between the two is just very disappointing. I like playing games with 8-10 players and territory totals well over 100. I like the complexity that comes with such gameplay. A lot of maps here are teeny-tiny in comparison, and on top of that, nobody can start off in any kind of an organized fashion. Again, it's not the "wrong" way to play, but it has its limitations, and it doesn't come with much in the way of an alternative. Now, I understand that this site is younger than LandGrab, so it hasn't had the benefit of time to introduce many changes and extra features, but it's still something to consider. I can't see myself playing except for maybe 3 or 4 of these maps or very often, given the current range of options.

There are plans to make a few 90+ & 100+ territory maps directly after Westeros (Story Edition) Map is completed. It is down to just 2 cartographers, myself & PsymonStark to create them, as we seem to have lost 1 Cartographer (Graphics guy) & 1 Cartographer (Game-play guy). I have too much on to concentrate all my efforts on Map creation this week, but will have a bit more time from next week on and perhaps I can speed this process up. If you are aware of Westeros, Game of Thrones and have knowledge of Game Map making, feel free to throw in suggestions on the Westeros thread, it shouldn't take long to finalise if there are plenty of good suggestions from players with an eye for game-play and aesthetics.

I've made a map before, and it got pretty decent acclaim on LG, so I can contribute and would like to, if it meant getting more gameplay that I like. One map that I could do/would do is Operation Barbarossa, the Civil War, and the Sengoku Period of Japan.

Also, if I took it upon myself to make more maps (of high quality, of course), do you know if additional features that I like could be added to the site in return?

Could you please post a link of the map you made at LandGrab? Unfortunately I can't offer any special game play settings for any map that would be available to all. As I'm sure you can appreciate, our programmers are part-time volunteers and are working hard to bring the site to an optimal level. For as far back as I can remember, special game-play outside the current options has been turned down. There might well be some of the settings you are looking for already in place unless you have already found and viewed them all in all types of games? I would very much like to see your map work, regardless of anything else, just out of interest as one cartographer to another.

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q207/forevereclipsed_photo/CarolingianEmpireIII.jpg So is it then possible to play a game that lets you decide where to place initial armies? I looked back and didn't notice an option, and talked with others seemed to confirm that there is no such option. What I am suggesting/requesting is that such a feature be added among the regular options.

No there are no manual placements at D12, all placements are automatic and set to 3 troops per territory divisible by the amount of players and by the amount of territories. I have just been to LandGrab to view some of the maps and techniques and noticed one thing immediately. The maps are not intuitive, you have to refer regions, territories and labels by colour to a chart below the map, i.e. a whole scrolled page below and if it is a map of an unknown or fictional place, it is down to the players to match up the colours to the names and bonuses. I can't see all the maps without joining, but from the ones I can see from the home page, it appears that their game maps are very different to ours. We have a strict set of guidelines to adhere to and a particular style that all geographic type maps (real or fictional) have to stay within. You will also notice that in the last few years, since the new owner of D12 has been at the helm, we won't allow any map to make it as a Game Map until it has been brought up to the standard expected by our staff and the players. To give you an honest opinion of the map you posted, I have made a fictional review to itemise what would be needed, only at D12. [spoiler=Head Cartographers fictional review (Stage 1)][img]http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q207/forevereclipsed_photo/CarolingianEmpireIII.jpg[/img] I as much as anyone, know how many hours goes into making a map and the level of knowledge required not only about maps and techniques, but about the graphics program to create them. So I am always first to say, well done on creating a map! However, this map will require many hours more work and many changes before being considered as a game map at D12 for the following reasons: We don't allow 4 corners. That is where two territory borders dissect each other creating a cross + x which leaves uncertainty of which one can attack which. e.g. Gold to Lavender regions Italy/Austria/Balkans/Hungary. Some of the colours are too garish and clashing with the colour circles used for troop containers. The land textures are mostly okay but need a bit more contrast. Some of the graphics are free-hand drawn and left as if meant as a demo, but forgotten, such as the Wilderness Road. The boats used to signify ports are 5 times bigger than they need to be and are not obvious enough as to which territory they are assigned. Forest are used here as un-passable objects, and no gaps would be allowed in these, such as in the Dark Blue to Lime Green regions in France/Netherlands/Germany. The bridge on the West coast of France doesn't seem to have a purpose or it is not obvious that there is another territory it connects to. The Alps mountains are not mountain like, they look like tall hills and have no transition to the lowlands, they sit on the map like cardboard cut-outs. I said I would be honest and I would in all honesty itemise all the changes required for any map presented for review at D12. I have a duty to insist that all required standards are met and would of course assist the map maker in any way I could to bring all the concerns listed up to the standard needed. These are not all the changes/alterations I would itemise, but this is a fake review designed to give a picture of how we work and what we expect. I hope that like our map makers and prospective map makers here, you take what I say only on a constructive level, as it is not meant in an offensive way. Overall, your map making skills are apparent and you are able to create a game-map at a level suitable for another site, but unfortunately our standards are very much higher and our methods and style are different. I would be interested to see what you could produce with all our criteria in mind. [/spoiler]