Imported Post
King
Posts:232
 |
| 16 Mar 2007 2:40 AM |
|
A fun twist to the game is a house rule we made up called Nuclear Risk.
When the three attack dice are rolled and they all come up the same number,
draw a Risk card from the top of the deck...whatever country it shows gets
completely annihilated...all the troops are killed, and replaced by one
"neutral" army. Have fun
Shannon |
|
|
|
|
Imported Post
King
Posts:232
|
| 16 Mar 2007 2:40 AM |
|
| sounds interesting, but i think that it would be good if it was disregarded if it was the players last country, for fairnes, eh? |
|
|
|
|
cyray7
Diplomat
Posts:121
|
| 03 Jun 2007 9:56 PM |
|
| sounds sort of like a lottery idea. I like involving as much skill in my games of risk, so although this sounds like a lot of fun for some people, i wouldn't like it, as, it may completely change the game. |
|
|
|
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
|
| 16 Dec 2007 5:25 AM |
|
| I like using the old Supremacy rules (a Cold War based strategy board game like Risk, but with NUKES) for Nuclear warfare. This certainly makes the game very interesting! |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|
UnH!nged
Strategist
Posts:27
|
| 17 Dec 2007 10:12 PM |
|
My friends and I also developed a Risk variant using nukes but it differs quite a bit...
Any player can nuke any other territory eliminating the armies on that space under the following conditions:
1.) The player must be holding the card of the territory he/she wishes to nuke.
2.) The player then forfeits that card while a penny (or other space holder) is placed on the nuked territory
3.) The player can only nuke at the beginning of their turn. One nuke deployment counts as a players entire turn and does NOT award them a card at the end of that turn. The player may not attack again by conventional means within that turn.
4.) The nuked territory remains so throughout the entire game. Armies may pass through or attack through the nuked territory, but at a cost of one half of the armies moving through it. For example, 10 armies in the Eastern U.S may attack through a Nuked Central America to Venezuela with only 5 armies allowed to survive to the Venezuelan territory. The other 5 die from passing through the territory.
5.) player may reinforce before the nuke and fortify afterward.
Some players try to nuke attack points to their own continents to make them difficult to reach, but keep in mind that later in the game they also have to pass through those same nuked areas to venture outside of that continent. What saves you in the beginning may hamper you down the road. Kinda fun just for a change of pace. |
|
|
|
|
Dan12
Diplomat
Posts:81
|
| 18 Dec 2007 1:14 AM |
|
That's a really cool variation. It makes me feel like I want to go and give it a try to see how it plays. Did you ever play this where players had a choice of selecting the territory they wanted to nuke rather than having a card. That way they nuke strategically. Did you try this? Or is random better? How does it play? What different strategies do you use?
|
|
|
|
|
UnH!nged
Strategist
Posts:27
|
| 18 Dec 2007 5:29 AM |
|
We tried using the players wide open choice of nuking, but a few situations arose that we thought killed the intent of the variant:
When players have their choice of nukes, they will usually go for the most damage (most enemy armies destroyed in a strategic location) and that would usually cause a retaliatory nuke. Before you know it nukes are flying out of control from strike and counter strike and half the board is a wasteland that seriously begins to inhibit game play.
It can be controlled to a certain extent, by allocating one 1 nuke per player for the entire game, or perhaps 2 if there are fewer players.
One thing it does do is make sure that the armies of each player are pretty evenly dispersed as to not present too compelling a nuke target. The game is then fought with a greater number of smaller battles as opposed to fewer massive battles at the end, because its really hard to get a sizable force through the maps strategic "chokepoints" without having a nuke thrown at you.
As I stated before, the most preferable choice of nuke for players I've played this varient with, is to use a nuke to seal off one of their own borders (such as iceland or kamchatka etc.) so they focus troops elsewhere. This is effective earlier in the game during buildup, but when you need to expand you'll end up having to go the long way around, so be careful what you nuke, because it will be that way until game completion.
