The Case Continues for a RISK-TBS (Scenarios)

[brandybarrel]

This is a follow up to a discussion here regarding adopting a RISK Style campaign for Total War. It appears that there are misconceptions that a RISK TBS is inferior to a free-roaming one. I’d like to illustrate that the opposite is quite true by looking at some of the features of RISK strategy. Let me entertain you by posing some questions in 5 scenarios and following each with a brief (hidden) synopsis.

Scenario 1: How many turns does it take for A to engage B?
Attachment 38344
Synopsis 1

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Only one.
It takes much less time to get the killing of the day done in a RISK TBS. Whether it is movement or engagement it only takes 1. This has a more profound effect on the game overall – faster turn cycles, more dynamic campaign, sooner rewards or results.

It is 1 step to region victory or loss - big battles or small battles, but no inconsequential battles. Players do not have to spend a disproportionate amount of their game time on moving, chasing, intercepting, shooing away enemy units within regions.

Chore, no more.

Scenario 2: Can A bypass B and attack the lesser defended regions?
Attachment 38345
Synopsis 2:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

No, units cannot trespass upon or through a region with impunity. They must be engaged. It’s a simple feature of a RISK TBS and it has a major effect on the game.

Players have to fight what the opponent (AI) intends to present as its defense in a region and vice versa.

An experienced player can and always will outmaneuver and take advantage of an AI opponent in a free-roaming free-for-all TBS. Moreover, players can make long reaching attacks (land or sea) on poorly defended AI regions without the AI “suspecting” anything before it is too late. A RISK TBS eliminates this and provides strategic challenge to player expansion.

Scenario 3: What is your strategy of attack? A, B, and/or C?
Attachment 38346
Synopsis 3:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The options are many. A single thrust to either A or C exposes your forces to half the regions that may counter attack you and thus increase your chance of success.

What this scenario illustrates is that your decisions or actions can be met with swift immediate repercussions during the opponent’s turn. It’s a risk as opposing forces are only one step away. You may capture a region but face the threat of a direct and immediate counter attack on the next turn by one or multiple regions. The choices are many, the choices are strategic, the choices are critical.

As well, reinforcing regions during advancement is required as they too become under immediate threat of an attack (D in this scenario.) So a reinforcing strategy is a more critical and necessary process in a RISK TBS. Indeed all regions adjacent to enemy forces are under threat.

Scenario 4: Which region will D attack? Which region would you defend?
Attachment 38347
Synopsis 4:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Players don’t know which region “D” will attack and this is the excitement of a RISK TBS. All regions exposed to the enemy are under direct immediate threat.

It’s your strategy as to what you do - fallback, sacrifice a region to regroup, bait and counterattack, reinforce, simply wait, etc. The choices are many, the choices are strategic, the choices are critical.

As mentioned in Scenario 2, players can be confident that the defence they have in place within a region will engage any invading army. It’s a deterrence to invasion as well. Regions have 360° influence. No movement or game time is required to actively intercept invading units.

Scenario 5: Can A bypass B and reinforce its cut off region C?

Attachment 38348
Synopsis 5:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

No, another great feature of a RISK TBS is the ability to completely stop or cut off enemy advancement and deny reinforcements. You can use this as a strategy or be a victim of it. This is not possible in a free-roaming TBS.

Is “C” lost? Most likely as it is now surrounded by five threatening regions. But, together with “A” and other regions, they might be able to retake B. The choices are many, the choices are strategic, the choices are critical.

If you take a look at the maps again and ask yourself which regions have more strategic value you’ll find the answer to be more of value in a RISK TBS than in a free-roaming “borderless” TBS. In the very least, you’ll be thinking more about it and that’s the point of a strategy game.

In summary, I hope that I have briefly illustrated that a RISK TBS provides for a more strategic, a more critical, and a more enjoyable campaign game. This is not an exhaustive argument for a RISK TBS. There is a lot more that goes beyond strategy such as a player’s psyche being under constant threat by enemy regions, fighting decisive battles, etc. AI performance was not mentioned because it was really not necessary to do so. Adopting a RISK TBS would already improve the game and the AI would benefit as a result thereof.

[Garnier]

This is true, it's been discussed many times.. unfortunately I doubt it will ever happen. Too many people have the following idea: More Complexity = Good. Which with AI involved, is not true.

[OberonDark]

I support this. I actually like it a little simpler.

[nimoto]

I don't think this sounds fun at all, personally. This is basically what Axis and Allies is like.

In scenario 4, the smartest thing to do would be to leave the middle region undefended, so they take it, and you can counter-attack from four different regions. I don't know why anyone would think that's more fun than the regular game though.

If my A&A experience tells me anything, the game would be all about baiting the AI into taking a territory that leaves the player at an advantage to counter-attack, and I don't see how that is at all more strategic.

[Seamless]

I think the current system - if it had better AI, at least - is more authentic because it promotes more "grand strategy" thinking and deliberation. What's the best position for your defensive army to protect your priorities? Can it react to minor attacks on the lesser priorities? If it can, should it? Should you split your army into two to cover more area, or stay prepared for a full assault? etc etc.

The free roaming system simply allows for more possibilities, bottom line. Therefore it demands more in depth, indirect thinking - again, provided the AI necessitates that. Unfortunately it does not right now, but what about multiplayer GC?

[Lord Raneus]

I like free-roaming so much more than this, especially in relation to the ability to utilize terrain.

Sorry, but implementing region-to-region invasions would suck the fun out of the campaign for me.


You can cut off reinforcements just as easily in a free-roaming, all you need is a force strong enough to take down their reinforcements or set up camp at a chokepoint where they have to cross. You're still denying their isolated city reinforcements.

[Emperor of The Great Unknown]

ya its simple and good but then you can't choose your battlefield say you wanted to fighti n a forest but your forced to fight on a plain plus how would you outmavouare a huge army to get to the city you can't and there for it would also take away realisim.