Also, what about putting the Review Date for when your reviews were recorded? It seems like you are quite active and readily updating, although it would be nice to see when the last review took place (unless you still play all of those sites and they are always completely up to date).

Kjeld wrote: The other options are available to the board author through the board designer. By the time the board is released publicly, these options are locked and are not immediately apparent to someone just starting up a game on that board.

You can find many of the various options (e.g. capitals, sim-territory selection, custom card scales, etc.) employed in various publicly released boards, however.

Ok, I think it would be helpful to have these options external from the board.  As some players may enjoy a flat rate card escalation, and others want an exponential escalation.  If a player dislikes a certain type of card escalation, or other options, it would stop them from playing the board entirely.  If these options were available to the user instead, they could choose the setting they like and the board they like too.

Ofcourse there will always be some settings that are incompatable with some boards.

I suggest that we just leave the "pretty map" question alone for a while until the dual-layer functionality is worked out. Kjeld, post your Africa example here and Dennis will agree that it's a huge improvement to his aesthetic sensibility, and then we can all agree that Tom is currently putting into motion a plan that will please everybody.

Dennis, check the rules on any of a number of maps, WG has a bunch of options you won't find anywhere else:
Capitals
Phase switching
User-definable card scales
User-definable card decks
Hordes bonuses
Overlapping/'Disputed' continent bonuses
Negative combination bonuses
Artillery, View-only, Fortify-only borders
These are just a selection off the top of my head

But that's the thing - there are so many different custom options, and so many different boards that make use of them, that it greatly reduces the modularity of the board system. On another site where "game options" amount to different house rules for playing Risk, it's super easy to choose a map, choose your house rules, and get to the dice-rolling.

But on WarGear, while there is a segment of the population that enjoys playing Risk, and it's certainly possible to, the majority of development and community is devoted to enabling and creating a much wider range of strategy games. I like to say that we don't make maps, we make boards. Upon some reflection, I believe this is where the disconnect between us is coming from (which is of course fair, since your website is called PlayRiskOnline, after all).

But to bring my point out of the forest and back to the trees, all this makes it very difficult to give the user the power to select a number of game options. The depth of game options on WarGear is mostly on the back-end board design rather than the front-end game hosting. Which, I'll admit, may not be immediately obvious.

Here are some examples:

Resident WarGear
http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Resident%20Wargear/Rules

Road Warrior
http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Road%20Warrior/Rules

Castles
http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Castles/Rules

And compare the rules selection on those boards to a 'default' set, used on the board called War, which is one of WarGear's three tribute boards to the original Risk:
http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/War/Rules

And for the record, I believe that last board compares favorably graphics-wise to any of the examples you showed earlier - particularly when the board is actually in play. Here's one in play right now - compare this to the squishy numbers inside circles on CC. http://www.wargear.net/games/view/8495

Thats a great point about boards vs maps and probably explains the disconnect. I will say that on CC and others, many of the `map` have similar custom rules and are quite a ways from traditional risk, but they are still presented as Risk-add ons, rather than separate games.

It`s good that you have lots of back-end rules, but it shouldn`t dissuade you from creating more house rules, espeically if they are not really tied to the board in any great way, like card escalation.

I could go on about the graphics but I will wait to see what Tom has in store.

Dennis, we are thinking that with the dual-layer option that Tom is working on implementing, boards on this site will eventually look something like this (at the very, very least):

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/560

And yes, the various background fill colors will change with the state of the map. It's pretty darn cool.

Kjeld wrote: Dennis, we are thinking that with the dual-layer option that Tom is working on implementing, boards on this site will eventually look something like this (at the very, very least):

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/560

And yes, the various background fill colors will change with the state of the map. It's pretty darn cool.

That is cool.  I have seen quite a few methods to represent player owner ship, from entire territory fills, to army circle fills, to army digit colors.  Each system has it's pros and cons for sure so it's hard to say which is best.

But i know that with entire territory fills, you often lose a lot of map detail which may not have function, but do look cool.  like this one.

http://maps.conquerclub.com/Draknor_-_Level_1.L.jpg

Also, with CC's army digit color, it allows there to be some functionality to the army circle fill, as seen here where each army circle is a particular gang member.

http://maps.conquerclub.com/Supermax__Prison_Riot!.L.jpg

THe down side to CC's method is that the amount of color you can get into a digit is small, which makes the number of distinct colors you can use quite small.  Which is why CC likely won't have more than 8 player games, because there simply isn't 8 distinct colors in such a small amount.

Where as on WG, an entire region fill can use a more varied pallet as a white and off white will look distinct since there is much more on the screen to compare.

Kind of rambing here... but I think the dual layer thing looks promising for sure.

I've been following this discussion and like the ideas that are bouncing around. I'm going to throw in my 2c on the map rule options.

Right now I'm playing a good number of different maps. It's gotten to the point where I almost feel like putting a sticky note next to my monitor to remind me of the rules of whatever board I'm currently in. Anyways, the point is, that with all the number of ways one can customize a map, it's hard for me to remember 'does this map have a max card limit' (Infection doesn't), 'does this map have one way borders' (god/titans does), 'does this map allow allied reinforcement' (Europe 1560 doesnt), 'how many fortifies does this map allow', etc etc.

The way the boards are set up on this site, each board designer defines the boards style. Right /now/ I may have a hard time remember the rule set for each board but I'm new to the site. After playing a few matches on a board the rules sink in (Infection allows 'return to attack after fortify', Maze allows unlimited reinforcements, I now know these things) because it is those rules that define those boards. If every minute detail could be set by the host then everyday I log in I would have to read through the rule sets of every board I'm in because one match in Europe 1560 might have an escalading card value, one match in Europe 1560 might allow friendly reinforcements, one match in Europe 1560 might play with eight sided die for the attacker.

