>>38283
Want to be some Brazilian jihadist warlord fighting in the Amazon?

found a nice one

>>38287
Nah, too hot and humid. I chose Patagonia instead.

>>38288
That's funny. Is that an Irishized world? Or elvish? At least I see a Hunnic States there.

>>38331
Well, if he doesn't have that a with ~ on it, he could have at least wrote Paulo.

Is the aussie from the last movie night here? asdf I think it was? He said that he wanted to talk about the maps I made here

>>38411
They have very short attention span. Maybe worth writing a reminder in their thread.

>>38411
That was me.

>>38423
I thought you where the "Danmark" guy. Oghey then

What where you thinking about doing bernd?

>>38428
I rushed in at the end of it and typed in "Asdf". Just a risk game for the thread, that should be fine.

The wonders of coordinating anonymous people.

>>38464
So, should I continue from what I made in the last thread? Should I start a with a fresh map? Are the people from the last thread even here?

>>38508
They should be here. We have cucumber season. Poster number fluctuates, now it's low.

>>38509
Maybe we should start with a headcount for starters. Then ask who will just stick around to keep the thread up tbh

>>38526
Or we could just start and partition the whole map among ourselves.

>>38529
I "get" where you're coming from, but I sort of want a little bit more people to be in the game.

It's like playing monopoly by yourself. Sure you can win, but it's just more fun when more people are involved

>>38591
DO IT

Supposedly you should write roll into the e-mail field. That gives a d6. Somehow it could roll more dices and more sided ones, but can't seem to make it work.

>>38598
Oh you have to write dice there, sorry.

>>38598
Try "dice2d11" and you'll see.
>>38591
Sounds like my opportunity to implement something with deciding the entire outcome of a battle in a single roll, flanking/frontage/"combat width", operational and strategic reserves, blitzkrieg/deep battle, terrain penalties, a small degree of logistics, neutral states, uprisings and resources.
Though I'd rather have something that can be played slowly over weeks. With simultaneous orders like Diplomacy absentees aren't a problem, with a player order each player gets a time limit on his turn.

>>38607
Thanks.
>implement something with deciding the entire outcome of a battle in a single roll,
That sounds breddy good. If you guys could come up with a game, that would be awesome.

dice

dice

Single-roll battle decision was meant to speed up physical play and required tables. In our context it isn't necessary but I've still used it. I don't remember how exactly I did it back then and thought of something new.
This is the procedure for casualty calculation:

Every connection between provinces has a "Width" or "Frontage" value; terrain comes already built-in with this feature. The system works so that the only way to employ a numerical advantage, other than several turns of attrition warfare, is to outflank the enemy. During a player's turn -for now I thought of this for player by player rather than simultaneous movement- he commands a certain number of attacking units against an enemy province. He counts the following values:
-The outcome of a d100 roll (0 is the best result for defender, 100 for attacker)
-Total Attacker Strength (TAS)
-Total Defender Strength (TDS)
-Total Frontage (F) in province connections
(There are cases where there's a lot of total frontage but the attacker doesn't have the units in the right provinces, that changes the procedure, but assume it's not for now)

Compare TAS and F.
TAS>F, F = Committed Attacker Strength (CAS).
TAS<F, TAS = CAS.
Same procedure to calculate Committed Defender Strength (CDS).
With insufficient frontage the attacker can't put all of his strength on his frontline.

Next, CAS-CDS = Outflanking Strength.
Outflanking Strength/TDS (or CDS?) = Outflanking Modifier (O).

There is a "Max Mortality" (M) parameter, the same for the whole game. Casualties rise closer to 0 or 100 but are capped by this value, which is modified by outflanking. To win with few casualties doing a lot of damage it is necessary to outflank.
Compare Dice vs. M+O
1d100 < M+O, Defender Casualties = 1d100*CDS
1d100 > M+O, Defender Casualties = (M+O)*CDS

Compare (100-Dice) vs. M+O
(100-1d100) < M+O, Attacker Casualties = (100-1d100)*CAS
(100-1d100) > M+O, Attacker Casualties = (100-M+O)*CAS

All casualty results are rounded down.

Because of such special cases, such as a double offensive with a huge force funneled through a bottleneck on one side but elsewhere the defenders facing a single attacking unit coming from the plains, perhaps the players should just also manually count Outflanking Strength, CAS and CDS. The rest is done on an Excel spreadsheet.

