Imported Post
King
Posts:232
 |
| 15 Mar 2007 5:44 PM |
|
I learned this from a pc game called Risk 2 (there's a link to download a trial from this site). It involves each player writing down their actions for each turn (keeping them secret from the other players), then executing them at, er, the same time (hence the name!).
It gets pretty complicated in the attack phase though. Each territory can declare attacks on multiple neighbouring territories, but those attacks cannot normally 'surge' on to other terrritories, as you are only allowed one surge attack per turn.
Conversely, this also means that one territory can be attacked by more than one neighbour. In this case, the defender's dice are compared to all of it's opponents. If the defender scores highest, then all the attackers lose one each. If it is lower however, the defender loses one man for each dice that has a higher score. If the two attackers are opponents and they win, then they immediately fight each other for control of that territory. this is a 'spoils of war' battle.
As far as the order of play goes, the computer does each continent at a time, from left to right. I guess a marker'd probably be useful there. Okay, did any of that make sense?
Fuegan |
|
|
|
|
Imported Post
King
Posts:232
|
| 15 Mar 2007 5:44 PM |
|
that did make sense, i have the game and its very interesting if you put it on the capitals mode. also the best strategy is to look for people who are about to attack each other and send as big a force as possible to clean up the mess
unsunghero10 |
|
|
|
|
cyray7
Diplomat
Posts:121
|
| 03 Jun 2007 10:23 PM |
|
| I don't like this version as much, because later in the game, there's too much flip flopping of territories, and army placement gets too confusing. I prefer the traditional ways. |
|
|
|
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
|
| 16 Dec 2007 5:22 AM |
|
It is too bad you don't like Same-Time Risk. My friends and I have found that this version of the game makes for a very different strategic environment and that "flip-flopping of territories" is actually one of the cool things you need to keep in mind when formulating your strategies and tactics. It keeps the same Risk mechanics and strategic overlay but it gives you a fresh look and a different perspective. We love the game and feel that it gives the game new life and feels more realistic at times. Also, it has the added bonus of allowing 5-8 players to play with out creating a huge disadvantage for the players going last in the turn order since all plays are made "Same-Time".
I wish the rules for this game were easily available for use on a gameboard and not just in the computer game Risk II. Also, does anyone have any strategy points for playing this game they would like to post? |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 16 Dec 2007 1:19 PM |
|
| The most simple strategy I can think of from the top of my head is to try to play faster than all others in every rounds so you get to have the initiate. With the exception that everyone having cards and you are confident with your position so you can delay cashing in and wait for everyone to play in that turn. |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
Sam
Diplomat
Posts:110
|
| 16 Dec 2007 5:13 PM |
|
| Play slower than everyone else. |
|
2¢ is my son so we have the same email. Sorry for any confusion. |
|
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
|
| 17 Dec 2007 9:26 AM |
|
| I am not sure how playing "faster" than everyone else has to do with strategy? In Same-Time Risk, you submit your battle orders to the computer. In realife, you would write them down on a piece of paper and when everyone else is finshed writing them down, you settle the orders. It doesn't matter who submits their orders first, everyone's orders gets resolved following a formula: certain types of battles go first and once those are all resolved, you move on to the next type. The game resoves the battle orders in a way that how fast you finish writing your orders has no impact on the game itself. |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|
Ehsan Honary
Site Admin
King
Posts:268
|
| 17 Dec 2007 1:56 PM |
|
Ah, ok I see the miss-understanding. I was thinking about online computer games when I said faster. In games such as Grand Strategy, when a new turn starts you can play your move. Until everyone has played, the round will not progress to the next. However, whoever logs in sooner gets a choice to play before others who have not logged on. He also has a choice to log out again and come back later. The game will not progress forward until he has played, so he can just delay his own move until everyone has played.
Now, strategically, this is significant. It means that if there is a weak player with 5 cards that you can take out in the next turn, you have an advantage to play first in that round because you can eliminate the weak player and get his cards. I hope this explains it. |
|
Ehsan Honary
|
|
|
Sam
Diplomat
Posts:110
|
| 17 Dec 2007 10:29 PM |
|
| Okay, but if you play slower you probably get to see players' personalities befor you take your turn. If you can kill people play fast. |
|
2¢ is my son so we have the same email. Sorry for any confusion. |
|
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
|
| 18 Dec 2007 11:40 AM |
|
In the computer version, you input your orders and the computer stores them until everyone has inputted theirs. Once everyone in turn has placed their orders with the computer, the computer then reveals the orders all at once and plays them out using a formula.
If you wish to play by those rules on a real game board, each player would write down their orders on a piece of paper and once everyone is finished, they are all revealed at the same time and the players would work out the orders on the board using the prescribed formula.
So being slower or faster than anyone has nothing to do with except in how agressive you are in the type of orders you place. An agressive player may attack with every territory he has available armies in while a "slow" player may only do surgical strikes. |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|
Sam
Diplomat
Posts:110
|
| 18 Dec 2007 12:29 PM |
|
| Ok, i get it. |
|
2¢ is my son so we have the same email. Sorry for any confusion. |
|
|