So while it might seem like there are not a lot of options available for any specific board, there are definitely a lot of options available for the users designing the boards. I like that WG has choosen to take this route.

DennisG wrote:

But i know that with entire territory fills, you often lose a lot of map detail which may not have function, but do look cool.  like this one.

http://maps.conquerclub.com/Draknor_-_Level_1.L.jpg

Also, with CC's army digit color, it allows there to be some functionality to the army circle fill, as seen here where each army circle is a particular gang member.

http://maps.conquerclub.com/Supermax__Prison_Riot!.L.jpg

THe down side to CC's method is that the amount of color you can get into a digit is small, which makes the number of distinct colors you can use quite small.  Which is why CC likely won't have more than 8 player games, because there simply isn't 8 distinct colors in such a small amount.

Where as on WG, an entire region fill can use a more varied pallet as a white and off white will look distinct since there is much more on the screen to compare.

Kind of rambing here... but I think the dual layer thing looks promising for sure.

Personally Dennis, those may be kewl screen captures or even neat pictures, but neither of those two look like they'd be much fun to play. And frankly fun is the key to longevity. There's waaay too much detail that distracts from game play.

Now the dungeon one looks to have some serious possibility if you were to remove the room names, make the doors all two ways (maybe some leeway here), and be able to put the dual layer fill under this detail layer. In fact were that to happen and the borders darkened up a bit more that could be the best looking map i've seen. The cop one, eef, not so much. Maybe with some serious deletions it could be playable, maybe.

As to your concern about user choosing card scales; i'm not opposed to user choice in card scale, but most of the boards that have been created since Tom implemented more choice in development have gone thru several dozen games to find which card scale makes for the most balanced play. these boards, therefore, would be at a disservice if the user were able to adjust the card scale to something that the developer nixed out for those very reasons that would prevent ppl from replaying the board. again fun trumps options. now there is some possibility (tho it would add to developer's headaches) if they were to provide a few card scale options that work on a particular board. which isn't a bad idea really.

well, i think the solution that makes everyone happy is to put an "Allow Override" checkbox next to various rules in the map designer and let the designer determine if allowing a change to the style of fortifies, card scale, etc would break a game or not. similar to the "Allow Fog Override" we've already got. It may be that allowing unlimited fortifies doesn't break a game, but changing the fortify rule to "Any connected territory" sends the game into a tailspin.

again, though, because there are so many options already, there is a very credible threat to breaking games not just in changing rules, but in the combinations of changed rules. taking from the above examples: maybe unlimited fortifies is fine, and "any connected territory" is fine, but together a game could turn into one turn of placing and fortifying all your armies on the board into a single giant army. toss 'return to attack from fortify' on there, and then set these rules on a map with capitals, and you've got yourself a situation where the first player can easily eliminate 16 people on the first turn.

buzz words: slippery slope, pandora's box, can of worms, fat cat bankers, synergy, creating a monster, uncontrollable, potential for litigation, total chaos!

Cramchakle wrote:
buzz words: slippery slope, pandora's box, can of worms, fat cat bankers, synergy, creating a monster, uncontrollable, potential for litigation, total chaos!

Sounds like fun.

weathertop wrote:

DennisG wrote:

But i know that with entire territory fills, you often lose a lot of map detail which may not have function, but do look cool.  like this one.

http://maps.conquerclub.com/Draknor_-_Level_1.L.jpg

Also, with CC's army digit color, it allows there to be some functionality to the army circle fill, as seen here where each army circle is a particular gang member.

http://maps.conquerclub.com/Supermax__Prison_Riot!.L.jpg

THe down side to CC's method is that the amount of color you can get into a digit is small, which makes the number of distinct colors you can use quite small.  Which is why CC likely won't have more than 8 player games, because there simply isn't 8 distinct colors in such a small amount.

Where as on WG, an entire region fill can use a more varied pallet as a white and off white will look distinct since there is much more on the screen to compare.

Kind of rambing here... but I think the dual layer thing looks promising for sure.

Personally Dennis, those may be kewl screen captures or even neat pictures, but neither of those two look like they'd be much fun to play. And frankly fun is the key to longevity. There's waaay too much detail that distracts from game play.

Now the dungeon one looks to have some serious possibility if you were to remove the room names, make the doors all two ways (maybe some leeway here), and be able to put the dual layer fill under this detail layer. In fact were that to happen and the borders darkened up a bit more that could be the best looking map i've seen. The cop one, eef, not so much. Maybe with some serious deletions it could be playable, maybe.

As to your concern about user choosing card scales; i'm not opposed to user choice in card scale, but most of the boards that have been created since Tom implemented more choice in development have gone thru several dozen games to find which card scale makes for the most balanced play. these boards, therefore, would be at a disservice if the user were able to adjust the card scale to something that the developer nixed out for those very reasons that would prevent ppl from replaying the board. again fun trumps options. now there is some possibility (tho it would add to developer's headaches) if they were to provide a few card scale options that work on a particular board. which isn't a bad idea really.

I agree that fun is paramount.  In my opinion, great graphics cannot save a map with poor gameplay, and a map with great gameplay and poor graphics can indeed be fun to play.  But it's not until you combine great graphics and great gameplay that the map or board is truly great.  The dugeon one is an example of poor gameplay, its not a popular map at all.  however the prison one is an absolute blast to play.  building up gang members, holding weapons, taking out gang leaders, making a run on the Warden, holding the gas chamber, losing it and being put to death.  it is an incredibly immersive map and miles away from anything resembling risk.  There are tons of custom rules in there to make it quite unique.  The graphics also help bring it to life.