Risk Resurgence

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
56 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Risk Resurgence

aaalafayette
Administrator
This post was updated on .
Latest beta version of the map can be downloaded at:
http://github.com/triplea-maps/Conquest_of_the_World/releases/latest
"Conquest_of_the_World.zip"



Original Post:
I'm serious about making a risk map and I can update the game engine rules to make it happen.

I need help. Most urgently for help making the actual map and graphics (the game engine updates are going to take a while to accomplish). If you would like to contribute, with code, graphics, testing, general labor and you'd like to be part of this team, let me know. As things progress, I hope to give the community lots of opportunity for feedback, but we need a working group to make sure stuff gets done.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Risk Resurgence

The Red Baron

I’m going to be a casual observer on this project for the time being, but I do have some Risk map image files that I could make base-tiles out of at some point and run the map utilities. I would volunteer to help with XML, but obviously there is coding that needs to be done first. Really excited at the possibilities that this opens up for map-makers (especially keeping one’s hand of cards hidden). Any help I may be able to give would be on hold, however, until the website is finished (I can send you my map files; I have Classic, Revised, and Castle Risk maps as image files)

"The aggressive spirit, the offensive, is the chief thing everywhere in war, and the air is no exception." - Manfred von Richthofen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Risk Resurgence

Cernel
I've never liked Risk; not a big fan of Castle Risk (still have it, but played it rarely; so may just be not with the right people), but surely much more interesting than Risk imo, though unbalanced. I'd suggest going for that, instead of regular Risk, for the first map.

But first you should check eventually copyright issues of Castle Risk, and surely not using copyrighted graphics.

I also know that there is a Napoleon version of Risk that it is popular, tho never played myself.

What about making the map optimized for 4k monitors and with 128x128 units or 256x256 units? That would need update too, cause as now over 52x52 are cut and some other issues. But I think 128x128 may be playable (not sure), while waiting for future support.

I think having Risk itself would not be really worth it (so many other places to play it, probably AA players don't want to play it, and I don't think that searching for Risk people will find TripleA), but having a risk related stuff that can be merged with regular TA and make into other maps (a Risk domination?) would open a new wold of possibilities.

Anyway, I won't be very into TA in next days, I think, but want to signal that here you can find a Risk map:

http://www.cartographersguild.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=73527&d=1432391605

Cheers and looking forward
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Risk Resurgence

aaalafayette
Administrator
This post was updated on .
The copyright issues are around graphics, names, and usages of text. The reason I'm asking for help is that there will be a lot of original content we need to create. The rules to a game are not subject to copyright (so nobody can copyright "hide and seek" for example, but someone can create a hide-and-seek box game with a rule manual, and you couldn't lift images or text from that box set or rule manual).

Risk and TripleA have overlap in their player base. The statement "probably AA players don't want to play it," I think lacks evidence, and also misses that we could attract Risk players. Risk is a very popular game, I don't know the exact player base difference, but I've yet to meet too many people that have even heard of Axis and Allies compared to the hordes that have played Risk. Finding Risk on TripleA will not necessarily be easy, but it is an SEO problem we can solve to some extent I think.

My guess is we'll start with classic risk as the first map. Once things are in place variations will naturally follow I would guess.

@Cernel, do you know the licensing and copyright information for the image you referenced, is it public domain? (http://www.cartographersguild.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=73527&d=1432391605)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Risk Resurgence

aaalafayette
Administrator
In reply to this post by Cernel
Almost forgot - @cernel, where exactly can one play Risk easily online? After an hour with google and trying to start a game, I wasn't left happy. I wouldn't mind knowing somewhere where I could any day start a game of Risk in under 20 minutes.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Risk Resurgence

Cernel
Sorry, don't like risk and never played it online, nor tried to. I just remember there was at least 1 place for playing it online.

I searched for copyrights on the image and found noone. Other images have explicit copyrights; so I guess this image might be free.

No clue about the site copyright rules, in case the single graphic doesn't specify.

A good thing about Castle Risk is that you have a bit of naval and some historicish evocative value. The bad is that it is clearly unbalanced (while regular Risk is balanced by definition).

I think you should clarify better what you need others to do. Do you need a working map with all risk connections and playable by TA rules somehow?
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Risk Resurgence

aaalafayette
Administrator
TA rules don't support what would be needed for risk rules yet. That is something that has needed Veqryn before, I can now help with that. If there are yet others who can help with the game engine updates, great.

Otherwise help is needed for everything: Map graphics, unit graphics, map XML.

