Redesigning Risk the board game

[risk808]

Hello,
We are Hilo High School students doing a project for design thinking to redesign the game of Risk the board game. Please answer some of these questions and tell us what we can do to make the game more fair for all people playing it. you do not have to answer all the questions, just the ones you want to.Please note if you are a board game designer tell us what games you have worked on and answer these questions from a designer's standpoint.
thank you.

1) What do you like about Risk?

2) What do you dislike about Risk?

3) How do you feel about the Conquer card system?

4) Should the map be more expanded?

5) Would you want the game to have more a strategic standpoint?

6) Do you like the combat system?

7) Would you like have added elements?

8) Would you like a way to get back into the game if you lose?

9) Feel free to add anything you would like to relating to Risk

Thank you,

[Dallas-Dakota]

Check out the forums of this (http://landgrab.net/landgrab/Home) online risk site. There are a good amount of Risk map-developers on there with debates on what's good and what not.

[endoperez]

There are actually books about game design and game theory and all that stuff. You can easily impress teachers by quoting books and giving researchers.

Look into Agon as defined in Man, Play and Games. Basically, the competitive factor in games. Alea (luck, randomness) also plays a role, as does Ludus, but paidea, mimicry and ilinx are almost non-existent.


Also think of things like target audience (do you want to redesign risk so people who don't like the original will like it? or do you want the people who like it already, to like it more?). That's very important for your questions 1 and 2. In fact, almost all of your questions depend a lot on the type of person playing it.

For example: how long does your target audience spend playing a board game? What games do they like, how long do those last (check Boardgamegeeks.com for average game lengths). That's your question 4. People who play Scrabble are different from people who play Arkham Horror who are different from people who play Chess.


After you know the target audience, decide what's the thing that makes Risk, Risk. Is it the map, or the little soldiers, or the dice, or the general feel, or a mix of the previous? Once you know that, you know what you have to keep, and what you can change.

[Winthur]

nerf Australia

[CarpeGuitarrem]

If you want to do some research, pool together your money and buy RISK: Legacy. Not only does it have a cool twist to it (you permanently change the board through play sessions), but the core game itself got revamped with some drastic changes. It might inspire you.

[Anonymouswizard]

To answer the questions you asked. Please be aware that these come from an opinion based upon a variety of games, and as such might not be liked by more normal people.

Hello,1) What do you like about Risk?
The fact that it is tactical while remaining simple.

2) What do you dislike about Risk?
For me it's mainly the dice rolls. I like Diplomacy, due to the fact that it has no dice rolls, with combat being literally count up and see who wins. Also, the cards that generate increasing numbers of troops, and the fact that I must have one man in each territory I control.

3) How do you feel about the Conquer card system?
It's okay, I just dislike that the troops generated escalate based on the number of cards that have been played. My suggestion would be to give troops based on the number of cards played (e.g. if x is the number of troops gained and y the number of cards played, x=(y/3+1)^2). Makes playing them much more tactical (I could get 4 troops now, but if I just wait a turn I might be able to get 9 troops)

4) Should the map be more expanded?
No, I think it should be reduced in area covered (e.g. just Europe, Africa or Asia), but the number of territories remaining the same.

5) Would you want the game to have more a strategic standpoint?
Yes. This would be in no way a bad move. The more tactics the better.

6) Do you like the combat system?
No. I think that either the dice should be removed entirely (as in diplomacy), or that it should be changed so that you're rolling fistfuls of dice at a time (I mean, 3 dice for the attacker and 2 for the defender? I prefer games where 10+ dice a side are the norm). Although I know that casual gamers won't be as comfortable looking at lots of dice as I am.

7) Would you like have added elements?
Such as what? Some examples:

1)I'd like owning territories and having troops in them to be separate.

2)I'd also like to have different types of units with different purposes (e.g. fleets can only occupy territories in the sea or next to the sea, but you have to have a fleet in the territory to make use of sea routes through it).

