| Author |
Messages |
|
UnH!nged
Strategist
Posts:27
 |
| 18 Dec 2007 5:52 AM |
|
Another variant we play a lot is basically Classic Risk with Defensive Retreat capability. This has always made more military sense to me and I always wondered why something like this was not included in the first place.
The idea being that no lone army would stand against 10 invading armies if it didn't have to. Well, sometimes you have to, but we play that if the lone defending army has an adjacent territory to which it can retreat, it may do so without engaging the attacker.
The territory is simply ceded to the attacker, who must then move the same number of armies to occupy the newly acquired space as dice he intended to roll. It works like this:
The attacker announces the attack and shows the defender the number of dice. The defender then gets to choose whether to fight or flee to a connected territory. The defender gets to respond before the attacker is allowed to roll. Conversely, the defender may not decide after an attacker's roll, so his decision is not based on good dice or bad dice. It must be carried out, or not, before dice are rolled. Once dice are rolled, the fight is on.
So, strategic retreating can actually be a life saver in some situations. If a large force is coming at a string of your poorly defended territories, retreat until the odds are little more favorable. The aggressors force will dwindle with each move forward, because he has to leave an occupier behind. Your force will grow as you retreat into adjacent territores. If I was over extended against a brand-new, "cash-card army", I try to retreat to a choke-point in the map and only then, do I make my stand.
I always thought it a strange rule that only the attackers may retreat; it made no sense to the group of Risk friends I play with, so we changed it, and we never play without that capability.
Try it out. |
|
|
|
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
|
| 18 Dec 2007 11:33 AM |
|
Interesting idea. I wonder if the rule that forces the attacker to take over the territory might be looked at. Perhaps when retreating, the attacker does not have to follow him in if he does not want to and can leave the territory empty if he chooses. Then, any player who wishes to take a territory that is empty just does so, and moves in at least one army and that's it.
I like the idea of giving the Defense an oppotunity to retreat if it has territories adjacent to its location. I think if you have no neighboring territories, then you can't retreat, which makes sense to me in terms of realism. |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|
UnH!nged
Strategist
Posts:27
|
| 18 Dec 2007 6:22 PM |
|
If there is no where to go, you have to fight. We actually tried it where the attacker does not have to occupy the space, but we got rid of that as it somewhat defeats the purpose of having defensive retreats.
The idea was to allow a player to even the odds a bit, by making the attacker occupy the ceded territory. We called the rule the "supply-line" rule. Meaning that the attacker may not leave a gap between the initial launch point and his forward push. |
|
|
|
|
Dan12
Diplomat
Posts:81
|
| 19 Dec 2007 5:24 AM |
|
| Very interesting variation. I suppose you can retreat your 1 army to anywhere as long as you have connected territories. Does this by any chance slow the major campaigns because the attacking player realises that his attack may flee the defender into a choke point. So it makes sense to put pressure on your choke points before even the attacks start, if possible of course. |
|
|
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 19 Dec 2007 6:05 AM |
|
This is certainly an interesting variation. I guess it also takes out the "one army killing 4 armies" phenomena we sometimes wittiness when throwing dice. I like the fact that takes some randomness out and replaces it with a choice which is a very good thing for a strategy game.
Thanks for the contribution. |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
UnH!nged
Strategist
Posts:27
|
| 19 Dec 2007 5:09 PM |
|
No problem, happy to contribute :)
In response to Dan's question: Yes, it can slow down the bigger campaigns, but doesn't always. The attacker will be able to see ahead of time what your cumulative retreat potential is by counting armies in opposing connective territories and plans his or her attack accordingly. Once you've played this variant a few times, you'll instantly be able to tell when and where retreats will occur and at what point the defender will make their stand.
But it does add another little dynamic for the attacker: When attacking a string of connected enemy territories, it may not be prudent to attack in a straight line, which allows total retreat. At times its best to go around, or circumvent some territories in the string to cut those defending armies off from the rest of the retreating armies.
For example: Lets say my opponent holds all of South America except Venezuela and all Africa and neither continents is very well defended. And let's say I have a very large force in Venezuela ready to expand South from my North American stronghold. Rather than take the chance of losing both SA and Africa by fighting many battles in which he has no chance, he will retreat into North Africa and make his stand there with much better odds of holding it.
BUT, as the attacker, I'm not going to allow him to retreat all of his forces to North Africa if I can help it. I'm going to cut off the retreat of some of his armies if possible:
Instead of attacking in this sequence: Venezuela to Peru > Argentina > Brazil
I'll do this: Venezueal straight to Brazil.