So the very idea of nukes does change how people play |
|
|
|
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
|
| 18 Dec 2007 11:36 AM |
|
| Definitely a cool set of rules. I do think having some limitation on the nukes is important but to me the ability to launch nukes in retaliation seems to be part of the world we live in. Indeed, nuclear deterrence and MAD is based on those capabilities and we all know that one nuclear strike will lead to hundreds more which is why we need to be careful with that technology. |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|
UnH!nged
Strategist
Posts:27
|
| 18 Dec 2007 6:13 PM |
|
Retaliatory nukes were not the problem per se. That's part of the fun indeed. The problem was when the game becomes an all-out holocaust that leaves almost half of the board nuked. Nuking is fun, but when it's time to buckle-down and start troop movements again, it can be tiresome to have to do it with such limitations.
Players will sit and build-up and then never attack. Every player will wait for the other to attack so they don't have to lose half of their attack force going through a nuked territory, but as I said, this is easily fixed with limiting nukes allowed per player.
A slight variation which can be voted on by players before this type of game starts is whether or not it is allowed to nuke a players last remaining territory, eliminating them. We usually play that you may not, as we felt it steals cards from another aggressor that painstakingly orchestrated another players demise in one fell swoop. We felt the cards should go to the player that really earned them. But either way is fun still. |
|
|
|
|
Europa
Diplomat
Posts:170
|
| 18 Dec 2007 7:45 PM |
|
In the board game Supremacy, the rules have a few unique features that I think deal with these issues quite well. First, there is a limit to the number of territories that can be nuked. After a certain number is reached, you start rolling the dice. The probability of a Nuclear winter is increased with each nuked territory and when you finally get to the limit, teh game ends in Nuclear winter and no one wins. This creates an incentive to only nuke when you really need to, otehrwise your opponents out of spite (and probably an unsalvagable position) will force a draw.
Also, if nukes are in play, there should be more incentive for teams to make deals, which in my view is what makes Risk a fun game.
Supremacy also has a counterstrike option that any opponent hit with a nuke can fire one back at anyone. This gives you pause when you are considering firing your own arsenal. |
|
Grant Blackburn |
|
|
UnH!nged
Strategist
Posts:27
|
| 18 Dec 2007 8:14 PM |
|
I've never played supremacy. Some of those rules could definitely be applied here... very interesting.
It's actually quite entertaining in and of itself to watch the poker faces, posturing and psychological torture when the nuclear element is added. There's no better deterrent for near by invasion forces that to pick up one of your pennies (pennies represent your nuclear arsenal) and start playing with it! Sometimes people can't even make eye contact with you. It's an aspect of the nuke variant that makes it that much more fun. |
|
|
|
|
Dan12
Diplomat
Posts:81
|
| 19 Dec 2007 4:41 AM |
|
| UnH!nged, out of curiosity, how long does it take to play the game. As you said with some rules people just started to build up and wait so this can make the game very long. I wonder what's the average time. |
|
|
|
|
UnH!nged
Strategist
Posts:27
|
| 19 Dec 2007 5:18 AM |
|
| It takes no longer than the typical game. The situation where players build up and wait to be attacked only occurs when there is no limitations on players being able to nuke; we no longer play this variant that way. That's why it's recommended that you use the "card method" mentioned above or simply restrict all players to 1 or 2 nukes max for the entire game. |
|
|
|
|
Dan12
Diplomat
Posts:81
|
| 19 Dec 2007 5:32 AM |
|
| That's good, because I am always worried as soon as the game starts to take longer. I like the poker faces style of game, I can see this could lead to all sort of anticipatory looks. |
|
|
|
|
Sam
Diplomat
Posts:110
|
| 22 Dec 2007 12:42 PM |
|
| It's a good variation. I will like to see an explosion happen on the risk board(SAFETY: Only put baking soda and juice, not gunpowder.). Of course I might talk to the managers about Risk: Explosions |
|
2¢ is my son so we have the same email. Sorry for any confusion. |
|
|