Andy attacks Japan (and fails), then takes Quebec. He discovers that Alaska is vulnerable to attack from Kamchatka, so perhaps his territory choices weren't as good as he thought.
Jasmine attacks Congo, but does not take it.
It's Nate's turn again, and he gets busy attacking Andy's holdings, much to the latter's dismay, taking India to further secure Asia.
Reflection: so I, Andy had this idea that for turns in our game, we can have turns that last for as long as we want but at the risk of killing the person even more!
Alliances: Andy and Nate were going to ally against me (Lily) in Siam, but Andy balked after losing a couple soldiers, so it kinda fell apart. I currently have a truce with Jasmine in Africa and South America-- she attacks Andy instead of me, while I let her eradicate him in peace. Anyways, I'm thinking that having the opportunity for alliances and betrayals would be a good way to explore the group dynamics and psychology/sociology side of a board game.
Roundness: The earth is round, but Risk in on a flat board, leading Andy to believe that Alaska was a good choice for him to take (it wasn't particularly). If the game we make involves the earth at a global scale, like Risk, perhaps a spherical playing surface would actually be useful in preventing such confusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment