Recommend
10 
 Thumb up
 Hide
23 Posts

Risk Europe» Forums » Variants

Subject: Thoughts on an Expansion (unofficial) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
James Rucker

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA
California
msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi Everyone,

When I worked for Hasbro, Risk Europe was one of my favorite projects. It didn't quite take off like we had hoped but I think it's been generally well received in the light DOAM genre.

I was hoping to get to a "top 5 things I want / would like to change" about Risk Europe thread in hopes of selfishly becoming a better game designer , but also piecing together features that Risk Europe would need to be even better. Feel free to critique my list as well if you like.

my top 5 wishlist is as follows:

1. New faction specific cards that offer unique or specialized abilities.
2. weather effects (clear skies improve archers, rainy days create mud that weaken cavalry or slow siege movement, drought or plague events that kill off units in cities... etc).
3. a different set of city tiles that allow for technology tracks (start with a simple bonus, spend gold or conquer to gain points to upgrade cities to better bonuses).
4. possible king tokens (1 per color) that would play into supply lines, territory bonuses, or tax/spend enhancements.
5. simple make-shift forts that are cheaper to build but offer some other bonuses - can be upgraded to castles.

love to hear your ideas!

thanks,

Austin
17 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Timur Tabi
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Some way to reduce the number of die rolls during combat.

BTW, I would buy an expansion if one were made.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Schenck
United States
Dayton
Ohio
flag msg tools
GO BUCKS!
badge
Stop touching me!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rockanon wrote:
When I worked for Hasbro

Since this is past tense, I assume you no longer work for Hasbro. Any chance we may see some new independent designs now?
cool
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian S.
United States
Minneapolis
Minnesota
flag msg tools
01010011 01001000 01000001 01001100 01001100 00100000 01010111 01000101 00100000 01010000 01001100 01000001 01011001 00100000 01000001 00100000 01000111 01000001 01001101 01000101 00111111
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't have a top five, but a couple of things that I believe would enhance the game:

* Introduce retreating. Every battle being a fight to the death seems extreme. Yes, I do realize that the game will likely be longer, but it would also likely be more strategic, too.

* Have a three player option without the need for a dummy player which active players bid on.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Galvan
Dominican Republic
Santo Domingo
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Awesome!

My only suggestions is to keep the amount of text to a minimum. One of my main attractions to this game is that is (mostly) language independent.

Also new maps for 3 and 5 players are always welcomed
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
PJ Cunningham
United States
Greenfield
Ohio
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi, Austin. Thanks for your work on R:E. It's an excellent reimagining of Risk.

Of the items on your wishlist, I'll second your wish for slight asymmetry between factions. My advice would be avoid tying the special abilities inseparably to faction color and instead allow them to be interchangeable.

The idea of weather effects is interesting, but I'd take it a step further and have an event deck. But instead of a simple deck of "draw-and-this-happens", build player agency in the process. My suggestion would be have Event cards that can be purchased like Crown cards (but at lower price) that are essentially single-use action cards, but with mandatory Event text in place of a Bonus Action. This increases the design space not only to include fun events but also to include more interesting Actions for players to program.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Rucker

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA
California
msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cbs42 wrote:
rockanon wrote:
When I worked for Hasbro

Since this is past tense, I assume you no longer work for Hasbro. Any chance we may see some new independent designs now?
cool


I would love to - and have a few ideas I'm kicking around, but nothing on a roadmap as of yet.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Rucker

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA
California
msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Vrooman wrote:
I don't have a top five, but a couple of things that I believe would enhance the game:

* Introduce retreating. Every battle being a fight to the death seems extreme. Yes, I do realize that the game will likely be longer, but it would also likely be more strategic, too.

* Have a three player option without the need for a dummy player which active players bid on.


I generally agree with these. retreating was pulled to force the game to progress towards action. Retreating adds a whole sub-set of rules that were considered overly complicated just to stall the game for another turn. I understand the benefit it adds to gameplay, however. losing a massive army in one round of conflict resolution is punishing and incentivizes NOT fighting until you have to.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Rucker

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA
California
msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ironregime wrote:
Hi, Austin. Thanks for your work on R:E. It's an excellent reimagining of Risk.

Of the items on your wishlist, I'll second your wish for slight asymmetry between factions. My advice would be avoid tying the special abilities inseparably to faction color and instead allow them to be interchangeable.

The idea of weather effects is interesting, but I'd take it a step further and have an event deck. But instead of a simple deck of "draw-and-this-happens", build player agency in the process. My suggestion would be have Event cards that can be purchased like Crown cards (but at lower price) that are essentially single-use action cards, but with mandatory Event text in place of a Bonus Action. This increases the design space not only to include fun events but also to include more interesting Actions for players to program.


Hi PJ - I see these as two separate things. weather effects create moments where players can take advantage of temporary bonuses or deficits. (i.e. fog weakens my opponent's massive pile of archers, making this round ideal to attack.)

Player influenced events (like - taxing a population too frequently results in some sort of penalty like: a revolt; a temporary cap on unit production; etc) is super interesting as well.

I kind of liked the idea of an external force (NPC) attacking or invading Europe in the midst the local turf wars the game already sets up, but timeline wise that gets a little murky as to who that faction actually is (Hun invasions were much earlier than the loose timeline for this game,for instance).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Schenck
United States
Dayton
Ohio
flag msg tools
GO BUCKS!
badge
Stop touching me!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rockanon wrote:
losing a massive army in one round of conflict resolution is punishing and incentivizes NOT fighting until you have to.

For me, this is the reason I enjoy the "fight to the death" requirement with no retreat.

While it's not realistic that an army could never retreat, it IS realistic that it forces players to give a heavier consideration of whether to engage in military conflict to begin with. I enjoy that aspect very much. It makes combat more meaningful.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim O'Neill (Established 1949)
Scotland
Motherwell
Graduate of Barlinnie
flag msg tools
VENI, VIDI, VISA - my reaction on entering my FLGS.
badge
Like a good red wine, I improve with age... and being laid.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I actually love this game as is; now, this is an old Grognard talking, who generally plays games with rather more complicated rules and I find this to be the ideal game for taking RISK players up to another level, not that there's anything wrong with RISK, as I believe most gamers my age* started there.

Regards,


Jim

Est. 1949




*what's left of us...

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Griffiths
United Kingdom
Aylesbury
Buckinghamshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think a big problem with the game is the "winner takes all" attitude of battles, which can cause quite a snowball. I can also understand that retreating slows down the game a bit.

A compromise might be that the loser of a battle gets back a certain percent of their force at their nearest castle on their next go. (e.g. 1 in 5?) Maybe the attacker can as well, but at a lower percentage?

Also, to help bolster archers and footmen when compared to siege engines and cavalry, perhaps both the their tiers "downgrade" to footmen, and only archers remain archers, or something like that?

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Timur Tabi
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's not really winner-takes-all because in a close fight, the winner loses quite a few troops and can be attacked in the next round.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rowan Massing
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've been wanting to add my own content to this great game and have thought about:
1. Peasant revolts in territories that get taxed too often but don't have enough garrisoned units.
2. A sweeping Black Death that starts out east and then expands randomly across the board.
3. The Crusades - try to win influence points with which to affect other aspects of the game.
4. An indirect way to attack players whom we aren't neighboured with.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ziga Zupanek
Slovenia
Domžale
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Well, this game is after all built on Risk mechanisms (fight to the death, battle resolution with numerous dice rolls,...) and, I believe, that changing its mechanisms too much could lead to entirely new game. More complex game. As several of you pointed out, I also enjoy this game for its fairly simple rules.

My view on some of the presented ideas:
-One or two faction specific order cards would be fine. Maybe they could be bought from common market (King of Tokyo style), already provided to players at the start of the game, or obtained during game with "technology" advance.
-Global events can also be fun if they wouldn't be overly complicated (plague, crusades, donations to pope, specific territory goals, era of peace, migrations, NPC attack).
-Weather effects, Smaller forts, King pawn, Technology track, Retreating, Peasant revolt, sound all so cool, but they might add too much math/complexity to the game. I'm not against proposed ideas but their implementation should be simple.
-Yes to the three and five player option and some new maps.

Additional ideas:
-Moral of the nation: Everytime you tax or are attacked in your crown territories you lose point of moral. If moral is critically low you start losing units.
-Army combinations and army upgrades: Adding bonus
-One new unit: Land or sea
-Espionage/Sabotage/Assassination action card: Choose a territory, roll a die, someone dies or not.
-Merchant pawn (from top of my head): Moves at the end of the round for 3 territories. May travel through territory of any player you weren't fighting with this round. If they reach their destination money is transferred. Can be captured by other players, though.

If fear that adding bonuses/penalties would only add to book-keeping and more often than not it would lead to the situations where you're not sure if you added or subtracted specific value to whatever task you were performing. As mentioned before, for our group to use any of the additions it should be implemented in simple and elegant manner. Ergo, expansion with several smaller variants sounds the most reasonable.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Schenck
United States
Dayton
Ohio
flag msg tools
GO BUCKS!
badge
Stop touching me!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tabicat wrote:
It's not really winner-takes-all because in a close fight, the winner loses quite a few troops and can be attacked in the next round.

Yep, you're totally correct. That's why the designer was saying it incentivizes the players to avoid combat unless it's absolutely necessary. It's often much better to agree to an armistice (and possibly even a mutual troop draw-down at the border while you both concentrate on other battle fronts) rather than just mindlessly grabbing the combat dice every time.

The fact that both players are severely weakened by a massive combat will encourage negotiation and deal-brokering. It's a great feature of the game, and it's because of the rule that neither side can withdraw once combat begins. I think it would be to the game's detriment if it allowed combatants to withdraw. This is one of the features that really makes this design stand apart from most (maybe all?) of the other Risk games out there.