A first version of the game will have as few rules as possible. If there is a volunteer for the map graphics, a conversation I think would then be appropriate of what the first map should be.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Risk Resurgence

The Red Baron
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
Well, I did find time to make you some base tiles for Risk Classic:



Hopefully that will encourage you in your endeavor

Maybe sometime I will find time to make you some relief to go with it and/or run it through the map creator. Anyways...
"The aggressive spirit, the offensive, is the chief thing everywhere in war, and the air is no exception." - Manfred von Richthofen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Risk Resurgence

crazy_german
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
I really like the idea of having Risk as an option, could help bring in new players. Just a thought, you could make this map quite small. You would need at most 2 different units in a territory at a given time.
Correctly crazy, disingenuously German
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Risk Resurgence

Cernel
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
Main point is: will this be something highly hard coded and standalone from the rest of TA (like chess) or something that will possibly merge with the existing TA, allowing for high xml customization and mix-up of risk and A&A features?

If this is going to be something hardcoded useful for playing just risk, and stricht purely map variations of it, I doubt it would be worth the effort.

After all, risk is not really a good game; it's kind of boring and just famous because it is a classic. I doubt people would want to go back to that.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Risk Resurgence

aaalafayette
Administrator
Short answer: no, the risk code would be nothing like the Grid code. Second,  I don't particularly expect for axis and allies players to drop down to Risk, but  I hope Risk to be a possible gateway game to axis and allies for people that may not find tripleA otherwise. And yes, I would hope that the risk code and implementation could add value to the rest of the game engine, maybe not necessarily adding map features right away, but certainly I Intend for it to be a quality code addition (if it happens, which I hope it does)

Longer answer with respect to grid code:

The grid code needs to go. It is actually not stand-alone. Evidence of that is that Redrum had to update it numerous times while touching AI code.  If it were stand-alone, no way AI updates would need to update Grid code. But instead grid code is like a tentacle monster, updating much of any of the game engine quickly leads to updating Grid code. A full 68 source files are dedicated to Grid (grid is chess/checkers/kingstable/go). Compared to almost 270 source files for the rest of the tripleA game, it is quite significant.

Regrettably the grid code adds more complexity and cost than it does value. The complexity causes any other game engine work to require more effort, sometimes multiples more. Furthermore, much of the Grid code is not quite complete. Would you *ever* prefer for someone to spend time finishing up the Grid code compared to say doing *anything* for tripleA? To boot, the old developers of TripleA have long left and will not come back to finish Grid. No new developer is going to have any desire to fix that code. This does not paint a very optimistic portrait.

So, this is not yet even talking about the updates needed for Risk. Due to the complexity that the current Grid code incurs on the GameEngine, I don't think adding Risk is feasible. That is a bad current state of affairs to be in since that applies to many other prospective game engine features as well. Thus, that complexity incurs such a high cost for development, it is hard to justify it compared to the return you get for coding something. Example, 3 minutes of coding followed by 30 minutes of figuring wtf the code was doing, and 10 minutes of fixing other unrelated code so you can make an isolated change, and then another 20 minutes doing regression testing by hand to check the *entire* game to be sure you didn't break the smallest little thing. Who wants to do that?

So the battle plan for the code updates for Risk is tentatively as follows:
- remove Grid
- this will allow for some massive game engine simplifications
- add high level automated tests so we can make changes with more confidence and less effort

For tripleA to remain a viable development project and not go into life support mode, effectively the above needs to happen. Life support mode is where the cost of any change is *so* high, you don't do it. Not unless you *have* to. In which case you just do the minimum always to make sure the lights stay on, and don't touch or change anything in fear you'll tip the code over the edge.

Though, adding automated tests to an existing code base is notoriously difficult and not necessarily a high value activity. My intention is to graft Risk code appropriately to the game engine in contrast to how the 'grid' code was implemented. I expect the total amount of code (excluding tests) to be under 1000 lines. In addition, while adding the Risk code, it would be a good reason and opportunity to retrofit the game engine with more automated tests.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Risk Resurgence

crazy_german
Sounds like the grid should get the boot. I think Risk is a great idea. The current players probably won't play it much, but its a gateway drug for a tripleA addiction. If features of risk were co-compatible with regular tripleA features...some of the map designers might have to take time off work to tinker with the possibilities
Correctly crazy, disingenuously German
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Risk Resurgence

ZjelcoP
What gamefeatures you believe would have to be coded?

I was doing some brainstorming on Risk and depending on which rulebook you use,
the only thing that really seemed impossible now was the way battles are fought. (Only 3 vs 2 units, defender can choose how many dice etc.). For the rest there seemed to be some solution by very creative use of triggers.
I think some consider that to be hacky and thus unwanted, but I don't really see any problem if it works.
If there really is a problem please explain.

Some solutions however might require features I believe are not there yet.
However these I already missed when working on other maps.

1: Have units placed by triggers immediately active. A trigger-placed tank can't move yet.
2: Have trigger be activated immediately, not after a fase.
3: Have the possibillity to alter gamestep order, either planned or by triggers.

I think these options would be a welcome addition to the engine and particularly the third would open up a new world of possibillities.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Risk Resurgence

crazy_german
Going off my memory of Risk (I played quite a bit when I was younger) there are four big things that should be added

-New Combat
-A card system
-Ability to conceal information from opponents
-Totally different concept of phase order. Basically you conduct combat while still in the move phase, but you also might place units, and keep doing this until you choose to stop

The first two are pretty straight forward. The third might be extremely difficult, depending on how many options get coded. Would you just conceal cards, or create an option for total fog of war? The fourth could be really difficult because of how different it is.

