One of the biggest problems I had on the other site was the proliferation of boards that used the 4,6,8,10,... card scale that just kept on increasing forever, eventually making the continent and territory bonuses virtually obsolete and forcing every game to come down to card management. That can be fun sometimes, but it gets old quickly.

I was very excited to see the option to create customized card scales on WarGear, and I have tried to incorporate a customized scale on every map I'm working on. However, I am disappointed to see that few map-makers seem to be taking advantage of these new options, especially the advanced cycling options that prevent the card scale from ever out-stripping the board-based bonuses.

There are far too many maps on WarGear that still use the same ever-increasing card scale, to the detriment of playability of many of the maps on this site. So this is my plea to map-makers to take a little extra time and effort to design a custom card scale that suits your map.

More customization options are still needed, of course (e.g. plateaus, increasing cycles, negative values), but the existing options have far greater potential to improve gameplay than has yet been realized.

Think about it. Then do something about it.

The cycling option though strips it back down to the first round right? My thinking is that if cards really get that high, then something needs to be done because there is possibly a stalemate. On one of my maps I'm testing I put the card scale to actually increase by a substantial amount (from increasing by 1s to 15 or something along those lines), that way to help break a stalemate (at least that's my thinking). The custom card scale is fun to play around with, and sometimes does take some time to play with to get what you want (at least it does for me).

As far as more options, maybe, but, just my opinion, I wouldn't be too thrilled with another "advanced" option that can just frustrate a lot of players.

I don't consider a plateau to be 'advanced' -- if I recall correctly, the original Risk has a card scale that plateaus at some point.

Kjeld wrote:More customization options are still needed, of course (e.g. plateaus, increasing cycles, negative values), but the existing options have far greater potential to improve gameplay than has yet been realized.

I've been trying to use the new customization options in some of my upcoming games, but they don't seem quite powerful enough yet.  For example, in one game I'd really like a slow escalation followed by a fast decline, like:

5,6,7,8,9....,36,37,38,39,40,35,30,25,20,15,10,5,6,7,8,9.....

but the closest I can come is

5,6,7,8,9....,36,37,38,39,40,5,6,7,8,9.....

which is not quite what I want, since this is likely to stop play dead as players maneuver for that last big card set.  Another thing I want is to be able to scale cards to the number of players so that designing games that play well across the full range of 2 to 16 players becomes practical.

My own solution to this problem has been posted before, here.  I'm hoping this or some similar solution will be implemented here someday.  Failing this, it would help if hosts could be given an option to modify the card set (much as fog is an option now), so that the limitations of the designer-selected set for the desired number of players could be overcome.

NOTE: I'm not sure why the link above fails to work.  It points to the topic at "http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/241/Adjustable_Card_Scale".  The "forum/" part gets deleted when you save.  Did I find a bug, Tom?

Kjeld wrote: I don't consider a plateau to be 'advanced' -- if I recall correctly, the original Risk has a card scale that plateaus at some point.

The original Risk card scale is

4,6,8,10,12,15,20,25.... and multiples of 5 after that,

which is currently not one of the possible options on WarGear, even with a custom card set.

Okay, sorry about that.

I don't know Kjeld - the few boards I've seen go the route of cyclic cards or +1 increasing are the only ones whose card scales on Wargear that I've questioned thus far. Sure, increasing +2 is formulaic on mappy boards, but on nonmappy boards it doesn't play so predictably. You all are a creative group and I know I'll see every manner of card scale work and work well, but ... one shouldn't go down the road of stalematey pukedom just to avoid 4,6,8,10,12... -H

I've no objection to changing the card set configuration, it just needs to be backwards compatible with the existing setup (i.e. all current Live board card escalations can be retrofitted into the new system).

If we can get some agreement on what the parameters should be (and RB's post is a good starting point I think) then we can go from there.

Red Baron wrote:

Kjeld wrote: I don't consider a plateau to be 'advanced' -- if I recall correctly, the original Risk has a card scale that plateaus at some point.

The original Risk card scale is

4,6,8,10,12,15,20,25.... and multiples of 5 after that,

which is currently not one of the possible options on WarGear, even with a custom card set.

In the original Risk scale, the troop count maxes at 50.

Toaster wrote:

Red Baron wrote:

Kjeld wrote: I don't consider a plateau to be 'advanced' -- if I recall correctly, the original Risk has a card scale that plateaus at some point.

The original Risk card scale is

4,6,8,10,12,15,20,25.... and multiples of 5 after that,

which is currently not one of the possible options on WarGear, even with a custom card set.

In the original Risk scale, the troop count maxes at 50.

Thanks for coming to the rescue, Toaster!

Also, RB, thanks for linking back to the older thread -- you're point about adjusting the card scale to the number of players is well-made and would be an improvement, as well.

In general, I fail to see how an escalating 2,4,6,8... helps prevent stalemates. The longest game I ever played, which we eventually had to vote to end, was with a 4,5,6,7... card scale (by the time we quit, 10+ months into the game, the card sets were worth almost 300). Everybody has access to cards, regardless of their board position, and everybody in the game can trade in pretty regularly for a huge bonus. Cards are basically a big equalizer, which is why I said that steadily increasing card scales tend to make the game board obsolete over time as it no longer matters too much what you control (in terms of continents).

