Matty already answered to these 3 subjects (in the post below).
Matty
1. What is "the classic risk card values"? Is that the dutch ones? Is that the italian ones? Or maybe the US ones?
They all differ, I think we have the US ones (this site was originally created by an amarican guy called 4myGod, and he chose this one). So that means each set of three cards is worth 8, regardless of what combination (all cavalery, or an infantery, cavalery and artillery card (or choose RGB variants, that's the same)).
@The_Bishop: can you maybe tell us more here? I don't know for sure.
2. Confirms would be VERY ANNOYING imo. If it's really nescessary we could make it and store it behind an option of course, but my experience with confirms is that they don't help. People just get used to pressing OK without thinking about it.
It's usually best to never use confirm dialogs unless you REALLY EXTRA VERY MUCH need them.
Of course, we could make the
attack interface better for mobile as well as desktops - if you have suggestions on that, why not go there and help us improve the interface?
3. There have been many topics on this one. The problem is "how to do it fasts enough". You can't have everyone place one troop one after another, because that means it can take months to even start a game (remember, it will have to work for live games as well as long term games).
See:
https://dominating12.com/forums/6/suggestions-feedback/1409/initial-troop-placement?page=4, this is one of the better suggestions, though still not satisfying IMO.
And here is my comment.
The most classic card value in Risk is "Increasing cards" as we have here, this is the original rule from 1957 French edition and 1959 US edition.
The one mentioned by Babudji with different values depending on card colours (I call it "flate rate" ) it is something that arrived later (in the years '70 in Europe) and it was together with the introduction of the Missions, a game mode that we have not.
Personally I do prefer "Fixed cards" as we have here or "Capped at 12", these gives a similar to "flate rate" gameplay but
more fair. Because you know, if one player turns in 2 times in a row a set worth 4 troops and the other 2 times a set of 10, of course the latter will get ahead. That is too much luck based for me, it can suit a funny game with friends but not ideal for a serious competition. And for the same reason I think Domination gametype is more fair than Mission Risk.
As for the "manual deployement", apart from the difficulties mentioned by Matty, it is something that I experimented and I don't really like. For the logic of what I have said above it should be more fair than the "random setup" and probably is but imo it greatly impoverish the first phase of the game. Normally with that setting everybody starts owning a region from the first round (or sometimes from the second) then if played smartly everybody grows and nobody do nothing and the game stalemates.
Keep in mind guys that Risk on board and Risk on-line are different and what is good for the board game is not necessarely also good for the on-line game. Then Babu if you ask WHY we don't have such options: first of all this site is runned by volunteers and every new option cost works, then second, it has been asked not to have a huge amount of options, so we have to pick what we consider the most interesting.
Capitals I think is one of the most interesting options we have here and I suggest you to try it: it's somehow similar to Castle Risk but with some important differences. However I am not stiffly opposed to what you propose Babudji, if there is a clear majority asking for that we can work for it. But still remember that it requires time and efforts and cannot be done so quickly.
Matty already answered to these 3 subjects (in the post below).
[quote=Matty]1. What is "the classic risk card values"? Is that the dutch ones? Is that the italian ones? Or maybe the US ones?
They all differ, I think we have the US ones (this site was originally created by an amarican guy called 4myGod, and he chose this one). So that means each set of three cards is worth 8, regardless of what combination (all cavalery, or an infantery, cavalery and artillery card (or choose RGB variants, that's the same)).
@The_Bishop: can you maybe tell us more here? I don't know for sure.
2. Confirms would be VERY ANNOYING imo. If it's really nescessary we could make it and store it behind an option of course, but my experience with confirms is that they don't help. People just get used to pressing OK without thinking about it.
It's usually best to never use confirm dialogs unless you REALLY EXTRA VERY MUCH need them.
Of course, we could make the [url=https://dominating12.com/forums/6/suggestions-feedback/2525/attack-interface]attack interface[/url] better for mobile as well as desktops - if you have suggestions on that, why not go there and help us improve the interface?
3. There have been many topics on this one. The problem is "how to do it fasts enough". You can't have everyone place one troop one after another, because that means it can take months to even start a game (remember, it will have to work for live games as well as long term games).
See: https://dominating12.com/forums/6/suggestions-feedback/1409/initial-troop-placement?page=4, this is one of the better suggestions, though still not satisfying IMO.[/quote]
And here is my comment.
The most classic card value in Risk is "Increasing cards" as we have here, this is the original rule from 1957 French edition and 1959 US edition.
The one mentioned by Babudji with different values depending on card colours (I call it "flate rate" ) it is something that arrived later (in the years '70 in Europe) and it was together with the introduction of the Missions, a game mode that we have not.
Personally I do prefer "Fixed cards" as we have here or "Capped at 12", these gives a similar to "flate rate" gameplay but [u]more fair[/u]. Because you know, if one player turns in 2 times in a row a set worth 4 troops and the other 2 times a set of 10, of course the latter will get ahead. That is too much luck based for me, it can suit a funny game with friends but not ideal for a serious competition. And for the same reason I think Domination gametype is more fair than Mission Risk.
As for the "manual deployement", apart from the difficulties mentioned by Matty, it is something that I experimented and I don't really like. For the logic of what I have said above it should be more fair than the "random setup" and probably is but imo it greatly impoverish the first phase of the game. Normally with that setting everybody starts owning a region from the first round (or sometimes from the second) then if played smartly everybody grows and nobody do nothing and the game stalemates.
Keep in mind guys that Risk on board and Risk on-line are different and what is good for the board game is not necessarely also good for the on-line game. Then Babu if you ask WHY we don't have such options: first of all this site is runned by volunteers and every new option cost works, then second, it has been asked not to have a huge amount of options, so we have to pick what we consider the most interesting.
Capitals I think is one of the most interesting options we have here and I suggest you to try it: it's somehow similar to Castle Risk but with some important differences. However I am not stiffly opposed to what you propose Babudji, if there is a clear majority asking for that we can work for it. But still remember that it requires time and efforts and cannot be done so quickly.
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
