Troop movement

Moving troops is weird here. I am used to these rules ''A player can move upto 7 troops from one country to the next if both are currently owned '' In d12 theres is no limit to the amount of troops and the ''chaining'' rule is very popular. In my opinion this kills a lot of strategy in the game, In risk there is the concept of getting locked in, to be trapped somewhere with armies but being unable attack where you would like. For instance lets say player X has 100 troops locked in australia. Player Y kills player Z takes the world, but has only a handful of troops left. In this circumstance player Y deserves to win, and would win in standard rules due to troop movement rules However on D12, player X wins, army count is all that really matters, position of forces almost irrelevent. Please i would love thoughts on this, it's nice to have the choice but it seems chained is default or something? everyone choosing this stupid game mode. Please dont reply that ''It's fair it's the same for everyone'' I know this, the point im making is not about win or lose its about the quality of games. Some bad players might move their armies in such a way that they trap themselves, this is part of the game and something to learn. Not worth changing the rules for it... [b]Change default to adjacent rather than chained. Chained is not normal rules.[/b] With both chained and unlimited troops movement on its a different game. I agree theres some quality of life for defending, but its not worth sacificing the strategy of troop placement. In the normal rules, you dont have to have the most armies to attack someone. You could be in a situation where your opponents would be unable to counter attack, leaving you the opportunity to kill. How can you attack anyone in 3 person game? please tell me? Chained unlimited represents too much freedom, it lowers the skill cap and leads to longer, boring games.

[s]It's fair it's the same for everyone[/s] ;) Hi :) [quote=samuelrocks]''A player can move upto 7 troops from one country to the next if both are currently owned ''[/quote] Personally, I have never heard of this rule in my life :o While it sounds like an interesting variation on fortifying, it definitely isn't the standard rule as I'm sure many other players will verify. [quote=samuelrocks]Please i would love thoughts on this, it's nice to have the choice but it seems chained is default or something? everyone choosing this stupid game mode. [/quote] Chained is default because it is usually the default rule in the physical versions of the original board game. Again, this is generally the consensus and other players will probably agree with this. It is also reasonably common for players to be more familiar with the Adjacent setting - but never this max7 rule you are referring to. [quote=samuelrocks]With both chained and unlimited troops movement on its a different game. I agree theres some quality of life for defending, but its not worth sacificing the strategy of troop placement.[/quote] This depends on your definition of strategy. You are saying adjacent setting is more strategic, and I assume you say this because generally it requires that you have to [b]plan further in advance[/b] due to your difficulty in moving troops from place to place. However, you could say chained or unlimited settings are more strategic for this reason: they open up far more possibilities, therefore each player has to consider [b]many many more outcomes[/b] when planning their moves = more strategy. So it's a matter of perspective - each setting has its merits. In summary, I think that players choose the settings that they prefer, and you cannot have any control over any other player's preference. Join or create games with the settings you like. Let everyone else do accordingly :) Hopefully this answer was useful to you :)

[quote=Virtuosity98]Chained is default because it is usually the default rule in the physical versions of the original board game. Again, this is generally the consensus and other players will probably agree with this. It is also reasonably common for players to be more familiar with the Adjacent setting - but never this max7 rule you are referring to.[/quote] Actually adjacent is the official rule of Risk, but it does not limit it to 7. [quote=Hasbro]To fortify your position, move as many armies as you’d like from one (and only one) of your territories into one (and only one) of your adjacent territories. Remember to move troops towards borders where they can help in an attack! https://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/risk.pdf[/quote] For samuelrocks I would use the filters on the game lobby to only show you adjacent. Also, in your strategy, say the owner of Australia had 100 troops sitting on the doorstep. A good strategist would take all but the one(s) before the large army effectively leaving them locked up for at least another turn. Then making it where maybe they couldn't even card. You get a large bonus and go in, etc.