This way, I've cut off any armies he had in Peru and Argentina from regrouping with his main force in North Africa. I cut them off, eliminate them, and then either fortify to Brazil or push into North Africa. So, In short, don't let enemies retreat in a straight line if you can help it. Cut them off and surround them! |
|
|
|
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
|
| 19 Dec 2007 7:49 PM |
|
This provides an interesting strategic shift in the game, which I like. The trade-offs you have to make change dramatically, and now, the most efficient route that one would normally take is not really a great option. In a way, going to straight to Brazil to cut off his retreat means that has also provided himself with some measure of protection, because you can't take him out entirely in fell swoop. You need to pick off his amries in South America first then go for North Africa the next turn or vice versa.
Creating this dilemma for your opponent measn you can stay in the game longer and can slow down the attack. You will either need to split your forces to cut him off or wait an extra turn to finish the job and he may then gain entra reinforcements inside of South America and eat you from the inside out or pile 'em up in North Africa and take a beating from there. I will definitly need to play this variant for a while first to get the hang of it and see what it does strategically. I do agree, more options, the better. |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|
UnH!nged
Strategist
Posts:27
|
| 19 Dec 2007 8:28 PM |
|
You're absolutely right. I was basing my scenario on the assumption that the defender did not have much in terms of resistance in Peru and Argentina and was attempting a total retreat, but, as you said, if the defender retreats some forces to North Africa and some to Argentina/Peru, the attacker would definitely have a dilemma of how to proceed. If this is the case, The attacker would probably march all forces through Argentina/Peru and then fortify to Brazil at turns end, leaving North Africa alone for the moment. Not too much of a dilemma in terms of how SA is configured, but the same situation in Asia, for instance, could provided quite a headache for the aggressor
This an excellent example of how defensive retreats not only change the battle odds, but can force an attacker to divide his focus. If the defender begins to retreat in multiple directions, the attacker may soon find his once-superior force surrounded without a shot even being fired. |
|
|
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 20 Dec 2007 3:02 AM |
|
| I have to admit this is one of the best variants I have seen. In Risk most of the control is on the attackers shoulder and when an attacker has lots of armies, he can do a lot without thinking. The defensive move certainly makes him think because he can't go on a blitzkrieg just as he likes, so it adds more dynamics and strategic thinking. The only way to know how it plays is to give it try. [Mental note ...] |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
UnH!nged
Strategist
Posts:27
|
| 20 Dec 2007 6:01 AM |
|
It's funny because we actually stumbled across by accident. When The regular group and I were teenagers, we were playing a game. One player was down to his last 5 territories when I positioned a large force to take him out. I announced my attack and out of frustrtaion he moved his army off of the space and yelled: "JUST TAKE IT! I RETREAT!" We all had a laugh. Then a collective light bulb went off over our heads and we immediately started thinking of ways to develope the idea. And before you know it we had the rudimentary rules in place. That was over 25 years ago and we've played that way ever since.
Actually, if you guys would like, I can post the definative rules that we settled on for this version. Of course, everyone is free to tailor add to, subtract, or change them as you see fit to get the most out of them. |
|
|
|
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
|
| 20 Dec 2007 2:43 PM |
|
That would be sweet. I would love to see the official version that you guys came up with. I want to make sure when I give it a try that I use the Real McCoy and having a set of outlined rules will give it more validity, especially if controversies come up. I agree, giving the defense an option during combat makes the game more strategic, and keeps all of the players into the game throughout. I have been know to stand up and leave the room during many games when it is obvious that I will not be rolling any dice for a while. I miss out on some of the diplomacy, but with this new rule, I will have lots of incentive to stick around.
One point of clarification: can you retreat with any number of armies, or does it have to be only one? |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|
UnH!nged
Strategist
Posts:27
|
| 21 Dec 2007 12:08 AM |
|
THE RULES FOR THE DEFENSIVE RETREAT VARIANT - RISK!
These are the definitive rules for this variant as our Risk group has played them for years. Feel free to modify them to suit your own game. The key is to enjoy the game as much as possible.
OVERVIEW:
This variant is basically the same as classic Risk with the exception that defending armies are now endowed with retreat capabilities if certain criteria are met.
RETREATING:
1.) If a defending army does not wish to engage the attacker, and has an adjacent territory connected to the one it currently occupies, it then may retreat to that territory without engaging the attacking armies. The space to which the defender flees MUST be controlled by the defender as well.
2.) Any number of armies may be included in the retreat.
3.) Each retreating army may only move ONE territory away from from the territory being attacked. If the territory to which the armies retreated is subsequently attacked, then they may move another space if fighting is still not desirable. (provided this is still possible due to territorial connectivity)
4.) The retreating armies (if more than one) DO NOT have to retreat to the same adjacent territory if there is more than one option. For example if 4 armies are retreating North from an attack on Central America, then 2 may fall back to the Eastern U.S. and 2 may move to the Western U.S. (if both territories are controlled by the retreating player). Armies can be divided up at the retreater's discretion.
5.) No player may retreat from a territory that is not being attacked; There should be no unoccupied territories. (You may not retreat as a means of "end-turn style" tactical move unless that particular space is attacked. In other words, no player should ever be retreating during his or her own turn.
