Has anyone else played the version of Risk that is called "Risk Legacy" ?

My friends and I have purchased multiple copies of boards, due to the unique characteristics. If you are not familiar, the board starts relatively normal, except the win condition is to acquire a set number of "stars" and the first person to attain the set value, wins.

Each player who has not won a game, starts with a star, but each player who has won a game starts with 1 missile for each game they have won, to date, on the board.

There are packets inside the box that have "DO NOT OPEN UNLESS XYZ HAPPENS" and when that event happens, you open the pack and read some new rules, events, scenarios, factions, etc.

There are stickers inside some of the packs, which get applied to the board (bunkers +1 defense). cities (+1-3 territory count to the territory they are placed onto), radioactive areas, which act as -1 factories for their space, nuclear wastelands, that half all troops that pass through them, etc.

It's a wild set of rules that evolve over the 15-20 total games: https://instructions.hasbro.com/api/download/F3156_en-us_avalon-hill-risk-legacy-strategy-tabletop-board-game.pdf

That said, I have wondered how difficult it would be to implement some of these things into Wargear...

How could the board the player group is using be stored?

How could you update the xml mid-game and impact the next players turn if and "qualified event" occurs? (sticker placement or new rulepack events)

How could you add the "missile" mechanic which is provided to certain factions and 1 per-win on the given board/seed.

How could you implement faction specific benefits and disadvantages? With seats? Player specific border modifiers?

Would it be possible to build unique cards related to the territories, and capture coin values to each card to improve their bonuses when you hold those territories?

Would it be possible to create finite bonuses, such as the 'fortifications' that get consumed each time the territory is attacked with 3 armies at once, and provide +1 bonuses to defense?

Could the draft setup be implemented, where players may choose options between turn order, starting troop count, faction seat, etc,

Could the Major (winner) rewards and minor (not eliminated at end of game) rewards be something that could be implemented?

Major: winner gets to do 1 major board change/name a continent/add a major city, cancel a scar, place a fortification, destroy a card.

Minor: add a coin to a card related to a territory you currently hold

Could each faction that was eliminated, held on, or won a map be recorded and used as a variable in various scenario/checks.

It seems like a lot of things, but the more i think about it... it seems like a lot of this could be accomplished with some additional libraries/attributes, and it would need to store seed specific XMLs, but has anyone considered this possibility... or has anyone played this board game before and loved it enough to chime in?

Alas, I can offer ... no suggestions (haven't been involved with building a board).

I've *wanted* to play Legacy ever since it first came out, but ... the only people I know who would play with me live in a swath of cities 3300-7700 km away :-)

So ... yeah, not going to happen. Thus ... if this place ever manages to replicate the game, I'LL BE THERE FOR IT!

:-D

agwyvern wrote: I've *wanted* to play Legacy ever since it first came out, but ... the only people I know who would play with me live in a swath of cities 3300-7700 km away :-)

Zoom game night?

I've considered it :-) (We do get together mostly weekly for a 3 hour D&D session --- 9a-12 for me, 12-3p / 1p-4p for most, and 5p-8p for the furthest.)

The problem with Risk Legacy is (I think) there are game components (cards/tasks/etc.) that I believe you all have to be present for (i.e., some stuff is 'secret' (Motts could weigh in on that))

I've considered it :-) (We do get together mostly weekly for a 3 hour D&D session --- 9a-12 for me, 12-3p / 1p-4p for most, and 5p-8p for the furthest.)

The problem with Risk Legacy is (I think) there are game components (cards/tasks/etc.) that I believe you all have to be present for (i.e., some stuff is 'secret' (Motts could weigh in on that))

I own a copy of Risk Legacy, but have never even opened it, because I don't really have a good group of IRL friends who would want to play. I think I could convince my family to play - maybe... Does it work well with 3 people?

As for:

That said, I have wondered how difficult it would be to implement some of these things into Wargear...

Unfortunately Tom has not added any significant features to WarGear in many years. He has a real job, and doesn't seem to have the time to spend on WarGear much anymore. Maybe if he was making a lot of money from it - but I assume that once you subtract server costs we're probably just paying for maintenance from him. I don't think he wants to put advertising on the site - which is admirable... It's been suggested before that he could open source or take code contributions but he's never responded to that so I think he's not interested.

If you look around you'll see lots of ideas for improvements or changes. There are a couple of lists on the wiki. This is the one for design features:

https://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=designer_workshop:proposed_designer_features

From my perspective, unassigned capitals and token territories would make a huge difference in the ability to create new innovative and clean maps (there are some ugly workarounds currently).

@Ozyman, it's fine with 3 people, but ultimately better if you have a solid group of 5 who can play all 15+ games together, due to the way the board rules work. When we have played it has been a core group of 5 people, but since it's hard to get all 5 together, we normally had 4/5 plus 1 guest star.

Definitely can understand the development costs, server costs, and ROI considerations. Maybe I can brainstorm about some things that could be accomplished with limited changes to the xml, or that could be low impact.

One thing I had considered is the ability to add a Boolean variable in the XML for borders that would allow Vision overriding the fog settings. It seems you can setup a view only border, but it doesnt appear you have the ability to setup a default border with vision, so you wind up with situations like you have on the king of the hill map, where there are vision borders setup, but you still can't see things directly next to you, due to the default borders. It would likely require some changes to the logic that determines map visibility to reference this new value.

Then again... token territories seems like it would be very similar, in that it would be a Boolean value in the territories XML, along with something that excludes those true values from the territory counts or elimination conditions... so if that is something that isn't getting traction, maybe I am asking a lot.