[quote=Virtuosity98][s]It's fair it's the same for everyone[/s] ;) therefore each player has to consider [b]many many more outcomes[/b] when planning their moves = more strategy. So it's a matter of perspective - each setting has its merits. [/quote] Disagree with this 100%. Those other moves/ options only exist if you've given up and playing for second, or are just a bad player. Army count and diplomacy matter troop position doesnt at all when you are 1 turn away from moving them anywhere!. This is the rule i've always played, Im pretty sure its from the rules but it might be something we changed. I have a pretty old parker bros copy of it.

The old U.K. rules impose a maximum of 7 to be moved. This set of rules also denies reinforcement armies if you attack. Together, these rules mean that a buffer zone of 1-unit territories controlled by your opponent can be quite a useful defence. (Hence there is some reason to drive an opponent's territory down to a single unit without actually taking it.) Some people remove the limit of 7 (as in the U.S. and new U.K. rules). What is probably a house rule, however, is to allow the movement of the group (perhaps limited to 7) through an unlimited number of connected, controlled territories. Another variant (in the 1980 U.S. rules) that makes for quite a different game is to allow you to move all your units entirely freely within any connected set of controlled territories (subject to leaving 1 in each). With random starting positions this would make it even more important to connect your troops up. Yet another house rule is to allow each single army to move to an adjacent controlled territory, provided that after all such movement there is at least one army per territory. https://www.kent.ac.uk/smsas/personal/odl/riskfaq.htm not imagining that :) Unlimited troops + unlimited range is a different game entirely.

Yes, there are a lot of different rules. That is why there are filters for you to pick the version of the game you want to play.

Only being able to 7 is not logical, risk is a game of war and I cant imagine a battle scenario where marching your entire army would be impossible

I didn't post here yet, as I wanted to see more input before I would. Wish to start of with saying that I would've preferred a more positive/open/neutral voice from everyone involved here. I grew up in the Netherlands and played risk over the board (OTB ) quite a lot as a kid - official rules for as far as I knew them weren't exactly the same as [user]samuelrocks[/user] describes them here. Nor as any of the rules I can pick to play with here in the D12 environment. [spoiler=Rules I grew up with:]You could reinforce armies from anywhere to any other place, while adhering to two (2) rules: 1) armies can only move through territories you own, 2) you can move ≤ 7 armies each turn. example. You could move 3 armies from Western Australia to Siam (provided you also own Indonesia) and 1 from Peru to Venezuela in the same turn (3+3+1 ≤ 7) As for your turn; you could EITHER: 1) choose to attack, 2) choose to place armies (1 for every 3 territories under your control, with a bottom of 3 and rounding down to nearest integer). if you pick 1), you still get any armies you might get from having continents or from turning in cards (but not the 1 per 3 territories). After the attack, you could reinforce with the rules stated above, even if the attack wasn't successful (you did not conquer a territory - albeit you'd not get a card then). if you pick 2), you place the armies for control of territories and for cards/regions, if any. You are not eligible to attack. You are not eligible to reinforce. As for cards: 3 cannons (artillery, green) => +4 3 men (infantry, blue) => +6 3 horses (red, cavalry) => +8 3 different => 10 4 the same => 15 5 the same => 20 with the joker/wild/black still functioning as whatever you want from it[/spoiler] All that aside. I am perfectly fine with the options D12 give me to play games in. Whether it's adjacent, chained or unlimited. To me it's the same as saying there's an official (world) currency/language, dollar/English, whereas that doesn't undermine that there can be a different official regional currency/language, e.g. Euro/Dutch (Netherlands). I'll adapt and go with the flow, or try to wiggle around a bit and get stuff my specific way, in a nice manner. Nevertheless, I'd be completely game to see the options as I just wrote them here. Playing under those rules would give me a nice nostalgic feeling :) As such, I'm also completely cool with the topicstarter voicing that he'd like to see the rules he's used to play with as an option for games - please address your wishes to the game developers here and see what comes out - yet try to remain as calm and civil as you can (there's no point in blatantly saying other options aren't as skillful ("[i]moving troops is weird here[/i]" ) - even if that is your opinion; it could be seen as hurtful to others).