Talk:Risk 2210 A.D.

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Old Discussion (prior to June 8, 2007)

Aranduil 23:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC) I am new to editing Wikipedia articles, but saw the notice that this article could use some cleanup, so I started with something simple and removed the use of 'you', as well as making a few other small changes. I plan to make more updates, if no one else does, as I learn more about Wikipedia style. One thing I didn't know what to do about yet is what to list as verifiable sources for an article like this that includes information about the strategy of a game.[reply]

Aranduil 03:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC) I have been bogged down by work and don't know when I will get a chance to work on this article again.[reply]

Lovok 13:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)I am tempted to add a little backround for the choices of the renaming. It'll mostly be OR though, but it is a fact that Quebec tried to seperate once before, and that Alberta has considered it, due to its oil profits. Also, rain forests in Brazil which is now a desert hints at the exploitation. Things like this could be mentioned.. but they aren't all that important.[reply]

A new start at cleaning up the article (as of June 8, 2007)

Duckingham 00:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Hey, I'm not sure if anyone still has this page on their watchlist or not. I've been an avid 2210 player since it came out and would like to help clean up this article. I'm going to start a basic to-do list here. I'll work on tackling it, but if anyone has any ideas for what I'm hitting, or any reasons why I shouldn't change something, please post something here so we can talk through it.[reply]

Duckingham 13:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC) I'm doing the rewrite of this page in a personal sandbox page. User:Duckingham/sandbox risk 2210 a.d. I merely post this reference so you can look at my progress if you want, please don't make modifications there, add discussion here.[reply]

Duckingham 13:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC) I've also reorganized this page so that discussion resembles that on other pages, and it is a little more navigable. I chunked the old stuff under an "old stuff" heading", added this category here for my explanation of what I've been doing to cleanup, and listed some of the main topics I intend to hit below. Oh, and there was one post somebody had made that I deleted because it was redundant and unsigned. If it was yours, please feel free to restore it but PLEASE sign it so I know if anybody is currently watching and trying to collaborate! Thanks![reply]

donbar 26 July 2007 Can we add a comparison section for the 2 different versions of 2210? I understand there is the original Risk 2210 version and the latest remake is the small box version referred to as Risk 2210 Revised on some 'for-sale' websites. I don't know exactly what the differences are (if any) as there are no user reviews. I'm guessing that maybe the smaller box has a smaller game board?

Yes, planning to do that at some point, I was trying to track down when exactly the transition was. Here's the basic gist: originally 2210 was released in the rectangular box. Then later, apparently as a cost savings, they re-released it in the square box. All the pieces are the same except that all the cardboard pieces (energy, turn markers, etc.) are only printed on one side instead of two, and the game board, splits differently, though it is the same dimensions: basically, instead of folding into fourths it folds into sixths. The rectangular box is no longer avaialable retail, though many of the on-line stores that have sold it since day one are still displaying the rectangular box design - causing some frustration for customers. Duckingham 17:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Paragraph added now. If anyone can track down a source for WHEN the change was made - I'm thinking it was either in conjunction with the release of Godstorm, or the changing of hands somewhere between Avalon Hill/Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast. - A lot happenned and I don't completely follow the timeline, though it is discussed elsewhere in wikipedia. Duckingham 17:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

2013 More Cleaning (as of August 23, 2012)

EditedSeven 16:27, 23 August 2013: I am rather new to this Wikipedia editing thing. However, I have a special place in my heart for risk and its variants. I changed the Setup Section to be more like that in the standard risk article. Additionally, I updated the turn order section by adding the auction style link and better explaining how turn order is achieved.

EditedSeven 8:38, 30 August 2013: I actually feel like the whole setup of this page is incorrect. There is enough complexity a single players turn that I think it deserves it own heading, as done in the standard risk game. I am going to eliminate the "Play" section heading and create three section headings of the same level; Setup, Player turn, and Ending game. I plan to place several subsection in the player turn section; turn overview, Reinforcements of MODs and Collection of Energy, obtaining commanders and space station, buying and playing commander cards, invasion of territories, and Fortifying. I might not get to all of that today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.49.130 (talk)

EditedSeven 8:38, 30 August 2013: ok, so I got pretty much everything done except the sections about invasion and fortifying. that will be coming later then, i will do some general cleaning of the article. but i need to head off to work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.119.243 (talk)

EditedSeven 8:33, 31 August 2013: Congrats everyone. I think I have successfully transformed this article into something that is more readable. A few notes that I would like to make.

