4 ms·

A few years back, some friends and I built a modification for Risk. From my (our) point of view the inherent conceit of Risk is that they more Ts you control, t

A few years back, some friends and I built a modification for Risk. From my (our) point of view the inherent conceit of Risk is that they more Ts you control, the more power you have, the easier campaigns become. Typical 19th century German thinking. The reality is that as you expand, costs go up not down. With great population comes great Tragedy. So our build included infrastructure and currency. We only tried it once. I have not spoken with one of the co-creators since those fateful three days (trans Arctic railroads, it turns out, are the stuff of ending friendships) but I kept a candle lit for the day when Hegemon would rise again. I have the rule book squirreled away on a HD somewhere. I'd love to give it another go. The core concept of the game was you go online, download the rule book for free, donate if you want, and use the pieces from other board games to play. If it caught on, we'd create an option to buy a custom made game (utilizing the Dymaxion Map and 3D printed pieces). Such are the dreams of youth.

Pamar 9y ago
Ever considered using Kickstarter for a full edition?
- classicsnoot 9y ago
  Considered and rejected for a few reasons: crowdfunding was a super negative experience for me on the one i was a part of. KS takes a pretty big chunk, one of the founders blew nearly 1/3 of our ask having to pay for all the stupid mother flipping TShirts and chotchkies for each different bracket of funding level, not to mention paying back all the bands and "artists" for their various contributions to the events that he ran to get the funding (the ultimate irony was that it was friends and family that contributed the most anyway, and that was in the final hours of the campaign). I know that these problems reside with our poor choice in founder(s), and it was for a film project, not a tangible product, but the whole affair left a bad taste and i would go with Indy Go Go if there was a next time. This may be conceited, but when it comes to film, i only want informed, intelligent investors and i want them to give a maximum so they have a stake, not a minimum so they have a badge of involvement. In my opinion, creators and producers need to be held accountable by investors. Getting 5,000 people to chip in $10 bucks feels like a bad thing in the long run for the world of indy film, but besides my previously articulated sentiments i don't know exactly why, i just have a negative gut reaction. Also, i want to be paid for something created, not rewarded for good marketing (which is probably why the Company keeps me chained up in the basement whenever investors are remotely close by ;) ).
daemin 9y ago
That's the same sort of thing that comes with computer games that have implemented the Risk model, ones such as the Total War series and the Paradox games like Europa Universalis. Effectively there has to be some other mechanic that taxes you the larger you get and the more careful you have to be with expanding as you get some model of "Internal strife" to deal with.
- classicsnoot 9y ago
  Our addition was that you do not have to keep units in acquired territory, and each T gains you one unit per turn. in this way, you can keep one army stationed there free of charge. if you start building up your army, there is a cost to build AND station them. Movement had a cost, so you are motivated to build infrastructure that would reduce this cost. Building a capitol in a T mitigates the cost of storing armies in said T. Capitols were expensive and transferable. Ditto for infrastructure, though not as expensive. My dreams for the game were to be able to build up scenarios or start from scratch. Each team in Scratch Mode starts with one T, one capitol, and five armies. Certain Ts produce a lot of income (simulating oil, mining value, or agriculture) while other Ts were constant deficits (if they border X+1 other Ts OR if the only had one connection). I forgot to list the victory conditions: you must control 75% of the economy, territories, or military, or 51% of all three. In my mind, the goal was to form a global coalition and sign a peace treaty (game over... for now...((cue Red Alert HELL MARCH music))) or beat everyone into submission. We used the Dymaxion Map in our modeling because it was fun and different, but as stated previously, the game was really the Rule Book, so one could conceivably use map, or chess board, or living room with furniture + a ruler/yardstick.

Pamar 9y ago

Ever considered using Kickstarter for a full edition?

classicsnoot 9y ago
Considered and rejected for a few reasons: crowdfunding was a super negative experience for me on the one i was a part of. KS takes a pretty big chunk, one of the founders blew nearly 1/3 of our ask having to pay for all the stupid mother flipping TShirts and chotchkies for each different bracket of funding level, not to mention paying back all the bands and "artists" for their various contributions to the events that he ran to get the funding (the ultimate irony was that it was friends and family that contributed the most anyway, and that was in the final hours of the campaign). I know that these problems reside with our poor choice in founder(s), and it was for a film project, not a tangible product, but the whole affair left a bad taste and i would go with Indy Go Go if there was a next time. This may be conceited, but when it comes to film, i only want informed, intelligent investors and i want them to give a maximum so they have a stake, not a minimum so they have a badge of involvement. In my opinion, creators and producers need to be held accountable by investors. Getting 5,000 people to chip in $10 bucks feels like a bad thing in the long run for the world of indy film, but besides my previously articulated sentiments i don't know exactly why, i just have a negative gut reaction. Also, i want to be paid for something created, not rewarded for good marketing (which is probably why the Company keeps me chained up in the basement whenever investors are remotely close by ;) ).

daemin 9y ago

That's the same sort of thing that comes with computer games that have implemented the Risk model, ones such as the Total War series and the Paradox games like Europa Universalis. Effectively there has to be some other mechanic that taxes you the larger you get and the more careful you have to be with expanding as you get some model of "Internal strife" to deal with.

classicsnoot 9y ago
Our addition was that you do not have to keep units in acquired territory, and each T gains you one unit per turn. in this way, you can keep one army stationed there free of charge. if you start building up your army, there is a cost to build AND station them. Movement had a cost, so you are motivated to build infrastructure that would reduce this cost. Building a capitol in a T mitigates the cost of storing armies in said T. Capitols were expensive and transferable. Ditto for infrastructure, though not as expensive. My dreams for the game were to be able to build up scenarios or start from scratch. Each team in Scratch Mode starts with one T, one capitol, and five armies. Certain Ts produce a lot of income (simulating oil, mining value, or agriculture) while other Ts were constant deficits (if they border X+1 other Ts OR if the only had one connection). I forgot to list the victory conditions: you must control 75% of the economy, territories, or military, or 51% of all three. In my mind, the goal was to form a global coalition and sign a peace treaty (game over... for now...((cue Red Alert HELL MARCH music))) or beat everyone into submission. We used the Dymaxion Map in our modeling because it was fun and different, but as stated previously, the game was really the Rule Book, so one could conceivably use map, or chess board, or living room with furniture + a ruler/yardstick.