BUG: Was not allowed to cash all possible reinforcemtns

[WidowMakers]

Im not going to join the debate. I dont doubt the impact it has on strategy. But from a pure logical point of view, the cc way makes no sense. The Hasboro way makes perfect sense. Just in my opin.

I don't really understand how we can look at this from a logical viewpoint. It is a board game with cards. there are no real world applications to associate with it.

Turning in 2 sets from 6 cards or 1 set from 6 cards is no more logical than the next.

Hasbro Rules = Slower playing of cards after capture. A rule that was made to slow the game down.
CC Rules = Faster (allowable) playing of cards after capture. A rule that was made to speed up the end of games.

--------------------

There are pros/cons for each type.
1)Hasbro Rules
-More steady escalating games. Players will still want to kill opponents, but the all-out-try-to-kill-for cards strategy will be lost. I will not attack to the last man for a measly 20 troops even if I have 7 cards (2 sets worth)
-Not as many singel turn sweep-the-land games.

2) CC rules
-can favor the player who attacks an enemy with cards so they can turn in twice and clean the board (continuing to turn in multiple sets after otehr player kills.) I am sure we all have done that. It is very satisfying and take planning.
-Allows the game to heat up much faster and with escalating a gem can change outlook/outcome with one roll.

I personally don't remember there being any anti-CC protest to how they handles cards. I have always played Risk at home like I played CC. Just because there are 1000 to 1 Hasbro vs CC players, does not mean that Hasbro has the best answer.

There is bound to be a large influx of players from CC. If this is something that we change and it is not perceived as better, then we need to be prepared.

 

[Shepherd]

huh... it's going to really throw CC people for a loop at first (it did me) but going with the hasbro rules doesn't make the game worse, it just makes it different. same can be said for our flat rate cards - it ain't what folks are used to, but that doesn't make it worse.

I can live with the single turn-in; the rule may require players to be more strategic.

An advantage to the hasbro rules is that it eliminates a bit of luck; say you have 6 cards under the CC system, you may be able to turn in one set, or you may be able to turn in two depending on what cards you scored. Huge advantage if you were lucky enough to make two complete sets after a take-out.

 

[Badorties]

I think there are other ways to capture the good portions of the CC style. like the reserve idea where you have unlimited amount of cards, and the more you have the more troops you get. in that system you could easily sweet, say you have 10 cards and take out someone with 5, trade in 15 and have nenough troops to take out someone with 8, the 7, etc.

Honestly, I haven't noticed this BUG. there have been plenty of sweeps I have seen from both sides of the die.

 

[WidowMakers]

I think there are other ways to capture the good portions of the CC style. like the reserve idea where you have unlimited amount of cards, and the more you have the more troops you get. in that system you could easily sweet, say you have 10 cards and take out someone with 5, trade in 15 and have nenough troops to take out someone with 8, the 7, etc.

Honestly, I haven't noticed this BUG. there have been plenty of sweeps I have seen from both sides of the die.

Well it is really whatever you decide. I will adapt as will others.
In regards to your example above, these cards would be exempt from the turn in minimum since the function completely different than CC or Hasbro.
And if that is the case, we could not define "turning in reinforcement" as sets until a player has less than 6. So for flat, Esca-lite and Escalate there woudl be one rule (Hasbro Rule) and the XBLA style (New Rule)

 

[Incandenza]

Hang on, let's set aside the "# of cards gets you # of troops" concept for a second, 'cause it's not really germane to the conversation.

Personally, I much prefer the CC version, because it does encourage a bit more risk-taking. If I'm going to go to the effort of taking out someone with a bunch of cards, more often than not it can only be justified by the fact that I can either possibly or definitely cash twice. Otherwise I've gone to tall this trouble only to make myself a target, weakened and sitting on 5 cards. By not allowing double-cashing, we're making stalemates more likely and ensuring that games last longer. This to me is not a good result.

Hangings happen, they're a part of singles escalating. But by making killshots even less attractive, we risk taking a lot of the fun out of the game.

EDIT: This might be a situation where we might want to discreetly poll our more experienced users (i.e. Robinette, who's played more escalating singles games than I've had hot dinners)

 

[Badorties]

Inca, hasbro system does not disallow double cashing.

Hasbro will allow double cashing if you have 8 or 9 cards, CC will allow double cashing if you have 6, 7, 8 or 9 cards. It's not a huge difference.

also, Hasbro will not allow possible triple cashing with 9 cards (as CC does), which I think is quite akin to a slot machine.

 

[WidowMakers]

That is a huge diffeence.
That means I need to have 4 and kill a player with 4 (Hasbro)
Or
I coudl have 1 or 2 and kill a player with 4 or 5 (CC).

Huge difference.

There are many more combinations that allow double cashing on CC than Hasbro.

 

[Evan]

Using the CC rules, if I have a set of 3 in my hand already, and then I take out a player with 0 cards, do I get to cash my set?

What I'm trying to understand about the CC system is, is it just the fact you take someone out that lets you cash? Or is it the fact that you take out a player which gives you a set? or is it the fact that you take out a player that gives you a set and you have 5+?

Another example/question: If I have 0 cards, and I take out a player with 3 cards, and it makes a set, do I get to cash on CC?

WM, I'm not saying we *should* use logic, I'm just explaining my analytical programmer perspective. The Hasboro way has a rule that makes sense. You cannot have more than 4 cards, if you do, you need to cash. That is what creates the need for mid-turn cashes in the first place. The CC way, depending on what the answers to the above questions, is just arbitrary on not based on any pure logic. Maybe that's what we want. I'm not arguing for either/or. I'm thinking of everything in terms of code.

IF the CC way is simply: "you kill someone, you get to cash as much as you want". Then I suppose there s some logic there. However, if it is "You kill someone and have 5+ cards you get to cash as much as you want", then it begins to make much less sense, from a purely logical perspective.

Again, not saying that we should look at this from a logical viewpoint as a group. Its just the way I look at it. Because I'm left-brained.

 

[WidowMakers]

1) Using the CC rules, if I have a set of 3 in my hand already, and then I take out a player with 0 cards, do I get to cash my set?

What I'm trying to understand about the CC system is, is it just the fact you take someone out that lets you cash? Or is it the fact that you take out a player which gives you a set? or is it the fact that you take out a player that gives you a set and you have 5+?

Another example/question: If I have 0 cards, and I take out a player with 3 cards, and it makes a set, do I get to cash on CC?

2) WM, I'm not saying we *should* use logic, I'm just explaining my analytical programmer perspective. The Hasboro way has a rule that makes sense. You cannot have more than 4 cards, if you do, you need to cash. That is what creates the need for mid-turn cashes in the first place. The CC way, depending on what the answers to the above questions, is just arbitrary on not based on any pure logic. Maybe that's what we want. I'm not arguing for either/or. I'm thinking of everything in terms of code.

IF the CC way is simply: "you kill someone, you get to cash as much as you want". Then I suppose there s some logic there. However, if it is "You kill someone and have 5+ cards you get to cash as much as you want", then it begins to make much less sense, from a purely logical perspective.

Again, not saying that we should look at this from a logical viewpoint as a group. Its just the way I look at it. Because I'm left-brained.

1) Nope. A player can only turn in if they have 5 cards or more.
2)I see where you are comign from a bit. But I just see the logic steps as different not more or less logical.

Hasbro = You cannot have more than 4 cards, if you do, you need to cash. Once you have less than 5, you must stop cashing
CC = You cannot have more than 4 cards, if you do, you need to cash. You may cash in as many sets as you have. Once you have no remaining sets, you stop cashing

 

[Robinette]

ohhhh........ delicious thread...

Allow me to clarify how it works elsewhere:

At CC... when you have 5+ cards mid-turn, it unlocks the ability to cash multiple sets
(as a side note, 7 cards has about 90% chance of making 2 sets,, and let me tell you, iit really sucks when the 10% happens)
but i digress... to clarify, at CC, if i kill a player and am now holding 4 cards, there is no way to cash.

Now lets look at the old RISK rules... you might be surprised to hear that these have changed over the years, and have even varied by country.
The rule version quoted above is one of the oddest, as you could be forced to end a turn with 6 cards in your hand.

Another RISK variation was to allow any and all cashes following a kill... even if only holding a 3 card set...
Think of it as a kill being the key that unlocks the cash register... hehee


But the big question here is, what is the BEST way to do it...
The current program allows 1 max cash per kill
In CC, to have 5+ cards after a kill 'unlocks' unlimited cashes, but no cash with 4 or less
The above RISK version only allows mid turn cashes if you have 6+, but once below 6 then no more cashing
The 'best' RISK version allows unlimited cashes after a kill (unlocks the 'cash' register)

I like the bottom method... a fresh twist to the game that will be much appreciated by the average player...

 

[WidowMakers]

Just to clairify. Is this correct?