1. I think a strategy section should exist, but I haven't played the game so many times that I feel qualified. 2. We still need better pictures, the map is inaccurate.

However, I think now a person could at least understand how the game is played, if he had the unfortunate circumstance of buying this game without the manual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.2.122 (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation

- there ain't none.
a. a lot can be referenced from the rules which are linked to.
b. FAQ's can be referenced from the WOtC site, too. c. Since Lovokhad mentioned it (above), I'll point out that there is some documentation on the why's and wherefore's of some of the names in the FAQ section of the WOtC website. Duckingham 13:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

I should be able to do these.
a. Would like a close up of the commanders and the MODs.
b. Maybe an overview picture of the decks of cards. show the tops, but don't take up a ton of space.

Renamed Territories

would like to have a comparison list?
What they were called on the Classic map vs. 2210 map

Turn limit paragraph

I feel this paragraph is biased. IMHO the last player on year 5 tends to win only when the preceding players aren't smart enough to pummel him before he gets his chance.

differences from Classic Risk

a. Could be explained better.
b. There is also a great deal of redundancy between this section and the stated above section, "comparison to Risk"

Invade Earth

Probably should write a separate article on the Invade Earth computer game.

That's a good idea but is it really worth it now that Invade Earth no longer works since the latest Java security updates? 1.126.106.186 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It says now the problems was he needed a security certificate and he got one so is that still true? I can't test now as I am on a Chromebook without Java. Elemming (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Items Extracted from the previous version of the article

I'm extracting most of this info, since it is biographical on Rob & Craig and should be included in articles on them, not on Risk 2210:

The designers are Rob Daviau (who also designed Axis and Allies: Pacific, Buffy The Vampire Slayer: The Game and some Star Wars games, including The Queen's Gambit and Star Wars Epic Duels) and Craig Van Ness (who designed Stratego: Legends, Roller Coaster Tycoon, Buffy... and other games).

Strategy

Hey Craw-Daddy, I see that you've recently started editing this article, too. Nobody had touched it for a loooong time, and there are a number of problems with it that I've worked on cleaning up the last coupla weeks in my spare time, but I'm a fairly new editor at wikipedia, so please feel free to let me know anything you think I've goofed on. I just figured out the to-do list feature, after having gone through and listed as topics a bunch of the problem areas. I'm going to work on cleaning out the topics and putting them into the to-do list, or incorporating them straight into the article. And yes, by the way, the "strategy" section needs to be completely redone. I've played hundreds of games of 2210, and I felt that the Strategy section was written by someone who had only played a few games. I think it needs to be re-written to reflect strategy mentioned primarily in the rules and FAQs that are both available from WotC. Any thoughts? Duckingham 13:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the {{OriginalResearch}} tag to the Strategy section since it certainly sounded like original research. I've play 2210 A.D. a couple of times but don't have my copy of the game with me (and it's been a while since played). As you likely know by now, Wikipedia isn't supposed to have original research in it. So if you can point to previously published articles for strategy, then feel free to add references to that. In general though, I think you're supposed to avoid referencing blogs and similar such sites, but online magazines should be fine, and I would think that an FAQ from WotC would also be OK to reference. Craw-daddy 08:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map Mistakes

The connection between Nuevo Timoto (#4 in South America) and New Atlantis (#3 in US Pacific) is missing on the map.

The American Republic (#4) should connect to Neo Paulo (#2). At least, this is in the version I've played that my mate owns. The connection line appears to be missing on the map.

1.126.48.204 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The connection between American Republic (#4 in North America) and New York City (#2 in Northern Atlantic) is missing on the map.

"the picture shows that Egypt is the only African country to have a connection with Middle East." However, the map below it shows an obvious connection from Djibouti. I don't have a copy of the game, so I can't tell you which one of these is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.147.17 (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike in the original Risk, in Risk 2210, the Ministry of Djibouti (#2 in Africa) and the Middle East (#7 in Asia) should NOT be connected. 1.126.106.186 (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed this. Ggdivhjkjl (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Map

Should a map of the Moon's territories be added to this article? Ggdivhjkjl (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]