3)For territories to be neutral/free/unowned. Maybe territories without any troops in them become 'neutral' at the end of your turn if you roll a 1 on a d6?

8) Would you like a way to get back into the game if you lose?
First off, beware of the fact that the game could go on forever. Either you would have to make it so that a player can only come back in 'neutral' territory, or you have no coming back at all. You could give each player an 'objective' at the beginning of the game, and then the first player to complete their objective wins? (I actually played a version which had this as an official variant. A player own by owning 21 territories just before I eradicated yellow).

9) Feel free to add anything you would like to relating to Risk
To me, Risk is a game that has a lot of promise, but fails to entirely deliver it. Ever since I first tried Diplomacy I have never wanted to play Risk, just because it's more complex rules are more satisfying for me.

For some general suggestions:

Play as many games with as many people as you can, mainly tactical/strategy games. Ask them what they liked and didn't like. Use this.

You have two ways to go to 'improve' Risk, either make it simpler (not likely to be appreciated with Risk), or make it more complex (where you run the risk of unbalancing the game).

How do you want to make the game more fair? do you want to make it so that differing skill levels matter as little as possible? For that you may want to bump up the randomness in everything but troop gain and deployment. Or if you want it so that the game is much fairer, get rid of as much randomness as you can. Have everyone plan their actions at the same time, pass to the person on their left, and then resolve simultaneously.

Decide if you want to encourage or discourage alliances/backstabbing. The best games of this kind are those where you cannot win on your own, and so must strategically make and break alliances (as nobody trusts the pathological backstabber).

Make sure you aren't doing the same thing as a commercial game. If you take ost of what I've suggested here and cut out the cards and dice entirely, you have most of diplomacy.

TLDR; there are many, many things to consider, and many ways one could take to improve Risk. There are also commercial games fairly similar to risk, so you'll want to look at them for ideas/making sure you don't copy them.

[Gnoman]

The main change we made to our board was adding a dotted line between Eastern Australia and Peru. This was due to far too many hours spent trying to break through a heavily-fortified Siam.

[Hamste]

But people who go in Australia tend to lose...atleast in the games I play in. The plus 2 units per turn is nice and all but they have to go through all of Asia before they can get another continent bonus. If anything South America is a stronger territory to have because you can use it to launch a low risk assault on North America while it being nearly unattackable itself.

[The Oni]

The problem with Risk is the problem with all long, complicated board games, in that before one can play one must first convince someone else to sit through setup. I would look for a way to speed that up or at least make it more entertaining.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

The problem with Risk is the problem with all long, complicated board games, in that before one can play one must first convince someone else to sit through setup. I would look for a way to speed that up or at least make it more entertaining.
This is one of my biggest problems with the game, too, especially because said setup boils down to "see who's going to grief the other players out of their continents, and make sure everyone else is doing that job so you don't have to".

One of my favorite changes in RISK: Legacy was that every player picks a starting territory, gets starting troops, and then setup is done. That's it. You spend a good portion of the game expanding into territories, so that element of the setup happens during gameplay.

[Name_Here]

But people who go in Australia tend to lose...atleast in the games I play in. The plus 2 units per turn is nice and all but they have to go through all of Asia before they can get another continent bonus. If anything South America is a stronger territory to have because you can use it to launch a low risk assault on North America while it being nearly unattackable itself.

This is my feelings exactly on Australia. South America provides you with access to North America which is extremely holdable or Africa which is always overlooked and ignored.

[Gnoman]

The problem with Risk is the problem with all long, complicated board games, in that before one can play one must first convince someone else to sit through setup. I would look for a way to speed that up or at least make it more entertaining.

That's actually something else we changed (which I forgot was a house rule). You deal the RISK cards and get whatever countries are on the cards you get.

[Seatbelt]

Random elements in games are fine. Random elements in Risk make Risk not fun for me.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

That's actually something else we changed (which I forgot was a house rule). You deal the RISK cards and get whatever countries are on the cards you get.
I actually think this is official in some editions of RISK, probably because it's such a popular variant.