>>38619
Is this Risk on a Risk map?

>>38637
Yes, only difference is that each connection on the map has a frontage or width value.

>>38644
How those two are determined?
How can one flank?
I played a little Risk, I mentioned it I believe, I don't really remember how it goes. Can a province be attacked from several and one of them designated as the main direction?

>>38649
>How those two are determined?
It'd be set as part of the map prior to playing. I'd start with a base value, depending on balance considerations and how many units are expected to exist, and add or subtract based on how wide the border is and the kind of terrain.
>How can one flank?
Attack with numerical superiority on a sufficiently large frontage that the defender can't cover all of it, giving you a positive outflanking modifier. This can even happen on a single province connection, such as 6 attackers vs. 4 defenders over a province connection with a width of 5, that's 5 committed attackers against 4 committed defenders with an outflanking strength of 1.
>Can a province be attacked from several
Attacking from several happens all the time and it'll become more important as a way of acquiring more width.
>one of them designated as the main direction?
There's no main direction, everything turns into total, committed and outflanking strength.
If the attacker wins he doesn't have to move the entire attacking force to the conquered territory, only whichever units he wants to, in that sense there's even more control than an outflanking direction. I'd formalize this as different "Attack" and "Support Attack" orders. Each order is given to a number of units in a province, from the same province some units may move to attack and others to support attack.

>>38651
Ah, I see.
And - remaining at the example - if there's another region, with a width of 3 and there's 2 more units of the attackers thrown in the assault, then it will be 8 attackers against 4 on an 8 width front, and the attacker will outflank the opponent with a strength of 4.
Do you have a map?

>>38654
>And - remaining at the example - if there's another region, with a width of 3 and there's 2 more units of the attackers thrown in the assault, then it will be 8 attackers against 4 on an 8 width front, and the attacker will outflank the opponent with a strength of 4.
That's the problem with counting total frontage and why each connection should have outflanking counted manually with everything added up later. The committed attacker strength in that case is 7. That one extra unit in the Ukraine is still uncommitted and that one width in Belarus is left unused. For that width to be put to use the uncommitted unit in the Ukraine would have to redeploy to Belarus.

>>38657
Okay, so not that much simplification.

Back to my question. Do you have a map? A Risk map which can be used here. Or we should make one from a world map?

>>38658
>Okay, so not that much simplification.
It is intuitive when you think of it geographically.
>Back to my question. Do you have a map? A Risk map which can be used here. Or we should make one from a world map?
No map, we'll have to make one.

>>38659
Should we copy the Risk regions, or make entirely custom? Or start with the Risk and make modifications if needed?

>>38660
For mapmaking anything goes. For a worldmap I'd start from scratch and try to bundle together countries and parts of countries into geographically cohesive units, it'd end up similar to Risk anyways.

>>38661
We could do testruns of the system on simplified maps. Eg. 2x2 square map or similar with less symmetry, but something we can make quick. Or no testing is needed?

>>38662
>We could do testruns of the system on simplified maps
Sure.

>>38663
So how do we put units on the map?

>>38664
Writing a number on the territory or painting a splotch like I've done >>38657.

>>38665
In Risk players draw cards and they get those regions no? Then they can decide where they place their units, and how many. Or something like that (I might wanna reread the rules.)
So we should decide how many units we have and similar stuff.

>>38666
Starting positions can be randomized or another option is everyone starting with a single province and expanding, though that may not be as fun as trying to consolidate a dispersed empire. I also intend to have independent territories with their own militaries not controlled by a new player, if a new player wants to enter he can take over one of them and start from a single province.

I want graphics n shit

>>38668
Make graphics.

