Petition to remove East Africa-Middle east connection

AndrewLC · Post by **AndrewLC** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:35 am

Keep the connection! It's on my Risk board.

mango · Post by **mango** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:41 am

it should't be there, cause only moses can cross the red sea

RexRegis · Post by **RexRegis** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 4:54 pm

Caleb the Cruel wrote:I vote for NO CONNECTION, it confused me when I started playing here at CC

I have heard many different versions of this now..
on my risk board it isn't...
on my risk board it is....
I thought that it was...
I didn't think it was...

and so on...

USE YOUR EYES !!!
there are so many topics about things arn't the way people want it or are used to it. but if you just use your eyes or logic mind you'll se everything clear.

sfhbballnut · Post by **sfhbballnut** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 9:12 pm

There are boards that have it and others that don't. I think it should stay, without it not only would africa have great positioning as it always does, but it would be easily held. Its only an attack away from asia, europe, and south america, and only three from north america, and 4 from austrailia, add that to it only two bondries, ridiculous.

ttocs · Post by **ttocs** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 10:03 pm

mango wrote:it should't be there, cause only moses can cross the red sea

Well as long as they use the sinai peninsula, ANY sized army can cross.

sfhbballnut · Post by **sfhbballnut** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 10:48 pm

very true, that's how the Egyptians fell, but east africa doesn't include the Sinai peneinsula and that's the spot in question

Jamie · Post by **Jamie** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:47 am

Have you all lost your mind. I have a risk game, two in fact, an old one from the 90's, and a current one, and in both, Middle East connects to Africa. I looked at both boards 30 seconds before I wrote this. The dotted lines are clear as day. It should not be removed because, the regular board game includes it. I agree that it's a stupid border, since Africa's only worth three, but you can't change it, or it wouldn't be "classic" anymore.

ttocs · Post by **ttocs** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:52 pm

well think about it, somehow armies can easily cross the atlantic and pacific ocean easily, but they can't cross a few miles of sea!?!? Face it, if you have it without the border, Africa would be the easiest continent to hold with all three borders connected, that is the reason they made it have the borders together, if you lose a border it is so much easier to get Africa back.

zarvinny · Post by **zarvinny** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:17 pm

for all of you who use the argument that they are REALLY CLOSE and that you SHOULD be able to cross, and those who say its "classic" and thats how it is on my board, there are also those who do not wish for the gameplay to be sacrificed as a result of it.

So here is my proposal!

Egypt, in the old days, stretched far down the Nile River into Nubia. So, my suggestion is to simply stretch egypt back down to what it was in its prime, effectively shrinking east africa. Maybe call it the Egyptian Kingdom if you will.

This will do several things: The connection will stay, since they are almost connected anywayz. But since middle east won't be able to attack east africa, the game play won't be sacrificed.

OR

Make Africa worth 4.

South America is 2 borders, 4 countries 2 bonus.
North America is 3 borders, 9 countries 5 bonus
Africa will have 3 borders, 6 countries, 4 bonus.

Effectively, 3 less countries for one more bonus. Also, North America generally has 2 contested borders: central america and greenland, while all 3 of africa's borders are contested.

What does ya'll say?

ttocs · Post by **ttocs** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:57 pm

well.. I think that the current map they have is the best choice, it is equally balenced, and you can't mess with tradition. Besides, having two borders connected on the same continent makes it so easy to hold, because it would be easy to guard, you might as well hand it to south america since it would be easy for SA to take it, and the borders are connected, so it would be so easy to get your continent back if only one border was breached.

nascarfan38124 · Post by **nascarfan38124** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:18 am

i voted no in favor of the removal because my board doesent have it

and i think it is much more fun without it

cramill · Post by **cramill** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:27 am

Ok people, stop your complaining about the conncection existing. Here's something from the rules from the International RISK torunament:

In the official version of RISK, East Africa and Middle East connect. It has been brought to our attention that newer versions of the game have omitted this connection!
Note: The International RISK Tournament Of Champions uses official boards!

Verdict: the connection should stay.

ttocs · Post by **ttocs** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:52 pm

thanks cramill.

General Mayhem · Post by **General Mayhem** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:35 am

NO WAY!!!! I HAVE AN ANCIANT CIRCA 1975 RISK BOARD!

The connection IS there. Keep it there.

It makes sense. In the real world they could attack each other easily as its a small stretch of water. So it should be in Risk and CC.

Freetymes · Post by **Freetymes** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:02 am

KEEP IT!!!

ttocs · Post by **ttocs** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:11 pm

General Mayhem wrote:NO WAY!!!! I HAVE AN ANCIANT CIRCA 1975 RISK BOARD!

The connection IS there. Keep it there.

It makes sense. In the real world they could attack each other easily as its a small stretch of water. So it should be in Risk and CC.

I have a board from 1975 and it has the border, SO KEEP IT, anyway it is official rules

sfhbballnut · Post by **sfhbballnut** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:49 pm

leave it as it is, but I know for a fact that threre are versions of risk without it, I got mine a few years ago and it does not have the connection

Petition to remove East Africa-Middle east connection

Should East Africa be able to attack Middle East and vice-versa?

What are you all talking about???