Native Completed Risk - Warband Campaign Proposal

[captain folms]

If this is about to start in 2 weeks, we'll need a few teams first!

Applications will come in two weeks. So as Mercenaries etc.

hm.. add siege maps in a factions "capital"? ^^

Seems like a good idea

 

[Killfacer]

So each team has a finite amount of troops , which are replenished at the start of every round? Will this be done by territories held and will there be a continent bonus?

Does the team with more troops in the campaign attack, have more troops in game? Do troops refer to players or will numerical advantage on the campaign map be highlighted up using other methods?

Sorry, couldn't find this stuff in the OP.

 

[captain folms]

So each team has a finite amount of troops , which are replenished at the start of every round? Will this be done by territories held and will there be a continent bonus?

Does the team with more troops in the campaign attack, have more troops in game? Do troops refer to players or will numerical advantage on the campaign map be highlighted up using other methods?

Sorry, couldn't find this stuff in the OP.

There will be no bonuses regarding territories held. Team Leader must spread his troops accordingly so he has at least three players defending the province.  At the start of every round both teams must have at least one spectator, they are not allowed to replenish players in-game, however they can move swap players when it is their turn using this thread.

If an attacking team has more players than a defending team, they will have more troops in-game. However, as it says in the rules if Team A has 6 players and Team B has three players, then Team A, the attacking side, must win as twice as many rounds than Team B.

 

[BoomstickS3000]

hm.. add siege maps in a factions "capital"? ^^

The 'capital' would be just in 1 region per team, right? And that will also mean that I'd have to add more regions..

 

[captain folms]

Rule Proposal from Deacon:
1.) Reduce maximum player limit to 12
2.) Add more provinces, and teams
3.) Reduce minimum amount of players in each region to 1
4.) Allow leaders to choose any players from their roster to represent them at battles

Please post your feedback.

 

[BoomstickS3000]

Rule Proposal from Deacon:
1.) Reduce maximum player limit to 12
2.) Add more provinces, and teams
3.) Reduce minimum amount of players in each region to 1
4.) Allow leaders to choose any players from their roster to represent them at battles

Please post your feedback.

I totally agree to all four points.

 

[Shoxi]

Rule Proposal from Deacon:
1.) Reduce maximum player limit to 12
2.) Add more provinces, and teams
3.) Reduce minimum amount of players in each region to 1
4.) Allow leaders to choose any players from their roster to represent them at battles

Please post your feedback.

1.)I do not have an opinion
2.)Agree
3.)Agree
4.)Agree

 

[captain folms]

New rules:

- Money System
- Prices
- Trade agreements

 

[BoomstickS3000]

New rules:

- Money System
- Prices
- Trade agreements

Nah, would make it too complicated, wich it shouldn't be.

 

[captain folms]

New rules:

- Money System
- Prices
- Trade agreements

Nah, would make it too complicated, wich it shouldn't be.

But it makes it more interesting and realistic

 

[BoomstickS3000]

New rules:

- Money System
- Prices
- Trade agreements

Nah, would make it too complicated, wich it shouldn't be.

But it makes it more interesting and realistic

Risk isn't realistic, Risk didn't have a money and trade system. It doesn't make sence either way.

 

[captain lust]

I think you should nail the core ruleset before trying to create a working economy. Right now, I really can't see how this is going to work on a practical level.

 

[captain folms]

Alright, fine. You guys criticize all the time? Do you have any suggestions about new turn rules for instance? I cannot improve when people just say that it is not going to work out. What will then?

 

[BoomstickS3000]

I just don't like the idea of something overcomplicated, imo it's better to remove them. I think the rules as it is now, are fine. Just don't like the new rules. And you should incorporate Deacons improvements. ^^

It's not a bad ruleset, I just don't like the new stuff.

 

[captain lust]

I have suggested, on multiple occasions, that you take a look at the old campaign: http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?topic=107429.0

Even if you decide against adopting a similar ruleset, it's a very useful asset in that it has undergone real testing. It should help to give you an idea of how these things work when they're actually going.