>Maybe invite a photoshop or drawfag around. I dunno
It's not that complicated. All that's needed is to get a base map like this and get clean borders with pixel bridges to islands/clearing islands, so that a single use of the bucket tool will change a territory's color. For that it is also necessary that the territory's name be within a bordered box. Smaller bordered boxes can contain the width numbers but width can also be represented more directly.
That said the map is of secondary importance, mechanics have to be figured out. I've described a model for casualty determination, but not for whether or not the attacker gets to advance. Hence I propose:

Combat has two parts, Attrition (casualties) and Maneuver (conquest). Both are determined by the same d100. There is a Base Conquest Value (C), the same for the whole game. It is somewhere on the 50-90 range. Everything else aside, to advance over a province and have surviving defenders retreat the attacker must have a dice roll higher (equal or higher?) than it.
The attacker can have a better chance as other values are subtracted from it. The first is the Outflanking Modifier (which I believe should be calculated over CDS, not TDS). I also wonder if another modifier based on the ratio of total strengths should be used, so even without outflanking an attacker can have a better chance of going through with enough strength; this should, however, be a reduced effect, multiplied by another parameter, Maneuver Usage of Total Strength (MT), of, say, 0.2. Gut feeling says a higher MT (easier for a numerically superior attacker) should be paired with a higher C (harder for attacker overall).
Further, there is a Lowest Conquest Value (LC), even with excellent odds sometimes the attacker just loses. If C subtracted by the other two values goes below LC, LC is used.

So the procedure is:
1d100 > C - O - [(TAS/TDS - 1) * MT] > LC = Attacker advances over the province, defender retreats. Retreat procedure is something to consider, in realtime the defending player would decide where to.
1d100 < C - O - [(TAS/TDS - 1) * MT] = Attacker doesn't advance.
1d100 < LC = Attacker doesn't advance.

>A 1-2 hour back and forth thread with screencaps could be good. All happening on a specific date everyone playing feels comfortable in tbh. Let me know what you think bernds!
I want this for a slow burn game potentially played over months in /kc/ but it should work just as well for that.

>>38701
Made a simplified version of the second. I post it now before doing any modifications, territories, oversea connections, names, etc.

>>38699
Kek, just noticed in Map2:
>Ukraine
>Ukraine
Laffed.

Is there so many different types of Islam fighting each other because they're all just a bunch of backwards tribalistic sand niggers?

>>38726
Only two types of Islam matter.
>fighting
That's human condition.

>fighting
That's human condition.

Maybe if you're a backward savage, sure, but actual humans (aka not islamic negroids) work together through mutual cooperation example: white societies.

Modified for paintbucketing. Tested.
Anything I deleted can be added back relatively simply. I'm toying with the idea of resizing islands, Iceland, Madagaskar, Japan.

>>38701
What rules have to be determined?

>>38729
>What rules have to be determined?
Pregame distribution of territory.
Retreat procedure for defeated defenders.
Troop production calculation; how much each territory provides; whether there's a bonus for holding continents, and which are the continents; whether there's more than one kind of unit as I'm thinking about aircraft which are a staple of the kind of Risk I'm used to (War 2) and their production and use.
Troop movement: can an unit move to a bordering territory and partake in an attack, can it move to the other side of the world and partake in an attack, should that be conditional to an energy resource produced in a handful of territories and which players can trade.
Whether there is an additional lightning war phase where, for the price of sacrificing troops and/or this energy resource the attacker can move troops which already attacked further to invade another province.
Or, ditching the aircraft, whether there's a fundamental, more game-defining difference between defensive/garrison forces and offensive forces. Maybe they're produced at a fixed ratio, like 1:1. Or, borrowing from, I think, "Eastern Front 2", there is a single unit type but it has two stages, "spent" and "full" and only "full" can launch attacks; this implies changes to production and to casualty calculation. Or scrap this whole idea as it has the potential of making the game too defensive.
I don't want gimmick mechanics, just a strong core. The exception might be a mechanic for minor powers, outside players' control, all of which covered by the same color but every such territory is independent; according to certain rules they grow in strength and even attack neighboring territories. Some rules for them to appear in abandoned territories or rise up as rebellions.
Whether there is a "force limit" or armies can expand infinitely.
Protocol for players submitting each kind of order, which orders they have and in what sequence they are determined. The sequence of movement, combat and production matters.

Then balance concerns. Depending on production, width and Max Mortality warfare might grow too static, armies may grow faster than warfare exhausts them -probably bad for gameplay- or slower -not bad on the big picture but would also slow the pace a lot.

>>38733
Thanks.
I think we should keep it as simple as possible, at least in the beginning. Maybe the Risk core gameplay is the simplest so we should aim close to that. So for now no air units (tho it sounds good), or extra resources.
Let's figure out the distribution first. Meanwhile I'll continue making the map.
But maybe even before that we might wanna decide about "neutral" faction. How would we handle that? If a player just want to attack them would roll, and mark the changes on the map?
Also all players should edit the map, or just a "game master"?