[Knaight]

1) What do you like about Risk?

2) What do you dislike about Risk?

3) How do you feel about the Conquer card system?

4) Should the map be more expanded?

5) Would you want the game to have more a strategic standpoint?

6) Do you like the combat system?

7) Would you like have added elements?

8) Would you like a way to get back into the game if you lose?

9) Feel free to add anything you would like to relating to Risk

1) There are a lot of little mechanics in Risk that contribute to it being a good game. One of these is the dice system, where the 3 attack against 2 defense dice probabilities work out to fairly close to even, until troop numbers fall and defenders gain an advantage (with the consistent option for very good luck). It's a small thing, but it provides the possibility for a desperate defense, strongly encourages waiting until you have a large force to attack, and makes attacking costly, while the troop generation procedures reward it. Similarly, the continent bonus nicely pushes for certain fights, and adds an element of raiding to the game that is appreciated. There's a lot of hidden emergent complexity there, and it's appreciated.

2) With that said, Risk is still a bit simpler than I'd like in a few ways. It feels like the excellent background to a more complex game, which could be made much better through just one element. The modified versions (E.g. Risk 2210) are consistently better because of exactly this.

3) The card system is one of those upsides I was talking about in 1). Specifically, it creates a situation where you have reasons to preserve cards (both in the opening of new combinations of cards and in the growth of what a set buys you). This creates options for a viable defensive strategy, while at the same time being balanced against the way troops now are better than troops later.

4) Maybe. I've seen combined games with something to the tune of 30 interconnected maps work, though the turns are long and the game longer. It's one option regarding what can be done, and one of the things that can be played with. Other include changing province connections, along with what areas are still covered.

5) The game could use more strategy, and more complexity to do it with.

6) It works decently, and the 3-dice vs. 2-dice system is genuinely one of the better mechanics.

7) Absolutely. The big thing is that I'd like an option for a more asymmetrical game. Say, hypothetically, that you are making a fantasy modification of RISK, with a layer added for heroes. Everyone has five distinct heroes, selected from a pool of 15, and they do different things (though an immunity to being killed by troops should probably be universal). Maybe one is a commander of some sort, that gives an extra die in attacking. Maybe one is some sort of berserker, who is actually better at fighting enemy heroes when also engaged with enemy troops, where that usually provides a penalty. Something like this adds another layer, and could be an interesting dynamic. Etc.

8) Yes, but perhaps under different circumstances. I don't think coming back as someone capable of winning after being wiped out is necessarily a good thing, but getting to claim uncontested provinces as an independent, throw in your lot with one of the players, and try to improve your position somehow could be useful. Maybe there could be a victory point system, where you gain points for everyone who is out before you, but also for being on the winning team, making it possible for the former 4th place to take 3rd by helping 1st beat the snot out of 2nd (who had former 3rd with them).

[Deathslayer7]

1) What do you like about Risk?
Simple, easy to play. Doesn't require lots of rule reading
2) What do you dislike about Risk?
The combat for starters. And the amount of (infinite troops) you can stack into a single unit. Needs to be limited.
3) How do you feel about the Conquer card system?
I think they should discard the give more units card (or at least give less) and perhaps make a new mechanism such as supply drops or movement cards.
4) Should the map be more expanded?
I would say do two different maps. Games of risk are very long (and boring near the end). That being said, some people like that. I think it would also be good to have a short 1-1.5 hour game that would keep peoples interest.
5) Would you want the game to have more a strategic standpoint?
Definitely. Perhaps something like Diplomacy.
6) Do you like the combat system?
Not as it is. Hard to say what to change it too though.
7) Would you like have added elements?
Bit vague here. Hard to say but i think yes.
8) Would you like a way to get back into the game if you lose?
No, this goes back to keeping the game short.
9) Feel free to add anything you would like to relating to Risk
Nothing here