That's an interesting idea, but you'd have to figure out which territories were supply centers / how many you'd have to get to win etc.

you will have to add more oceanic regions. if you only place oceans where the normal cross-sections are, there are too many stalemates

Someone mentioned having planned this out and actually played a game of it several months ago. Maybe we can find the variant instructions lying around somewhere?

I've thought about this ever since I started playing not too long ago, but I can't remember even how to play Risk. My thought was to use the skills from Diplomacy and play Risk - but using risk rules. Can that be done or is it done all the time? I really don't remember how to play Risk at all. I only remember getting mad at the dice.

I've got friends who did that, took the risk game and just applied diplomacy theory. they still used dice though....thats why I love Diplomacy so much. I hate dice because they're completely random and eratic in their behavior. Diplomacy is a much more rational game.

Erratic and random? It simulates real-life conditions.

Like the russian winter. : )

no.....it's just annoying. I despise them.......

Using a risk board as the basis of a world-wide diplomacy variant is a cool idea. The risk map is already a proven winner. Every territory could be a SC. The home SC's would be the random starting territories, which is an excellent way to make even the normally less valuable Risk territories worth keeping. Get an Army or F per SC territory. Use chits to remember the home SC's. The Risk cards would still be gathered and could be handed in for ?? some type of bonus, an extra unit +1 unit per set previously handed in by that player, regardless of SC's owned by that player. More than one diplomacy unit could be on a territory; have a 2 or 3 unit max/territory. I agree with the earlier poster that the sea zones may need tweaking. Armies could move across sea zones without requiring a convoy using the normal risk sea movement lines. Called the "Sloan Risk variant".

Annoying as it may be, it adds a feeling of realism that diplomacy lacks.

well see there's a proper balance of chance and not chance. Risk is completely chance (as far as battles go) and diplomacy is completely not chance. I like solid, calculatable, battle scenarios. some people don't, but thats why I like Diplomacy so much more than risk.

There's no way that every territory could be an SC if you played Diplomacy on a Risk board. There would be too many stalemates and what not. I think it's a plausible idea, but you'd have to get a decent design of the SC's and the oceans.

@jman: That would be why I like Axis & Allies. It has that balance you're talkign about.

Sloan Risk Diplomacy variant - work in progress:
If all territories were SC's, then multiple units stacked per territory needs to be allowed to create flow of movement. Individual units within the same territory would be given seperate orders. Individual units holding in a single territory could both be supported together, as a territory, by a single order from an adjacent unit. Individual units moving together between the same two territories could likewise be supported by a single order from an adjacent unit.

Maybe instead of only one country's units allowed in a territory, multiple countries units can occupy a territory up to the maximum units allowed per territory. Civilization, Avalon Hill boardgame style (a different game than Sid Meir's Civilization computer game) Territories could move against or support against other countries units in the same territory. Maybe each territory could have a unique maximum number of units it was allowed to contain. That could introduce the historical flavour of differences in geography. eg Ukraine could contain 4-5 units while one of the Saharan African regions 1-2 units.

Alternatively, for less SC's than territories in the game: players pick their territories like normal Risk, but without placeing any units, get a number of home SC's, then allocate the home SC's to whichever territory they decided, every player chooses a territory for a home SC one at a time in random player order. Then lay down units one at a time in random player order, either a regulated mix of F's and A's, or players choose what they want. (maybe a unique historical country bonus as well, see below)

For historical flavour players could pick or be randomly assigned a historical country. (more choices could be available than players or even territories in the game; roleplay your favorite foreign government :P) The historical country could come with unique bonuses. eg extra SC; extra F, A or unit of choice; starting Risk card; the right to trade any territory for another at beginning of game or maybe even during the game a certain number of times; getting ownership of the historical country's territory on the board after all territories are chosen, so that some players may get or lose an additional territory (home SC's are not transferable in such a case and would need to be placed elsewhere by the owning player); building an unowned neutral A or F in an unspecified territory at the beginning of the game; the mix of starting units mentined above; etc.

Maybe instead of every territory is a SC, each player is also given a number of neutral SC's to lay on the board one at a time in random player order. A rule that they could not lay down a SC adjacent to their own unit/home SC/original teritory nor adjacent to a neutral SC prevously laid down by that player. (a game in itself) The neutral SC's could be laid down either before or after units were placed, whichever worked better or as optional rules for game variability. The unique bonuses for playing a historical country could include placing an extra neutral SC, removing/moving/ exchanging neutral SC's after they are all placed.

Units gained from Risk cards are placed at the end of the turn the Risk cards are handed in, not the beginning of the turn as in traditional Risk rules. (makes a good house rule when playing regular Risk too). SC reinforcements are during fall turn like regular Diplomacy.

From there, optional advanced rules, Machiavelli Diplomacy style rules, would be available to make an even more complex game.

A couple thoughts: Fleets would be a lot more important - since there are a lot more land bridges, armies can't simply march across and would need support from fleets.

Stalemates would be a LOT more common...

Sloan Risk Diplomacy variant:
Maybe the bonus for Risk cards would be to break stalemates. Write them into the orders that they are being used for attacking a territory and get bonuses to your total units involved. Maybe even win outright regardless of the number of units which you are using. Card sets could trump other card sets eg two soldiers and a cannon trumps 3 cavalry; one each cavalry, soldier, cannon trumps everything; 3 cavalry trumps 3 cannons but is trumped by 2 cannon and a cavalry (Charge of the Light Brigade rule); 3 soldiers trumps 3 cavalry and is trumped by 2 cavalry and a cannon or two soldiers and cavalry; etc. Two cards sets could result in either side winning or a draw. This also begins to place emphasis on the individual Diplomacy units being spheres of diplomatic influence, which includes military might, rather than literal armies and navies engaged in continueous warfare.

This is my map so far. I think it's ok. I'm not certain about rules yet and where the starting SC's are going to be or for that matter where any SC's are going to be. To clarify I'm going to use diplomacy pieces as the units.
http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=484428289&albumID=225042&imageID=941434

I think a half moon sea zone at the tip of Africa and Sth America to reflect difficulty of sea travel in those areas. A coastal sea zone running the border of every coastal territory. Maybe a coastal sea zone sandwiched underneath 2 adjacent coastal sea zones so that fleets in that zone are adjacent to two countries at once.
SC's could be a territory within a territory. Machiavelli Diplomacy has rules regarding forts I think would work. This helps with the problem of only 42 territories and not wanting every territory to have a SC.
F's will play a big role which I think is positive.

There are already a lot of well-designed "full-world" variants, why not try those first? Good variants are very hard to design, and with a full-world map they typically end up with twice as many players or more. Here I'm counting about 19 sets of rules available for global variants (there is even one that uses the Risk board, although the Variant Bank doesn't have a copy of the rules):

http://www.variantbank.org/results/classificationg.asp