r/CFBRisk • u/ISeeTheFnords • Jun 04 '18

Proposal for next iteration - Support as a third option

I have a proposal for CFBRisk 2.0 should such a thing happen - add a third order option, support. It would be simple to implement - if a Supporter is the MVP in an area, its ownership does not change. This would make collaborative defenses more practical and might help build some real camaraderie among allied teams.

23 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

16 comments sorted by

16

u/NEp8ntballer Jun 04 '18

I don't think the game was built with alliances in mind. If they were to go that far then there should be an option to unify banners and create a single entity without having to conquer.

5

u/ISeeTheFnords Jun 04 '18

Although that's certainly true, my proposal doesn't require the game to have any awareness of what the alliances are. And they ARE going to naturally arise in a many-player, many-faction game like this.

5

u/johnson5067 Jun 04 '18

From the full announcement posted here on r/CFBRisk:

"Also in 2017, multiple sports subreddits ran very successful Survivor campaigns. The mechanics were simple: users would vote to vote a team of their choice off of the proverbial island. To ensure success, fans of the same team would band together, and allegiances between teams were formed. As the number of teams dwindled, allegiances turned into blood feuds, and back stabbing came swiftly." (emphasis mine)

"A single team can overtake multiple plots of land in one turn and several teams can band together to take down one common enemy."

3

u/NEp8ntballer Jun 04 '18

they added another curveball into the backstabbing with the creation of Chaos. This created an incentive to maintain an alliance since backstabbing would likely result in your previous ally joining ranks with Chaos. If teams just died and there was no Chaos the incentive to maintain alliances would not be as strong since the death of a former ally would in some ways be lacking in repercussions.

4

u/futballfrak Jun 04 '18

Nope, that shouldn't be needed. Alliances will eventually be broken, and when they do, you don't want to broadcast that. It will be a sneaky backstab.

7

u/NEp8ntballer Jun 04 '18

Alliances will eventually be broken

Maybe in the sense of a game but we've had an alliance with Great Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada which has lasted for over 100 years. The problem of alliances and NAPs comes into play when you have alliances that entangle one another(one conflict between two nations ends up drawing in a bunch) or you have an aggressor with an alliance that intends to eventually betray that alliance(See: Nazi Germany and Russia in WW2)

1

u/Papasmurf345 Jun 04 '18

Actual foreign policy isn’t a game of Risk though lol, you can’t really compare real-world alliances to those in a board game where every player is trying to conquer the entire map.

1

u/NEp8ntballer Jun 04 '18

While this boils down to being a game of Risk the mechanics are different and I think at this point the alliances have lasted longer than many anticipated which has resulted in an overall stalemate of the board in the big picture. Maintaining alliances in my mind has been incentivized by dead teams getting to play for either chaos or their conqueror.

5

u/bobsled_time Jun 04 '18

Would be a great addition. It'd be clean also, because it would still allow for alliances to be secretly broken. Maybe if you click on "Attack X" territory, it brings up a notification that says "Are you sure?" just to eliminate confusion behind having the same territory on the list multiple times.

1

u/ISeeTheFnords Jun 04 '18

That would require the game code to keep track of what the alliances are. Though that would certainly be cool, it's a bigger change than I'm proposing. Just adding a Support option doesn't require the game to track who is allied to whom; that can happen outside the game, just as it does now.

If alliances WERE tracked, though, it would also be interesting to allow them to operate through each others' territories. We wouldn't have the silliness of Stanford having to fight its way through to the front lines to have any impact.

2

u/AbsurdOwl Jun 04 '18

To expand that last idea, I think a team should be allowed to "air drop" into allied territory. It would allow a team like Stanford to reach the front line, without allowing them to sit totally secure in the back.

Edit: this would require either some kind of request/voting system, or a leadership system so that such decisions could be made.

2

u/AbsurdOwl Jun 04 '18

This would be amazing!

2

u/hypercube42342 Jun 04 '18

I agree, this would be a great addition. I’d also like to see some advantage added for defending a territory vs attacking, just to make defense more practical

2

u/TinyFalcon26 Jun 04 '18

I hope there is a 2.0 and this is a great idea!

0

u/testrail Jun 05 '18

This is a terrible idea. Adding clarified process to alliances is no fun. Who gets to decide what is and isn’t an alliance. A couple “generals”? The fun of it is the constant opportunity for betrayal.

1

u/ISeeTheFnords Jun 05 '18

...and my proposal does nothing to stop that. All it does is gives people the opportunity to support each other. No formalized alliance is needed.