Last weekend, I played “Risk” – the classic board game of world domination, which I remember playing as a child. If you have never played it before, you can read up on rules and game play at GameRules.
© Jorge Royan / http://www.royan.com.ar
Aside from disagreeing with the concept of warfare, we found a key issue when just two of us played. After only two turns, the game was pretty much decided and there was no catching up. In my case, I kept thinking: Lack of luck or lack of skill? Given that rolling dice is a major part of the game, I can blame the outcome on (bad) luck, but I think there is more to it. I guess, it was a bit of both.
However, when we analysed the game after completing the final round, we both agreed that the winning move was the first move. Simply playing first provided a significant advantage. From then on, it was hard to change the outcome. This is less of a problem with three or more players since the players who are lagging behind can always gang up against the leader and thereby create a more level playing field. However, this self balancing is not possible with just two players.
Mario Kart is known for it’s “rubber banding”, a type of “dynamic game difficulty balancing,” which allows a player who is falling behind to catch up and a leader to not get too far ahead. It’s a hit with players since it appears to make the game fairer and therefore more fun for everyone.
Ever since playing Risk, I keep thinking about how I would change the game for a 2-player set up. One possibility is to add a new feature. We could introduce a bad weather feature for the leader of each round. Another option would be to remove a feature such as the additional armies if you own a whole continent.
What would you change in this game to balance it better in the 2-player version?