I've always thought the three-sided map made no sense. I mean, I understand the desire to have battle lines drawn so every opponent can attack every other opponent ...... and I understand that when there are 4 or more political territories involved that it's hard (if not impossible) to achieve this ... but ....
.... it should be obvious that a map with three political forces does little to achieve balance .... if balance is the goal. Oh sure, in theory if the numbers become lop-sided and one side gains numerical superiority, one may tend to think that the two smaller groups would band together for mutual protection ... but it is seldom that one force is so numerically superior, for one thing. Usually it's one force with numbers, another with numbers not much less and the third who's numbers have dropped long enough to assure it's demise. It's apparently more appealing to the majority to take advantage of a situation to overwhelm an opponent with less numbers to acheive the coveted reset, for another. Hell, it's generally a race to see which of the two sides with numbers on their side can do it first.
And yes, I've seen every side practice this. Apparently the perks earned from a reset are just too tempting to consider any other option than the the game of "AH Risk."
But it's always puzzled me to some extent as to why HiTech chose a three sided layout with chesspieces for "country" affiliations. Doesn't it seem to make more sense that with a name like "Aces High" that card suits are more fitting? And that being the case, that a four-sided map would fit in better? Not only as a fitting theme but as a better chance to achieve balance? Even if the map couldn't be designed where all four sides share a border with every other opponent (which I contend can be arranged if neutral areas are included as well), it seems to be a better chance of alliances of balance to exist in such a setup.
Then again .... things always seem to make sense before they are actually tried.
*ShruG*
