Am I winning or Losing: data analysis of high-level BM4 games

@runaway_jim

I am of no relation to him. Likely just a similar appreciation of the movie Gunga Din.

@the-captain said in GEN’S Advanced Global 40 Game:

Nice,

How is the starting setup and IPC level for each Nation?

Ha, Haven’t got that far yet. Been busy and besides I ran across your rules in the mean time and now was thinking of not doing it. But I would like to try it with rules from my 41 game.

Part Five:

Errata & Optional Rules: Discussion

Upon reviewing the rules a bit, naturally the ones that stick out and cause problems are the ones that don’t pertain to RISK’s core combat mechanics.

Indonesia

Let’s say the USSR attacks the Arab League: Indonesia is supposed to stay neutral in this case, but can NATO still influence them, somehow? Does WE have to be the one to do it, or could it be UK? The ‘quick and dirty’ solution would just be to reverse the rule treating Indonesia as a separate entity, and say that the territory sides with NATO, if the Arab League is attacked by the USSR. Since they are aligned with WE, their troops should be replaced with WE (blue) troops, if/when this happens.

An obvious optional rule in this situation might be that Arab League territories join WE but Indonesia joins the UK; chalk this up to representing Singapore, Malaya, etc. or just with the continent of Australia being aligned with UK, in this game.

The alternate solution is to clarify the rule to be “an attack on Indonesia is not treated as an attack on the Arab League, but an attack on the Arab League DOES count as an attack on Indonesia.” I think this probably most closely reflects the intention of the mechanics.

Possibly a better (albeit more complicated) solution would be to allow NATO to use their influence roll towards their affiliated neutral alliance OR towards Indonesia. If they successfully influence Indonesia, they would replace Indonesia’s troops with their own. This treats Indonesia more like a “minor neutral” such as they would be in E&W; the reason I don’t like this is that it creates a new set of rules around a single territory, instead of just conforming to the existing/general rules.

Since the USSR has the option to ATTACK Indonesia, they can always gain the territory that way; this rule would simply address the fact that NATO does not have such a mechanism to gain the territory.

Influence

Since the opening-game balance is presupposed around the OAS being at +1 to US and China being at +1 to the USSR, the obvious optional rule to include would be one not allowing diplomacy until the 2nd round of play. This would reflect the mechanical realities in E&W, of everybody starting the game with no spies in play (barring the USSR spending their “round zero” mobilization cash on spies.)

The rule limiting NATO to influencing only their affiliated neutral could also be changed… Although it might have to be limited to “once you’re already receiving +2 from them” to prevent dogpiling.
The intention of the limitation is to keep the game simple and fast; it’s also meant to avoid some of the pitfalls of E&W’s system, whereby there’s really only one correct choice, so just hammer that option as early and often as possible.

Nukes vs. Capitols

An interesting thing with the mechanic of nuclear weapons being added to a RISK game, is that it creates the possibility of a territory being cleared of armies. Since armies are used to denote territory ownership (serving the function performed by control markers, in A&A-type games) it stands to reason that a territory with no armies on it is controlled by no one. But what if the territory has a capitol on it?

This is an interesting thing, because the existence of a capitol implies ownership of the territory, corresponding to a specific faction, without there being troops in the territory (i.e. which would be the normal way to denote ownership of the territory.)

Obviously, a territory with a city but no armies is not controlled by anyone; this makes targeting cities with nukes more appealing, since it doubles the loss in “income” – similar to how targeting Industrial Complexes with nukes in E&W effectively doubles the reduction in infantry production, on that territory.

So the questions seem to be:

Can you place troops on your capitol, if there are currently no troops there? Do you get credit for “controlling” your capitol, if there are no troops in its territory? Does your capitol allow you to get credit for “controlling” the territory it resides in (including the bonus for a city)?

I think my answers to these would be: yes, maybe, and no (respectively.)

If a nuke wipes all of the armies off of a territory without a capitol, my general assumption was that this works the same as if a nuke in E&W reduced the IPC value of the territory to zero – meaning it cannot produce any infantry. The question then is, do capitols provide some immunity to this? Does not providing this immunity make nuking capitols (exclusively) too powerful in the overall meta? Again, these would have to be born out with more playtesting.

@FieldMarshalGames:

$50 for a page of cardboard tokens!?!?!

That’s because they are OOP and collector’s items, just like that Honus Wagner baseball card.

@wittmann:

Knp: I agree.

Ditto here!  I hope this really can be a fresh start this year for FMG, for sure, and I too wish I had a boatload of money I could invest.  I did make a modest little order to show my support, though, and to express tangibly that “no hard feelings” on my part.  Just remember, we can forgive a lot, but if you don’t tell us what’s going on for months at a time, we don’t know if we should even risk making orders for “in stock” items, as we might fear the company’s going out of business and can’t fulfill them.  So please, please keep us posted… And just as important, is not more so, keep in touch with Coach!  And please coordinate with him more closely in the future when you’re ready to roll out more new products… (…last I checked we were headed for a situation where we were going to have 3 different companies doing a Tiger I and none doing a Panzer IV, for instance…)

Gah?

:-o
May I suggest a possible infantry change based on historic facts. Russians had more men, Germans had better equipment and training for their troops not to mention their skill at combined arms tactics. So, why not let the Russians have their cheap infantry buys while giving the Germans a bonus in attack strength, say 2 in attack and 2 in defense when combined with armor or air units, ( no need for Artillary). Now that is what I call an easy fix. Since the germans start out with more tanks and planes than thier opponents they will kick butt early. But when the allies start to build up their combined arms, Germany will be overwhelmed in numbers. So the axis better do a lot of damage real quick to win.
    Should be more fun though.
If someone does play-test this in a game could they let me know how it worked out? Thanks.

:roll: Crazy Ivan

If something doesn’t work right,
                  fix it!
    I can’t help it, I’m left handed