>>38736
>Also all players should edit the map, or just a "game master"?
Every player edits the map on his turn.

Each territory has an assigned numerical value running from 1 to the number of territories. In the beginning through any random process each player gets [(number of players + 1)/number of territories] numbers, which become his starting territories, over each of which he gets a certain number, decently high, of starting troops. Starting territories are likely dispersed all over the globe, and consolidating them should be a challenge.
Surplus territories from rounding and the n+1th part of the map become independent territories, each one of which starts with a number of troops equal to its production * a certain parameter.
Each independent territory is its own independent power, though they have the same color on the map.
After all players have had their turn there is a brief independent territory turn (burden of calculation falls either to the last in line or the first) in which all they do is produce. That is done normally, each territory has a set output and all of the output turns into more of the independent power's units. However it does not grow infinitely but up to a force limit defined as a multiple of the territory's output/production value.

Independent powers launch attacks as part of a phase at the beginning of each player's turn, attacking territories if certain conditions (mainly strength ratios and width) are met. Thus every player on his turn has to check the possibility of invasion from independent powers and calculate its result. As it happens in the beginning he can react to it. Possibly this phase might be moved to the end of the turn to make it more chaotic.

Rebellions appear in random provinces in an interval I have yet to determine, and if victorious form new independent powers.

A new player can enter the game by taking over an independent power, starting from scratch with a single province.

>>38766
Wait. Let's see an example.
>Each territory has an assigned numerical value running from 1 to the number of territories.
Let's say there are 20 territories, each get a number from 1 to 20.
>In the beginning through any random process each player gets [(number of players + 1)/number of territories] numbers
Let's say there are 5 players. That means: (5+1) / 20 = 0,3?
Shouldn't that be the other way around? 20/(5+1) = 3(,33333)? So each player would get 3 territories? And the 5 which left, would become independent.

>>38780
>Shouldn't that be the other way around? 20/(5+1) = 3(,33333)?
Ah, yes.

>>38784
What purpose that frame serves?
Worry bear and the bong frog definitely. Maybe Heinrich, probably asking on Kohl for Heinrichs would give a result where at least one could be used. The one in SS uniform, that would be good.

>>38790
Forgot Japan. Gonna fix that ofc.

Access to Japonia is fixed.

>>38789
>What purpose that frame serves?

Don't you need a board to play it? If you have a better board, please let me know so we can use it. idk fam

>Worry bear and the bong frog definitely.
pls add a template or transparent pic and I will add them too fren

>Maybe Heinrich
Ahh, not too familiar with him. Sorry

We could also add Drachelord and Igor me thinks. I was also going to add Wojak later. I guess we can also add individual countries as well a la Polandball style

>>38806
>Don't you need a board to play it? If you have a better board, please let me know so we can use it. idk fam
It wasn't criticism, I'm curious what it is used for. I'm only (vaguely) familiar with one version of the game, but it had quite a few editions throughout the years.
>pls add a template or transparent pic and I will add them too fren
I'll see what can I do about it.

>>38790
>The territories need names and output numbers, if I understand it correctly.
They need a name - for consistency, the most populous city within them -, an output number - it's used for random determination so any method will do - an economic value/unit output and possibly an assigned continent, but I have not yet thought of how continents would be used. It also needs connections with other territories and each connection needs a width.

>>38784
As the map is shared in-board as a .png pieces might make things needlessly complicated. If it's right in the middle of a territory you can just wipe it away and paste a new one, but what if it's partially over a border? For simplicity I'd use splotches.

The protocol for a player's turn is the following phases:
0) Verify if neighboring independent powers can launch any offensive and calculate them if possible.

1) Issue attack orders, roll the dice and calculate results (everyone has the spreadsheet on hand). There are two orders available, "Attack" (unit moves into the territory if successful during Maneuver phase) and "Support Attack" (unit stays where it is regardless of Maneuver but otherwise contributes normally to calculation).

