Re: Simultaneous Risk Questions

[Richard Rognlie <rrognlie@gamerz.net>]

Yes, I think two games might be called for.

Simultaneous Risk  (as described)
        The simultaneous nature will keep things lively.

Calculated Risk
        Risk with normal turn based movement using a deterministic
        combat model.  (although, I suspect I'll use the same move
        model of... you submit your whole turn (reinforcements + attacks)
        as 1 command, and it gets processed all at once)

On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 11:31:18AM -0700, Kevin Worth wrote:
>
> > I don't think the Dune system would work here.  For the Dune
> > system to work, a player has to know that they are going to
> > be attacked, then declare number of defenders.  That would
> > mean an extra step, which would cut down on the
> > simultaneousness.
>
> I agree that adding in another step would not be very desirable.
> I like Richard's suggestions for the resolution of combat, it keeps the
> spirit of Simultaneous Risk as described originally.
>
> >
> > The only thing that I don't like about Richard's system is
> > that there is no chance - no randomness.  I once saw one
> > army defend against an attacking force of 42. Without that
> > element of chance, it ceases to become Risk, and becomes
> > calculation.
>
> I think this is the point of this Risk variant.  The "random" element comes
> from the sinultaneous movement.  I realize that its not really random but
> since you don't know what the other players are going to be doing, you won't
> know what the board will look like after any given turn.

--
 /  \__  | Richard Rognlie / Sendmail Consultant / Sendmail, Inc.
 \__/  \ | URL:    http://www.gamerz.net/rrognlie/
 /  \__/ | Give a man a fish, and he'll be hungry tomorrow.  Teach a
 \__/    | man to fish, and he'll be at the river all day drinking beer.