| Author |
Messages |
|
Matt 20 1
Strategist
Posts:10
 |
| 19 Sep 2009 8:28 AM |
|
I was on the Risk Wiki, and I came across a variation called "Empire Risk". It seemed really interesting, except te article wasn't written very well, and I'm not sure how to play it properly. Does anyone here know how to, and if so, please share. |
|
|
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 19 Sep 2009 1:59 PM |
|
Hi Matt and welcome to TD. I am not sure what Empire Risk is. Could you please explain a bit more, perhaps that will help others as well to help you out. |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
Matt 20 1
Strategist
Posts:10
|
| 19 Sep 2009 5:55 PM |
|
From what I've read, players are given pre-set territories and armies at the beginning of the game. In addition, there is one large, contiguous "Empire" player that has more territories and armies than any other player. The Empire is controlled by all players simultaneously.
A Leader of the Empire can be chosen by dice roll(highest number rolled wins) or vote. The Leader makes decision on where to place reinforcements and where to fortify armies. Decisions about which nations to declare war on are decided by vote with the leader being the tiebreaker. Elections (by vote or dice roll) are held every three turns with no term limits. If the Leader refuses to attack a nation at war with the Empire or otherwise shows an unwillingness to defend the Empire, he can be replaced for the duration of his term by a unanimous vote of all other members.
A player who is part of the Empire may decide to revolt against the Empire by seperating their fraction of the Empire's armies. For example, if four players control the Empire then a revolting player takes 25% of the Empire's armies, rounding down if necessary. The revolting player's armies are exchanged for another color. The armies are chosen by the revolting player. Any armies may be chosen, if it turns out that some armies belong to the revolting player and some remain with the Empire in the same territory, there is an immediate attack to determine who keeps the territory. Once a player has defected, the new nation created is automatically at war with the Empire until one is defeated or both parties declare peace. Once a player has defected from the Empire, they are no longer part of the decision-making process in the Empire. The Leader of the Empire cannot revolt.
That is all the infromation I can find, and it isn't very clear to me how the game works. |
|
|
|
|
Great Alan
Diplomat
Posts:62
|
| 19 Sep 2009 11:21 PM |
|
The Empire "partly" run by the republic insitution?That's interesting....To gain all players unanimously agree to overthrow an emperor seems like too harsh....
Now I have few questions:
a.Once someone revolt,can he build up an empire himself?If he can,then what is the condition?
b.If the rebel army defeat the empire army,will the rebel army turn to be a "new empire" and thus replace an old one?
c.What decide the rebel army's power?
d.Can the emperor ban someone out from his empire?
e.If an emperor is ousted by election,then will a new emperor produced by election?
|
|
|
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 20 Sep 2009 2:37 AM |
|
On the outset it sounds interesting, but does this mean that the players are simultaneously playing against the empire while also controlling it. If that is the case, what is going to stop them dividing the empire to bits and join those bits to their own territories.
I agree, the information you have isn't clear, but personally I don't know any other source on this so it is a matter of working it for yourself followed by field testing.
Alan's questions are a good start. |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
Matt 20 1
Strategist
Posts:10
|
| 20 Sep 2009 4:35 AM |
|
Yeah. But, like you, I don't understand the advantage of staying with the Empire, why you wouldn't revolt?
I assume that a new Empire could replace the old one if it is destroyed. And if you ask me, also if a player becomes more powerful than the Empire, others have the choice of joining them, if they agree, to from a new one.
And there doesn't nessarily have to be an Emperor. Although it is "Empire Risk", the way the game plays, it's more of a democracy. An option may be for the leader at the time to create a true Empire, and to become an Emperor. The disdvantage of this is the loss of support from other players, if they wish to pull out of the Empire to have control over their own troops. I'll try out a few games, and try to create rules. Any ieas or help will be greatl appreciated. I feel his variation will create alot of player interaction. |
|
|
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 20 Sep 2009 5:41 AM |
|
Matt I think you are right. There is certainly hope here to make it into something useful but like every variations in Risk, it requires lot of testing to make sure a player doesn't easily find a loop hole in the rules and exploit. Risk players are notorious in finding these quite quickly.
One idea is to have a set of people forming an empire going against another set of people who have another empire. However, people need to work together based on votes and need some rules to move forward. Certain situations may lead to the disintegration of the empire at which point the players would need to grab a few territories for themselves and they will be on their own from that point onwards (much like warring states). The rest of the game will be a classic Risk with competition between the generals and any remaining empires left in the game until only one all-encompassing empire is left as the winner and a new era starts...