The no-retreat rule is THE motivation for negotiation. Once the players realize this, it takes the game to a new level. Other Risk games might allow for negotiation, but it's much more important and meaningful in Risk Europe. I love that about the game.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Rucker

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA
California
msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
another thought might be a city bonus or army bonus but the idea that on a combat victory, you can make one additional expand (that could be to take an additional unoccupied territory, or to cut deeper into an opponent's territory). Ideally this would be associated with some sort of cost (an army exhaustion token preventing it from moving for a round, or an upkeep cost that you must pay to employ this tactic).

Castles might be a counter to this (preventing the additional push).

thoughts?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dane Cole
United States
Cary/Morrisville Area
North Carolina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm a huge fan of this game and have purchased 2 copies, customized one of the game boards, added new structures, and basically redesigned the game for my own purposes (probably need to post everything as a variant and take pictures later). Since my attraction to games is based on components (esp. miniatures) and on salvaging innovative game mechanics, this game was worth it and I'd even consider purchasing more copies if I could find them cheaper.
For an expansion to be attractive to someone like me, it should include compatible miniatures (new factions like Mongols, "Spaniards", Rus, etc.) at a good price, an alternative map (perhaps Crusades-focused with more of the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia), and perhaps more structures complimentary to the castles.
I would also be very keen on more historical accuracy (I get bothered by Berlin & Madrid being major cities, the border for Wales and Venice, the lack of a city of Venice, etc.) for future expansions. One could also consider adding sea territories and ship miniatures for fleets.
Finally, for the sake of aligning with Risk tradition as well as accommodating aspiring game designers (or redesigners) like me, territory cards would also be very nice to have. It has been a pain trying to make them on Microsoft Excel!
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
migue colacho
Spain
Canary Islands
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hey, first of all, thank you for making Risk: Europe!

Not in any specific order, just a bunch of ideas:

- An alternative set of city tiles.
- Events.
- More mission/crown cards. Instead of having the same mission cards every game, choosing 8 from a larger pool to make each game more unique.
- New buildings (like smaller fortresses, ports or small towns).
- Factions!
- An asymmetric mode, with one of the players being the archenemy.
- More ways to earn crowns or money (markets, culture buildings/monuments).
- Sea territories.
- City-specific bonus action cards.
- New map (crusades?).
- New two and three players options.

Regards,
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David LeftOn4ya
United States
Florence
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I may be a minority but I am I am a fan of less is more - AKA I would rather get rid of and streamline rules then add more rules. In my Slight rule changes for a smoother, more balanced game thread I made a few suggestions but played recently even more streamlined:
Without King's order cards - you can do any one of these three actions every turn:
• Split Expand
• Maneuver
• Tax or Spend
Still two actions a round with bidding for 1st turn after each round (or you can just dice-off for 1st turn to streamline more). Having to plan 8 moves ahead makes you think the game is more strategic - but in actuality makes more luck due to opponent's card ordering not aligning with yours. This change I found not only reduces luck but has sped up the game in terms of speeding up people's decision making process and "analysis paralysis"

I also like playing by easier Crown/Mission cards rules by Chris Schenck found here, where you can either pay 10 for crown OR complete a mission (max 2 crowns either way).

The biggest change I did though was start the game with Gold and Black city as this prevents people from camping and staying out of action as much. Ever since this, all games are a lot closer, whereas before it was almost always a blowout.

Other changes to streamline are get rid of tax and spend as separate actions - count $ and buy in same action, saving $ for 1st turn bidding or next tax/spend - I haven't played this way but will try next time.

Also make mercenary army optional, and many people have suggested other ways of doing mercenary army.

However, the weather/event idea could spice thinks up - as long as they chnage rules for everyone. Adding powers or upgrades you can "buy" or "unlock" besides capturing a city I can take or leave. I am not sure if I would be a fan of asymmetric powers in risk Europe or not - it essentially turns the game into something else besides RISK (which to me is by its definition the RISK of each player is equal) but could be fun, as I do like Smallworld and miniature wargames that essentially would make this game turn more into.

Again, I may be in minority as although I like expansions to many games, I am always thinking of how to reduce rules and make a game more accessible.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rowan Massing
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm usually enthusiastic about streamlining rules. However, most medieval games look dry and complex and here I see the opportunity to simulate many aspects of this period of history, building from this game's solid and highly accessible foundation. Of course the end result would be something more complex than base Risk Europe but I hope it would at least be much less complex than those other games.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Isaac Campos
Costa Rica
Florida
flag msg tools
I tried to think about things to add to an expansion but I think this game is soooo well balanced! The only thing I would maybe add (just to add to the chaos) is allow battles to be fought by more than two players simultaneously.

Player chooses which other player to attack on Siege, Archers and Cavalry hits.
Infantry roll compares the dice of all players only the highest scores hits, defending and attacking rules still apply.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.