But the big question here is, what is the BEST way to do it...
Current MC rule = 5+ cards after kill, player get MAX 2 cash (if player has at least 9 cards)
CC rule = 5+ cards after kill, player get unlimited cashes
above RISK version = only allows mid turn cashes if you have 6+, but once below 6 then no more cashing
'best' RISK version = allows unlimited cashes after any kill (unlocks the 'cash' register) even if player only has 3 cards after a kill.

 

[Badorties]

I am pretty sure the above Risk versions requires a cash if you have 5+ not 6+. Thats the rules in the version I have.

Make not, unlimited cashes opens the door for more luck based play. Where as, one player could cash three times on 9 cards, and another could only cash twice. is this prefered.

 

[Evan]

Just to clairify. Is this correct?
Current MC rule = 5+ cards after kill, player get MAX 1 cash

Actually it is not 1 max. you can cash as many times is necessary to get below 5 cards. The current MC rule is simply that you cannot have 5+ cards.

So, if you have 4 cards, and beat someone with 5 cards, and end up with 9 cards (and luck out with 3 sets), you would get 2 cash's (bringing you below the max of 5 cards)

So i guess there is an inferred max of 2 cash's

 

[WidowMakers]

Thanks Evan. I edited my previous post to reflect.

 

[Robinette]

I am pretty sure the above Risk versions requires a cash if you have 5+ not 6+. Thats the rules in the version I have.

www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Risk1975.PDF
Page 7 clearly states you must have 6 or more cards after a kill in order to cash mid turn... This is from the 1975 version.

....unlimited cashes opens the door for more luck based play. Where as, one player could cash three times on 9 cards, and another could only cash twice. is this prefered.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way... the ability to cash after ANY kill could be huge, and might actually REDUCE the luck factor,,, at CC you can cash down to zero cards, but only after a kill that gives you 5 or more cards... imagine the difference if you could make a kill and cash even if you only had 3 or 4 cards... This should be evaluated further of course, but my gut feeling is that it would be a good thing.

 

[Shepherd]

www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Risk1975.PDF
Page 7 clearly states you must have 6 or more cards after a kill in order to cash mid turn... This is from the 1975 version.

Now that's just weird. Why six? You have a set at five.

If you continue reading on that page of the rules, it says that "If he can make two or three sets he may turn them in, receiving the regular increase in the number of armies for each set." The 1980 hasbro rules also say you need six, and that you may turn in "sets." The 1993 Hasbro rules say that you may turn in sets if you have six or more, but must stop when you have four or fewer. So Parker Brothers (aka Hasbro) has been changing their tune over the years.

Get this: the original 1960 US Rules said that when you take out an opponent you may turn in a set or sets if you are able to make them... no minimums, no restrictions. Got three cards and set? Turn 'em in. Got nine cards and three sets? Turn 'em in.
www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Risk1963.PDF

In the original French game there were no territory names on the cards.

 

[Incandenza]

Seems like the moral of the story is there is no "hasbro" rule, since their rule has been repeated changed over the years.

Robin's idea of allowing players to mid-turn cash even if they don't have 5 cards is interesting, though I can't for the life of me predict how precisely it would affect games. The cash-at-5 is so fundamentally ingrained to my thinking that it'd be like changing an astrophysical constant.

 

[WidowMakers]

Seems like the moral of the story is there is no "hasbro" rule, since their rule has been repeated changed over the years.

Robin's idea of allowing players to mid-turn cash even if they don't have 5 cards is interesting, though I can't for the life of me predict how precisely it would affect games. The cash-at-5 is so fundamentally ingrained to my thinking that it'd be like changing an astrophysical constant.

You have some very good quotes man. lol
I like Robin's idea. And it would cause players to take even more risk to get cards. Imagine a player killing another to get up to 4 cards on the off chance they could turn in. Nt everyoen would do it but some would.

I like it. Turn in after any kill if you can as much as you can.

 

[Shepherd]

there are some distinct advantages to allowing any and all cash-ins after a take-out.

• It wouldn't throw-off veterans of the game. Our current system will upset folks who are used to things being a certain away, because it is subtractive: we're taking away a play feature that folks are accustomed to. Allowing a cash-in at three or four is additive, so users are more likely to say "whoa, that's cool!"

• From a coding standpoint it would seem to employ the rules we already have in effect for the beginning of a turn; if a player has a set they get a box saying "You May Turn In" and if they have 5+ it says "You Must Turn In."

• If anybody raises a stink we can say this is how the game was intended to be played according to the original 1957 La Conquête du Monde rules.

 

[Cassidy]

But it makes for poor and reckless strategy in large esc games.

Pleeeease keep the CC rules.