Just an idea really, needs a lot more work to implement. Your experiments could we very helpful on this... |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
Matt 20 1
Strategist
Posts:10
|
| 20 Sep 2009 7:03 AM |
|
| I really like that idea of two empires fighting it out. Another idea would be for players to pul out of one Empire, and join the other, with permission of the Empire leader, of course. This would also solve the problem of a stalemate game when no-one is willing to attack the Empire, and from fear of attack, other players. |
|
|
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 20 Sep 2009 8:22 AM |
|
that's a good idea too. It would be rather difficult to have than two empires if each empire is going have at least three people. Risk shows its full potential when there are more than two players in the game otherwise it would start to feel like chess.
I am not sure about two player empires, because as soon as one pulls out you no longer have an empire. So this variation seems to be suitable for large maps played on computers with lots of people which I guess is getting further and further away form what you had in mind at the beginning. This way you are almost ending up designing a new game and of course this requires extensive research. |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
Matt 20 1
Strategist
Posts:10
|
| 21 Sep 2009 5:58 AM |
|
I imagine that it would play out like normal Risk, just with enhanced 'alliance rules', to such an extent that you are part of an Empire. I have bee trying to think about how it could work, and this is what I came up with.
6 Players: 2 Empires, 3 players each
5 players: 1 empire, 3 players. 2 Rebel/Independant nations, 1 player each
4 players: 1 Empire, 3 players, 1 intependant nations, 1 player
Any less players, and the variation cannot effectively be played. It is designed for a larger amount of players. I'm working on the rules at the moment, I'll post a few up when I sort through a few loop holes. |
|
|
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 21 Sep 2009 8:46 AM |
|
| Good analysis, but I still think there should be more than 2 empires which will push the total players beyond 6 unless you can come up with an idea to let people join or leave the only empire in the game while making sure that not all should join the empire so that the game can continue. Anyway I look at, you are effectively making a new game rather than a variation, so you are free to bring in many other elements. The only limitation will be your map and your tokens. |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
Matt 20 1
Strategist
Posts:10
|
| 22 Sep 2009 4:53 AM |
|
To tell you the truth, I don't own a physical Risk Board, I on;y have 'Risk II', and I have a Star Wars Risk. So my testing is only limited as to how effective it would be on an actual Risk board.
All that aside, I can see what you mean. I assume it would work the same way for 7, 8, 9, etc. players, with 7 having 2 empires and an independant, 8 having 2 empires of 4 players, and 9 having 3 empires, etc.
And also, in this version, although the indeoendent nations are out-numbered, they also have advantages, eg. they are totally free to make decisions, while the empires have to vote to do anything.
An enhancement to the traditional Risk gameplay, would be a 'Global Senate', which involves particular nations being part of the senate (say there are 25 'seats' (nations) in the Senate). The player/empire that occupies the country holds that seat in the Senate. Particular events (I can't think of any right now), can'thappen until it passes through the senate. Obviously the more seats you hold in the Senate, the more influence over the game you have. Another option is that the more seats you hold, the higher a bonus amount of troops you received. I'm not sure how this would play out in this particular game however, it's just an idea. |
|
|
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 23 Sep 2009 2:33 AM |
|
| Interesting ideas Matt. They are all worth perusing. I like the idea of a Senate and a game based on democracy, however from experience in computer games that implement such concepts I can tell you that they may not be always fun to play. For example, in Civilization games, no one liked to the idea of their decision to go to war being overruled by the senate. It just made playing difficult which is probably why a lot of players at the time preferred to use Fundamentalism as a system to govern their country so they could go to war at will (and have fun using all the military units at their disposal!). But this is of course becoming more theoretical now. A game should have abstract rules while letting a large number of possibilities and interactions. The danger with these variations is that they become complex too soon and hence difficult for other players to follow and comprehend. Anyway, some of my thoughts. |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
Frisco
Tactician
Posts:5
|
| 24 Sep 2009 10:07 AM |
|
This does seem very interesting. I think the key question that Ehsan mentioned early is whether you take part in the empire as a community effort while also minding your own area. I think that must be the way it is (I am assuming that anyway) and think that would make for some very interesting dynamics.
It seems that you would have a hand in empirical policies while also trying to defeat the Empire for your own purposes. Of course if anyone gets too transparent in their natural tendency to become selfish in this built-in "conflict of interest" the other players can see their malfeasance in their community responsibilities and take away their empirical power. I think that makes for some very real life problems of diplomacy to solve. ;) |
|
"Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof." V from "V for Vendetta" |
|
|
Matt 20 1
Strategist
Posts:10
|
| 25 Sep 2009 3:28 AM |
|
If you are part of the Empire, then you really have no independance. If you are a rebel, you hav 100% independance. That is what keeps the game in balance. Of course, you can pull out of the Empire, take your share of troops, and become a rebel.
So the balance of the game is, you can't independently make decisions, but you have the security of the Empire, while the rebels have a large enemy, but have indepenence. |
|
|
|
|
|