| Author |
Messages |
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
 |
| 02 Jan 2008 2:20 PM |
|
| This is a great analysis of the Defensive retreat rule, I really appreciate your insight. Both versions need to be tested and I think there are merits for both. I like the orginal set better, but perhaps the defender does need to sustain some kind of loss, such as losing at least one army unless there are only 1-2 armies left in a territory. I think defensicve retreats are supposed to have the effect your are trying to negate and account for. Without having played it, I have feel for it and once I do, I will weigh on your suggestion. Thanks again! |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|
Dan12
Diplomat
Posts:81
|
| 04 Jan 2008 4:18 AM |
|
Nanka, your analysis is great. I thought about your modifications for a bit, but I am not still convinced that it is necessary to make the defence pay for the advantage they get. After all everyone will be in defensive move at some point and over time it will even out. The suggested changes, are a bit more difficult to implement and are not as clean cut as the original. It also depends on luck a lot more since you remove casualties based on dice now.
Of course this is just based on my thoughts, I really have to play these several times to see what works and what doesn't.
And as for player elimination, as UnH!nged put it, all you have to do it to cut out the "escape routes" and then force the retreat to stop in one choke point with no where to go and then go for the kill. I don't see player elimination as an issue. Am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
|
Nanka
Tactician
Posts:4
|
| 04 Jan 2008 10:55 AM |
|
Dan12, I tried to run a mental simulation in my mind when thinking about the ramifications of this variant. I came to the conclusion that defensive retreat would provide a significant defender advantage - perhaps enough to influence general tactics. So, although this advantage should even out amongst the players, I think that the issue to discuss becomes the relative changes to the attack-defense balance. Thus, my concern would become troop build-ups, which would dissuade attack and lengthen the game. Also, I could envision positive feedback, whereby troop build-ups would serve to further strengthen defensive retreat tactics.
As for cutting off escape routes, one must be able to break through front-lines. Defensive retreat would provide an opening for the attacker as there would be relinquishment of territory by the defender, but the gains might be illusory; defensive retreat results in the concentration of force, and this could enable significantly heightened counterattack-capability. Taken to its conclusion, increased counterattack strength indicates a capability to inflict greater damage and to sustain conflict, so two players involved in such a struggle could become more vulnerable to other players. So, while one may be able to prevent an aggregation of force from a "collapsing retreat", the threat from concentration of force in the front-lines would not be directly addressed. Weighing the options and consequences, I think that there would exist greater instance of detente.
Therefore, if the result of defensive retreat on general tactics is to discourage attack, I think that it would need to be reined-in; these thoughts were the reasons that I suggested modifications. |
|
|
|
|
Dan12
Diplomat
Posts:81
|
| 05 Jan 2008 1:29 AM |
|
As I understand concentration of force usually leads to a conflict because of the availability of armies. So a defensive retreat simply piles armies in one corner of the map and eventually there comes a point where these armies are far greater than the surrounding armies. That's when the likelihood of attack increases significantly.
This in itself is not a bad thing and I don't really think it needs to be "addressed" as such. We already have this situation in the game because of the cards and if nothing it actually helps to finish the game. So in this context the increased opportunity for attack due to defensive retreat must feel similar to cashing cards; plenty of armies to use and lots of invasions.
I think defensive retreat will discourage attack, but only to a point after which it will be just normal invasions. The fact that now defence may also loose some armies is the opposite of discouraging attack. So, does the modification really help as you intend to? |
|
|
|
|
Nanka
Tactician
Posts:4
|
| 05 Jan 2008 2:32 PM |
|
Around our kitchen table, concentration of force is not impetus for attack, but a signal of strategy and tactics. Amassment of force - the physical number of army units present - describes army build-up, and it also is not an impetus for attack. Instead, attacks are typically encouraged by grand strategy and relative imbalance of force.
Probability(attack) = importance to grand strategy (0 to 1) * probable success of attack (0 to 1)
where:
Probable success of attack is proportional to the relative imbalance of force.
As for the cards, you are definitely correct; redeemed sets do encourage attack. Why? - they are deployed in territories that are most relevant to grand strategy, and their deployment could be used to create imbalance of force.
Your assertion that troop build-ups do lead to conflict is also correct to a degree. I'd explain it as an increasing likelihood for creating imbalance of force. However, note that build-ups at chokepoints do not increase the likelihood for attack; the best example that I could provide describes North Africa - Brazil (with Europe not in play), where it is not uncommon to see massive troop build-ups with the primary purpose of discouraging attack.