Orders must be submitted as:
[Attacking province] [Number of units] [Order type] -> [Attacked province]
Ex:
São Paulo 3 Support Attack -> Buenos Aires
Nuuk 1 Attack -> Reykjavik

2)Produce units. Territories conquered on phase 1 do not count for counting economic output. The economic output necessary for production must come from territories with a continuous connection through friendly territories to the final territory, but the "line of supply" can also be drawn through uncontrolled territories through which the player has Transit Rights.
The format is "[Territory] Build [Number of units]" Ex: "Perth Build 2".

3) Move units. Same restrictions of continuous territory apply. Format is "[Origin] Move [Number of units] -> [Destination]" Ex: Perth Move 1 -> Sydney

4) Grant Transit Rights to a specific player over specific territories for his following turn. Those allow him to trace movement and production through those territories. If earlier on phase 1 the receiving player attacked the granting player, he loses the Transit Rights.
The format is "[Territory] Transit Rights [Player]".
So a post must contain:
1)
[all orders]
2)
[all orders]
3)
[all orders]
4)
[all orders]

So are we still doing the RISK maps fam? Or did we kinda just lose all of the enthusiasm we had?

>>38923
Yeah I was kinda busy, still is to be honest, but we'll see what can we do about it. Still have to review the system BRBernd working on and make sure I understand it.

>>38810
>0) Verify if neighboring independent powers can launch any offensive and calculate them if possible.
How the player picks whom the independent attacks? What prevents a player using the independent to weaken a rival?
Well, among us, known posters I assume we could check which is the most feasible avenue of attack for the independent territory, without being (too) partial about it.
>everyone has the spreadsheet on hand
So we need to make a spreadsheet as well.
>Support Attack
I guess this order has a prerequisite: an Attack has to go against a neighbouring province they can join in.
>The economic output necessary for production must come from territories with a continuous connection through friendly territories to the final territory
What if there are several patches of land on the hand of a player? Do everyone has a capital, and only those areas count, which are connected to that?
>economic output
Is this simply a number which tells us how much unit can be produced on a territory? They just simply add up? Or there's a formula to that?
>Transit Rights
So this is kind of a diplomacy?
Also this is basically for moving units (from the territory they were produced, or stationed)?

Just for the curiosity' s sake, here's a rulebook for Risk.

>>38932
It's oge bernd. Start when everyone is good and ready. We'll be here

>>38976
>Just for the curiosity' s sake, here's a rulebook for Risk.

T. Hanks

>>38946
>How the player picks whom the independent attacks? What prevents a player using the independent to weaken a rival?
The player doesn't pick, it follows a strict set of rules, attacking if say, they can afford to outflank by a certain number,
>I guess this order has a prerequisite: an Attack has to go against a neighbouring province they can join in.
By name, yes, but not necessarily by mechanics. A player may want to make harassing attacks without committing to holding the captured territory, and this would require renaming it. Or leave it as it is, easier to understand and a player may send a single unit to Attack and all else as Support Attack.
>Do everyone has a capital, and only those areas count, which are connected to that?
No, as:
>What if there are several patches of land on the hand of a player?
Each produces and distributes units on its own.
>Is this simply a number which tells us how much unit can be produced on a territory? They just simply add up? Or there's a formula to that?
Simple addition. Risk usually has a bonus if some areas are held in their entirety.
Most simply every territory can have the same value, such as 1. Maybe some areas have more, like 3. For balance during pre-game territorial distribution there's a separate randomization for each production value, so each player gets 1 territory with a worth of 3 and 3 with a worth of 1 or something in this line.
>So this is kind of a diplomacy?
Yes, players will already be informally discussing truces and alliances (neither needs a specific mechanic, it's simply where the players decide to attack) anyway.
>Also this is basically for moving units (from the territory they were produced, or stationed)?
Yes.

Fresh findings on Kohl.

>>48424
>Northern Hungary
Someone is reading my posts here. I doubt many more people call her that.
Anyway. It's just Balkanization. How it would be decolonization.
>Overseas Department of Brazil
That's funny.

>>48427
>It's just Balkanization.
Right, apart from Ireland and, well, large part of the Balkans which actually unbalkanise lol
Of course, I imagine that's precisely the point: "two can play the decolonization game"

Just seen this on polru. I fell in love.

In the map I mean.

>>49778
Australia is landlocked, how does Britain dispatch its convicts to it?

>>49818
With trains.
I thought about adding a capital, but even the caption was fiddly coz I found no acceptable font-face for the job.