ROLLING SEQUENCE:
1.) The attacker announces his or her attack as usual and declares the number of dice being rolled. (As always 3 dice means at least 3 invading armies have entered the disputed territory.)
2.) The defender then announces his plans to fight or retreat. (if the retreat criteria have been met - listed above) The attacker MAY NOT roll the attack dice until the defendant has chosen to fight or flee. (Set time limits if you deem it appropriate) The defender on the other hand may not change his mind after the attack dice are rolled. (so the quality of the attacker's roll may play no part in this decision to fight or not.)
a - If the defender fights... dice are rolled as usual
b - If the defender chooses to flee, he must vacate the territory completely. There are no partial retreats. For instance, the defender MAY NOT retreat 4 armies and leave 2 to fight. It's all or nothing.
c - The defender MAY, on the other-hand, decide to retreat after the fight has begun, but may do so only in between rounds of dice. Example: If Player A is defending and has decided to fight, he must roll the first round and take any damage associated with that roll. But the defender MAY STILL retreat if he begins to take a beating from the aggressor, but ONLY after HIS OWN ROLL. Again, Once the attacker rolls, the defender must do likewise.
Scenario:
Attacker: I'm attacking with 3 dice.
Defender: Let's do it
Attacker: "I rolled Double Sixes!, You rolled Double Fours! You lose 2! Want to roll again?
Defender: "No, Im retreating"
ATTACKING AND OCCUPYING:
1.) The attacker MUST occupy the space that is ceded to them. If he was willing to fight for ownership, Then ownership must be assumed if it is given to him.
2.) The attacker must move the same number of armies as dice he expressed intent to roll at round's commencement. The idea being that the number of dice announced are equivalent to invaders ENTERING the territory, whereas the defender may not have actually retreated from anything less than that. So, in short, if you are using the threat of 3, then you must occupy with at least that number. This keeps the attacker from being able to "bluff" the defender with more dice than he actually intended to roll.
3.) If a player continually causes retreats as he moves forward, he naturally must leave an occupier behind on the ceded areas as he moves his force forward. The attacker may NOT leave gaps of unoccupied territories by claiming: "I didn't really want the territory, I was just trying to go after the occupant."
4.) A territory that is obtained via enemy retreat DOES reward that player with a RISK CARD at turns end. This stops players from being able to "retreat someone out of a card".
RETREATING AND ALLIANCES:
1.) A "Retreat Exchance" (where players exchange territories via cessation to each other) as terms of an alliance or treaty are perfectly legal. But each player involved in the "exchange" must acquire his territory from the other on his OWN TURN and under the conditions and rules listed above. (Be sure you trust the other player to cede his territory on your turn once you have ceded yours to him during his turn!)
2.) Players are absolutely forbidden to retreat to (or through) another players territory regardless of whether or not they are "allies" or as part of any treaty or alliance.
That's pretty much it. If anything needs clarification, just ask.
-UnH!nged |
|
|
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 21 Dec 2007 8:14 AM |
|
Wow, that's fantastic. Pretty much bullet proof. Are you a lawyer by any chance ;-)
It basically explains everything and I am seriously interested to give this a try. "Retreat exchange" was cool. I can see why you wondered that this was missing in the main rules and should have been included. It's a powerful extension to the game.
Christmas is upon us and is a good idea to get some family Risk games going. With some new variations of course!
Happy Christmas to all |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
|
| 21 Dec 2007 5:51 PM |
|
This is great, it looks like you guys really thought this out and it looks like you could write this into the rulebooks with ease. I would love to play it with my friends and once I do, I will report back as to how it went. This does look like a great addition. Well Done.
I wonder about the partial retreats rule. Would allowing the defender to partially retreat (that is move 4 out 8 armies out of the threatened territory and retreat to a neighboring friendly territory) be a good idea? Have you tried it? The rule would stipulate that any armies that retreat could not move back. Just a thought. Other than that, I think the rules look great. I will try out the original and was just wondering about that one piece. |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|
UnH!nged
Strategist
Posts:27
|
| 21 Dec 2007 6:16 PM |
|
Yes, we have tried partial retreats and banned it for the following reason:
If a player retreats 3 armies and leaves 3 armies to fight, then what happens if the defender actually wins with the 3 remaining armies? Most of the times it is not likely, but mathematically, there is a chance for it to occur.
If a partial retreat ends in a victory for the defender's remaining armies, then he kept his territory and also was allowed a tactical move as well, that did not occur at the end of his own turn.
If a defender chooses the tactical retreat (which occurs during someone elses turn), he must give up the territory. He can't have it both ways. But, as I said, feel free to experiement. A good set of rules are made so through a slow evolution, therefore the rulebook on this variant may not be done yet either! |
|
|
|
|
|