posted
in the introduction osc says he revised the rules of RISK in order for it to better reflect war. Does anyone else use revised rules? if so what.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was a kid we had modified rules. I don't know exactly how to explain them, though. The main thing we did was add the creation and destruction of treaties by passing slips of paper back and forth. It added a lot of human drama.
There was nothing so shocking as being betrayed by a nation with which you believed you had a common interest.
posted
I had a rule where you could retreat at any time when attacked, essentially pulling a Manstein during hte second battle Kharkov is what I generally do.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love Risk. Anyone here ever played 2210? I think it requires more strategy than the original version.
Posts: 879 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love risk as well. The variant I have used at times, is a retreat rule (like Sid Meier). When attacked you could retreat to any adjacent country that you owned...but you had to leave one army behind. We called it the French rule.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
It's a tactical battalion level game that uses turns that last 60 seconds in real time in between (paused) orders phases. You can d/l the demos, but neither do the game justice. I've been playing this little gem for years. It requires you to master realistic tactics. I mostly play Barbarossa to Berlin (CMBB) against human opponents using PBEM (play by email) exchanges.
The graphics engine is outdated, but they are in the process of redesigning from the ground up with a brand new engine.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
RISK 2210 is actually a pretty great game -- and the fact that it ends after only five turns eliminates a lot of the tedium associated with the endgame.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Try the demo just to get a feel for the mechanics. It's not fun to play the demo at all; something we griped about but the devs ignored.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We'd occasionally play Risk with "nukes". If an attacker rolled 6-6-6 then the defending territory was considered nuked and could only sustain one army for the rest of the game.
Made it pretty interesting when, say, Alaska got nuked, because then you could never attack into Asia from North America.
Posts: 47 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i have the lord of the rings version although i play it with the normal rules so allowing things to be "nuked" doesn't make much sense. maybe they could be "orked"
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Axis and Allies was more realistic to me, even though the it is clearly in the Allies favor to start. Risk was too much luck, and not enough strategy at first. If you play ultimate risk, the gameplay is a lot better.
Posts: 60 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
