Shorter games

I saw this option for the first time at Pogo.com, that is not properly a Risk site, but I guess it's the place where live online Risk is most played.

The option consist on conquer 24 territories for win the game.

In secret missions Risk (the European version), 24 territories are the most common mission you can get. I don't like secret missions because they are unfair, but when everybody has the same mission, it can be interesting.

Obviously 24 territories are for the Classic map. In the other maps the goal should be set always at 57%. For example it would be 15 on Caribbean map, 30 on Eastern Asia, 52 on World Expanded... and so on.

This is specially suitable to shorten fixed cards games and avoid they become very long. Btw this is not only a way to shorten the game, but it is also a bit different in strategy being more based on the territories owned.

It could be implemented as a new gametype. I think that "Supremacy" would be a nice name, because it is not based on kill'em all as a Deathmatch, but only on having the supremacy, owning 57% of the territories.

What do you all think, my Dominating12 friends?

I think it's interesting. I think however 57% is not a lot in a game of 2 players. In a game with 8 players, owning 57% usually means that you would probably also win a standard game and therefore not shorten the game much.

So apart from the percentages, I think this might be a really interesting option.

I think it would be a nice option.

That sounds like fun and a good solution for shortening fixed card games.

I think the name should be Domination instead of Supremacy though. I think it should be more complicated than a simple 57%, however. Cireon is right. I'll try to come up with a formula that takes into account how many players there are and how big the map is.

Well... Domination is nice!

I like the thrill of the kill, however I rarely play live.

The matter it is not only on the live games. A regular game with fixed cards can go on for so many months, and maybe you are leading it, but you still need many months to win. At some point people get bored. It is better to have the possibility of a shorter game.

Make the "Domination" mode on the road, please!
Personally I will play much more fixed.

The number of territories you need to conquer in order to win should be written somewhere in the game interface. Under the map maybe.

@ Cireon, Vexer and all - I have nothing against the percentage setting based on the number of players, by the way I think it's a normal thing that a 2p game is much faster than 8p.

In my opinion, the percentage should stay between 50% and 67% for making sense.
Too high, the game will be too similar to deathmatch.
Too low, it will be too easy to win with a single lucky shot.
Then 24 territories is classic!

I would go for quite a high percentage, as there will be lots of 1-territories.
But then maybe that changes in the gameplay?

But I defenitely think 50% is VERY low.

The way to play it is different. You must protect your territories, as you protect your cap in the capitals game.

But, yes, 50% is low, specially for a few players. And maybe Cireon and Vexer are right. So I suggest this simple formula:

half the map + half of your starting territories.

For example the results on the classic map would be these:
2/3p >>> 21+7 = 28 (66.7%);
4p >>> 21+5 = 26 (61.9%);
5p >>> 21+4 = 25 (59.5%);
6p >>> 21+3.5 = 25* (58.3%);
7p >>> 21+3 = 24 (57.1%);
8p >>> 21+2.5 = 24* (56.0%);
9p >>> 21+2 = 23 (54.8%).
[* high rounded result]

Can be good for you all?

I also think that it's not necessary a big percentage, but imagine a 9 players game, there are only 3 players and after eliminating one of them the result is that the attacking one has 23 countries, so the other one has 19; don't you think that there is still too much to say?

I know that after eliminating a player the attacking one would have his cards and would be stronger but that's the reason why I think that a bigger percentage is still posible.

The game will probably end with more than 2 players live. By the way in your example, Muzuane, why the players with 19 countries wasn't able to make a shot to conquer 4 more? Probably he is weaker than the other.

If decently played I think it's practically impossible, with 55 or 60%, that the winner is not the player that was leading (or better dominating!) the game.

In 1v1 games the percentage should stay under 60 or 65 for having some (little) differences from a normal deathmatch.

In my opinion 60% is ok. Doesn't matter the number of players.

The_Bishop, it depends on how weak will be the attacker after the elimination of the third player. In most games it will be easy for him to conquer some territories more, so, why don't we play with a little bigger percentage?

I agree with you in the 60% (or even less) with few players but when there are 6 or more players I'd rather a bigger % because as I said you may be quite weak whe you get your 55% percentage or what it's worse when you eliminate a player that after changing his cards has tried to get this % and failed and the game is still balanced.

I think that we should decide a percentage high enouhg to avoid "suicided" tries that ruin the game, becuase in this case we will have for sure Shorter games

Shorter games is the purpose of this option. If you want to stop the game when the winner is sure you should request for a surrender button.
Personally I would like better a fixed percentage. It looks more consistent and prevent hundreds of people asking how the formula works.
50% could be very funny and different, but maybe is better to raise it to 60% for having a game more "normal". They both are "human" ratios: 1/2 and 3/5... 57% = 4/7 was a little weird as a ratio.

I have given some thought to this and tried to come up with a good formula but I think the bishop might be right about keeping it simple at 60%.

But 2 player games needs a different percentage. Lets look at a 2p game on the world map. 60% would be 25 territories. In most cases the other player will be certain to lose before you reach 25 territories. We need to account for neutral territories in the calculation. I think that 50% of the total territories would work. On the world map that would mean 21 territories.

There's no way to know for sure how it should be setup until we actually play it. We can always make adjustments later but to start out I think it should be 50% for 2p and 60% for 3-9p.

I like it and I agree with the Bishop and Vexer, 60% sounds about right. I always enjoyed the missions though, would like to have some of our own.