I think the work you've done is great but I'm just worried that people could become very frustrated by the slow pace of the game if only one match can be played at a time. That would mean, at any given point, only 2 teams are arranging a match and it could be weeks before their next match comes along.

 

[captain folms]

In that case you suggest allow teams to make their turn at the same time? In Risk one players make a turn and others wait, same here one teams makes a turn other wait.

 

[killer-blead]

Lust is right on one thing. Iron out the current rulesystem before you implement stuff like Economy.

Each team must include a minimum of 8 players on their roster, and a maximum of 14 players to avoid collision between big groups. Each team must have a custom banner to insure more realistic atmosphere in this tournament.
If a group of 14 players is set to fight a group of 8 player the 14-man group can only field 8 players but are allowed to switch players during rounds. This will make it more fair for the small group but will also give some advantage to the large group.

Mercenaries are accepted, however they must negotiate with participating team within the thread boarders to provide suitable evidence of becoming a mercenary for a specific team. Advertisement are also available. Spying is not allowed. All game matches will be associated with ID checking to avoid any confusion, and secure maximum trust between teams.
I think you will need a list of people who want to participate as a mercenary so teams can't just pull players from thin air. Not only so it's easier to contact the mercenary but also to list (just a suggest) accomplishments from that mercenary. for example:


[Mercenary list]

- Mercenary 1
- Mercenary 2 (Fought in [Village] for Team A against Team C: Team A won. Fought in [FbtR] for Team B against team C: Team B won)
- Mercenary 3 (Fought in [village] For team C against Team A: Team A won.)

The mercenary is now allowed to tell the teams he is playing for about the details of another team. A Mercenary is forced to sign a form that states he understands these rules and will accept the punishment (Not being to play in x matches or kicked out of the tournament) without qualm.

Surely in RISK, all the attacks and moves have to be done completely separately and taken in turn. This could take a week or two for each team. Meaning that any given team might only get one or two moves in an entire year...

The competition also needs deadlines like the ENL has. You can set deadlines for negotiations and for battles. After the teams have been picked there also needs a date (1 day is enough) for the teams to decide on cards to play (if you're using any).

 

[Spartan_Aury]

I think the idea about Economy will be a good idea. This economy will not be complicated, it will be used for four things: trade agreements, updates, ships and mercenaries. This would be more interesting, with more money team can upgrade villages into castles and play siege instead of a battle. I don't think this campaign will be long because I suggest:

- All teams have turn on 1 day. If you look at the map you can see that teams on Ruins and San'di'boush are far away from teams on Nord Town and Field by the River, there is no point for teams of Nord Town or Field by the River wait until teams on the other side of the map make their turn.
- However, if the teams are close together like, Nord Town, Field by the River and Vendetta; in that case who ever first eclairs a war to any of those teams will get the battle.
- About ships, if you look at the map (which I think should be corrected) you can see that if I am on Snowy Village and I want to attack Reveran Village, I need to go through Vendetta, Field by the River, Arena and only then I reach Reveran Village; which is really weird.
- About castles, when we will have two last opponents siege might occur which make the game very interesting.

 

[BoomstickS3000]

I also came up with something that might work.

Everyone moves separately in a turn, but the 'battle phase' needs to be done after the 'move phase', that way you can have ~5 matches done in just one week, while the other way would guarantee you'd take 3 weeks to complete a full move.

- About ships, if you look at the map (which I think should be corrected) you can see that if I am on Snowy Village and I want to attack Reveran Village, I need to go through Vendetta, Field by the River, Arena and only then I reach Reveran Village; which is really weird.

That problem is allready solved, I've updated the map, but it hasn't been uploaded yet. ^^

 

[bajatmerc]

I'd sport the support sig if you had a smaller one. I like to put links to the thread on the images.

It's awesome how much collaboration you guys have going. I will have to remember that for my next event. (it's for EU players because you guys are awesome, 6 weeks or more away before it even gets assembled)

I cannot improve when people just say that it is not going to work out.

I have faith in you and your collaborators. I suggest sleeping on it, or playing a game of Risk for inspiration. Doing a 20 minute mock-up of weeks of gameplay can help a ton too.