Defensive retreat, if implemented, would tend to reduce the number of situations of imbalance of force. As a result, attacks would be discouraged more often, and player-elimination could become more difficult. This could extend the game to a point where an extra turn or two could bring massive reinforcements into play from later-redeemed sets. As making sets is highly reliant on the luck of the draw, extended games may negatively affect play-experience.
I see a lot of benefits to strategy for implementing defensive retreat, but I also anticipate some nasty side-effects to gameplay experience. Therefore, I felt that it was important to make modifications for the purpose of encapturing the benefits without the full costs of the side-effects. I like the ability to create strategic deterrence i.e. discouraging a specific attack (based on the placement of army units within the theatre), but I am very wary about the creation of tactical deterrence i.e. discouraging attack in general. |
|
|
|
|
Dan12
Diplomat
Posts:81
|
| 05 Jan 2008 3:55 PM |
|
| Absolutely agree that discouraging attack is bad for game play. I think Risk truly shines when attack is encouraged which helps the game to move forward and takes players out of stalemate situation's. Cards are obviously designed to do this. Even the slight advantage with attacking dice is designed to encourage attack a bit more. So yes you are quite right to be wary if defensive retreat is going to discourage players from attacking. On the other hand I think this adds some strategic thinking which itself is fun to play and will make players think twice before they simply go for a blitz. On the one hand it makes you cautious since defending player can retreat and you need to prepare for it. On the other hand, it makes you bolder to expand because you know that if you get attacked you can simply retreat back to your old strong positions. I have a feeling that these two forces are enough to balance the game and so the end result should be more fun gameplay. But again, unless I give this a try I wont know for sure. So far so good though ... |
|
|
|
|
UnH!nged
Strategist
Posts:27
|
| 11 Jan 2008 12:08 AM |
|
Nanka,
Don't forget that the defender is not the only one with an advantage here. The attackers in this scenario are getting FREE territories without losing a single army for it. That's quite an advantage as well. The idea here is that battles would be more likely to happen when BOTH parties are prepared to fight. If the defender is not prepared then he is forced to run and vacate the territory. (much more realistic) Even though retreat is possible, it does not mean that the number of armies on the board have changed one iota.
The attacker must temper his charge with the knowledge that over-extension can be a bad thing, and grabbing too much at once from a poorly defended opponent can come back to bite you.
But, in terms of card redemption, I do know what you mean, but in my experience it doesn't have a negative side-effect. Our group does not play with the standard exchange rate. We play with a set value of 10 extra per set of cards. Even if you don't want the set value, the risk rules state that you may not use more armies than are included in the tray for one color, so once crads exchange does get to huge amounts, it will fall off again when they run out. |
|
|
|
|
2ojosazules
Tactician
Posts:2
|
| 25 Aug 2011 6:20 PM |
|
I really like the idea of retreat as described and I think it could add a lot to the game. I just have a couple of suggested tweaks (I apologize if someone already mentioned them -- I didn't read through all the responses).
First, I think retreat should be limited ONLY to situations in which the defender has 2 or more armies occupying the territory under attack, so that one army gets left behind. There are a few reasons why I prefer this:
(1) Leaving a soldier behind is more true to life, as in real life battles there will be soldiers who either are intentionally staying behind to assist with logistics, or are slower to retreat and get picked off, or simply don't get the message. A retreat can obviously be extremely disorganized.
(2) Also, I think it makes sense to impose a "penalty" of sorts on the fleeing army. If you are retreating, that could mean that you haven't planned your troop movements or strategized properly, and I feel it is not fair that you get these "free extra" troop movements during your opponent's turn.
(3) Finally, I don't think that the attacking army should be "forced" to occupy the territory. The attacker may have strategic reasons for deciding NOT to occupy. For example, sometimes you may attack a territory with no intention of actually taking that territory -- maybe you just want to thin your opponent's troops while you have the advantage on offense. Now, if that opponent decides to flee, you will be forced to do something you didn't want to do. Again, the attacker should not be penalized because the defender decides to flee.
Under my scenario, when one soldier is left behind, the attacker can choose whether or not to occupy the territory. If he decides to occupy, the final defending army is taken off the board without a dice battle. If he decides not to occupy, the final defending army gets to live.
My second change to the retreat option is that the retreating army cannot "choose" how many armies to retreat. It is either all (minus one) or nothing. Either retreat or stay and fight. Again, I don't like the idea of players being able to conduct strategic troop movements during their opponents' turns.
Finally, a defender should be able to decide to retreat in the MIDDLE of a battle, when he realizes that he's whipped. In that situation, though, he stands to lose additional armies during the retreat. I recommend either losing 2 armies or the attacker rolling a 4-sided dice and the retreating army loses between 1 and 4 soldiers.
Just some thoughts...
Ben |
|
|
|
|
|