I'm not sure we need to alter game order. Couldn't we just have the assigned players have a set order? You play as a different player (color) each time?
Correctly crazy, disingenuously German
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Risk Resurgence

ZjelcoP
Perhaps multiple resources could function as the cards.
I believe there was a way to have a randomized trigger. This could assign you a random card when earned.
To buy 10 inf you need one of each resource.
Indeed you'd have to be able to hide your resources from the other players.

What else you need to hide? Can only think of Objective cards which are not necessary. Usually played total victory.

Triggers could assign you the number of units you earned through owning territories and continents.

You can have multiple combatmove-Battle steps after each other. Through XML you can have each player have 20 of these alternating. You only would need to be able to break this loop when the player doesn't want to attack anymore.

Idea: All units have 0 movement. You have a battlemarker with huge (200)movement in box x. When you place it on a territory the units there gain movement +1 and can attack a neighbouring territory. Not sure how to force the player to leave 1 unit behind and not attack multiple territories or move units to own territory. (perhaps second Target-marker that removes impassable when on enemy territory. All other territories are impassable)
After battle 1 move marker to battle 2. When finished move it to box y where it's movement is set to -200 either by an other invisible unit or trigger. No more units with movement= end combatmove-battle loop.
But just being able to alter the steporder would be much easier if coded.

Just making up these idea's because I can't hardcode anything ;-) If at all possible not ideal I know.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Risk Resurgence

Frostion
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
If you need units, you are welcome to use the units from my new map Age of Tribes. I actually think they look a lot like Risk units, and they come in eight different colors:
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Risk Resurgence

aaalafayette
Administrator
Thanks everyone! This is picking up more momentum then I expected. With units and the base map, sounds like we now need:
- game XML
- map tile images and map artwork
- engine changes
- card artwork!

For the game XML, I was thinking we start with a functioning tripleA map with just infantry. Make sure the territory connections work. Essentially we could do everything we can with the existing rules and make a tripleA map that looks like Risk. We then begin making engine changes to allow us to turn on risk rules one at a time. Eventually we'll have the full set of Risk rules.

For rule changes, we need to update the combat movement and dice system first. Without that it's not Risk. Then territory placement phase (can be hacked with Edit), then look at how to bring in Cards.


ENGINE CHANGES

1. TERRITORY SELECTION
Not yet mentioned, this might be the most difficult thing to add in from a code point of view. The Bid rules implementation will likely be used as a model. Here we can handle the fact that not all player seats will be filled. We make the map 8 player, and AI fill the empty slots. During this phase AI does nothing, so they are not part of the game (or maybe they do and you can have neutrals that way, but that would be a 2.0 feature).

2. COMBAT MOVEMENT PHASE
I was thinking we could have the "battle" button appear whenever you make a combat move that creates a potential combat. Click it and the battle begins immediately. There will be a number of details that will need to be considered, but the implementation I hope wouldn't be too bad.
 
3. COMBAT MECHANICS (different number of dice rolled)
This will probably appear similar to the low luck option and the implementation would probably touch similar code paths. Map XMLs may have to specify Risk combat as a support game option for it to be presented, not sure if the Risk combat system could ever be reconciled with units that have different attack and defense powers.

4. CARDS
Not quite worrying about it *right* now. If we can get everything else in place, then it'll be a good time to see how exactly cards can fit in. For information hiding we could have players set up passwords to protect their player seats, so you couldn't save and reload and see what someone had in their secret inventory. There are other options we should look at, though at this time I don't want to focus too much on cards just yet.


GAME ENGINE CHANGES GROUND RULE
No changes to support Risk will alter or break any of the existing maps of today, they will continue working just as well, as is.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Risk Resurgence

ZjelcoP
If the gamesequence would be editable Territory selection could be easy.

-Each player has a box, directly connected to all territories.
-In each players Combatmove-fase (=only fase) the players recieves one unit in the box and can capture a territory.
-When all territories are taken and the rest of the units are placed move on to Main gamesequence.

As said before editable gamesequence would be great and open up a world of other possibillities.
Perhaps have say 3 different gamesequences defined in XML and move from gamesequence A to B to C.
Or direct editing with triggers.
But then I have no idea if this is at all possible.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Risk Resurgence

Cernel
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by The Red Baron
I don't like that base image and I think that any new map should be good for the new 4k monitors. Meaning that I think it should be at least 4000x3000 pixels.

I believe the units should be 256x256 pixels.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Risk Resurgence

Cernel
This post was updated on .
Maybe to broke the monotony of the mono-unit, using an unit image like this (128x128):





Anyway then you have the units number to show how many "army" you have. Maybe better to centre it right in the middle of the army unit image.
History plays dice
123