Risk Analysis: Game Length and Elimination

So much for a consistent schedule… Here is today’s (or two weeks ago’s) topic:

“The game can stretch out for a long time, and often players are eliminated and thus left out of the game.”

Every time someone suggests playing Risk, the picture that forms in my mind is one of a board full of plastic pieces. I know the game has progressed quite far, only two – maybe three – players are left. The other players have been eliminated or given up after hours of tiring tug-of-war, and if there still is a third player left, he is being chewed up by his two larger adversaries. Soon the final battle between the titans will stand – who wins seems more determined by chance now that the differences in army production are so small. Even combinations of Risk cards will not tip the scale noticeably, even though early in the game they decided which players were going to be eliminated. Just before I start to panic, I snap back to reality; and we decide not to play Risk, ever.

The length of Risk could be bearable if only it were not for the fact that the game is quite shallow with few interesting mechanics, and that players can be eliminated early, and then would have a number of hours to kill until the next session (if there will be one!). In many Euro/German-style board games such as Settlers of Catan, player elimination does not exist. It works fine for a less conflict-inclined game, but for a war game, where the main purpose is vanquishing your enemy, making elimination impossible would be rather dull. In addition, imagining having only a few territories left that your opponents cannot conquer because of the absence of player elimination. You would have little chance of rising up once again and challenging the other players. Thus, you sit there, recruit a few soldiers, only to be squashed by the boot of a more powerful player when you try to expand.
That is not to say that player elimination should be encouraged. Adding a rule giving a defensive bonus to players who own fewer than a set number of territories would protect weaker nations while the bigger players fight amongst themselves for more easily attainable areas.

To avoid having players eliminated out of the game, you could actually end the game when a player is defeated. Some kind of score system would then be needed to declare the winner, though it could be something simple such as number of territories or maybe something more unfamiliar to Risk: victory points. This rule would of course make the strongest/leading player want to eliminate the weakest player as fast as possible, as he would then win instantly. However, he would have to face the heightened defensive capabilities of that player, and other players would certainly not want a player eliminated until they were the one with the most territories, points, et alia. Still, ending the game with a player defeat should be an exception rather than a rule. There must be other ways of victory than beating the weakest player senseless.

If we strive for a maximum length for a game of Risk of approximately two hours, the goal of the game must be more easily attainable. Alternavely, the game could be decided only to go on for a set number of turns, and then end with a score comparison.
The method used in some variants of Risk are objectives. Each player is given an objective, secret or public, and must fulfil it in order to win the game. I would prefer another varation on this rule. A problem with each player having her own objective is that some players may have an easier time completing their objectives if there are fewer or no competitors in that mission “niche”. Therefore, a more interesting way of handling mission would be to have all players competing for the same mission card, or maybe even mission cards. Objectives written on cards are shuffled into a deck, and some are placed faced up on the table. Once a player completes a objective, he gets the card. After all cards are played, the player with the most cards wins. The game length could be adjusted by the size of the deck; when the deck has been depleted, the game ends. This has been done in Starcraft: The Boardgame, the pace and length of the game is decided by a slowly shrinking deck of “Event cards”.

But what kinds of objective should be printed on these cards? Care would have to be taken in order to prevent objectives that are easy for one player to win easily (e. g. control Western Europe), or that involve player elimination. The missions would of course be easier for some players to complete, but if there is competition between even just two players, things will heat up (for example capture and hold Western Europe for five consecutive turns). I am sure a lot of different missions could be designed if I put my mind into it, but I will have to end this post now. Next week (I hope) I will discuss the importance of luck/chance elements in Risk and other games.