Kjeld wrote:.

In general, I fail to see how an escalating 2,4,6,8... helps prevent stalemates. 

It is strange - as you point out, cards are frequently used as equalizers.  Of course it depends greatly on the map, bottlenecks, continent bonuses and the like, but here is what I think happens in a lot of situations:

Inequalities are naturally created by bad rolling, bad placement, unlucky foes, or bad play.   Armies have to be killed because people want cards and want to organize their units and go for continents.  

Those who come out ahead are often interested in keeping the army counts of the weak low.  So, they might use their early sets to do this.  Their later sets will be used to off the weak in a very profitable way.  The profit is either used to go on a rampage or secure some nice-sized continent that will be used to off the next target.  This is the counterbalance to the equalizing effect of cards - cards are the tactical enablers of violence and profit.

As such, if a weak player tends to appear after a round of cards with only 8 units remaining, then the +1 increasing scale might make it so that grabbing his 3 cards is not very profitable at 10 units, whereas the +2 scale makes it worth 16 units at that stage.   Thus, the faster cards can prevent stalemates by creating more opportunities for profit.  I don't disagree that they too can be fallible (even on Mutiny's +3 madness, I have seen stalemated positions).

Now I'm not saying there is anything magical about +2 or bad about +1 as it depends quite a bit on scale (and the map!)  I'm just saying that some maps do seem to require the faster paced cards.  

-Hugh

p.s.  Of course when I say "stalemate", I don't mean the game necessarily gets abandoned or goes on indefinitely.  I just mean that if everyone did what was in their best interest, the army counts (and even their ratio to the size of the cards) would go up indefinitely.  Usually someone loses patience and does something silly, but I still think of the game as having been stalemated.

Hugh wrote:

p.s.  Of course when I say "stalemate", I don't mean the game necessarily gets abandoned or goes on indefinitely.  I just mean that if everyone did what was in their best interest, the army counts (and even their ratio to the size of the cards) would go up indefinitely.  Usually someone loses patience and does something silly, but I still think of the game as having been stalemated.

(Emphasis mine)
I think this is the main point. In most cases, the advancing card scale gets to a situation where the value of the card sets becomes greater than the army count of the weaker players on the board (the downside of this being, of course, that the value of the card sets is also greater than the per-turn or continent bonuses). However, with skilled players this may not always happen (one more case to be made for diplomacy as a natural part of the game). I'm in a game on Europe 1560 now with Ender, TheNileKing and GeneralTom where we've been 4-handed for quite some time, and nobody has so far come up with a way to advance the game. It's obviously more of a problem with larger games (both in terms of board size and number of players).

True, though there might not be any saving large boards with few bottlenecks from this situation. Ever-increasing does require enough situations to arise where the aggressor can profit (either via continents, in which case the cards interact nicely with the board, or via the kill).  In rereading the original post, Kjeld may have been railing against increasing cards in general and not 4,6,8 in particular.  Anyway, I do think many good choices have been made.  I hope a lot of experimentation occurs as well, but if increasing makes for good play on a board... why not use it?

"Good play" is in the eye of the beholder. I and others I know frequently become frustrated when the game reaches a point where it is dominated by cards, rather than tactical position on the board.

I understand the strategy involved in playing for cards, but often I'd rather be forced to make do with the bonuses available on the board, with some differential advantages doled out through a cycling card scale. I just want it to be recognized that not every map needs an ever-increasing card scale. Note that a good-sized elimination bonus can also provide enough incentive to go for a kill. It's another option, but not frequently employed.

So, that's all. I just want some diversity. Because right now, the cards are all seem to be the same, regardless of the board. It feels like I'm playing the same game over and over and over and over and over and over ...

Kjeld wrote:

I just want it to be recognized that not every map needs an ever-increasing card scale. Note that a good-sized elimination bonus can also provide enough incentive to go for a kill. It's another option, but not frequently employed.

Agreed, recognized, and I too like the elimination bonus option.  Felt the need to counterpoint 

Toaster wrote:

Red Baron wrote:

Kjeld wrote: I don't consider a plateau to be 'advanced' -- if I recall correctly, the original Risk has a card scale that plateaus at some point.

The original Risk card scale is

4,6,8,10,12,15,20,25.... and multiples of 5 after that,

which is currently not one of the possible options on WarGear, even with a custom card set.

In the original Risk scale, the troop count maxes at 50.

Are you sure?  My rule booklet mentions no maximum.  Nor can I find one on the following web site, which seems to contain the same text:

http://www.centralconnector.com/GAMES/RISK.htm

It seems as though it depends on which edition you're using.  My old board with Risk & Castle Risk in the same set maxed the troop bonus at 50.  Looks like some of the newer editions don't specify a maximum amount.

I think the main reason for setting a maximum was that the set only had so many actual pieces that could be put on the board.  If things got up in the realm of 70 or 80 troops, there was just no way to represent them with the game pieces provided.

we used pennies dimes and quarters when we ran out of men. you had to use your own money so the winner got to keep the change...basters taking my coffee money

Funny people and your playing of Risk manually.