Hum, sorry if I'm being misunderstood on one point. About "building and housing" units, setting places and so on, I'm not contradicting that part. I think it's a good source of inspiration actually. I'm worrying that it's too complex, but that's about it and probably can be tweaked.
Since some were in favor of "just" increasing the range of defenders, I'm just stating "just that" does not work, at least for me.
2 minor points here:
- I hate the combat system in risk, the way troop movement is handled, and the elimination system. So I'm probably not the best person to speak about that part. If taking units into account, I think SBR could take inspiration from games like Rune wars, with other AIs fulfulling the role of other players.
- I think that Chris went for unitless, and this implements units.
Documentation (for those that don't know the game):
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/59294/runewars=>The victory conditions not tied to the elimination of others. Actually it's tied to "capturing" some artefacts, which grant you victory when you control 6 of them. They can be gotten via quests, military conquest (as they are tied to a territory, capturing enemy territory can capture them) and some other conditions.
Runewars "wars" are set via orders. On a very short explanation, basically on a turn you "target" places and you move available units. This is rather similar to what you said Rythe. There is a limit of unit per territory which is there to prevent massive amount of troops at available places and a limit of the quantity of each kind of troops (to prevent anyone from controlling the whole map). It's still possible to "concentrate" troops when attacking but, but "survivors" have to respect the "limitation / territory" otherwise they move back (and die if there is no place to move back, if I remember well, it's been a while since I played).
This basically means that the attacker is "winning" if it concentrates troops, but the movement mechanic and limitation / territory means that attacking creates flaws in your defense for counter attacks if you concentrate too much. Also there is no point controlling every part of the map as it's not a victory condition in the first place.
Adapting it to SBR could mean a change to the territory mechanics, with the possibility of leaving them, conquering them, and having a "faction-capped" (with research ?) limit of "units". "Units" are necessary to control a territory, so if you overexpand, you're vulnerable. Then have diplomacy limit the quantity of attacks and movement. It would also require that the "core" of any faction can't be captured (but that doesn't mean it can't be subdued). To do that I'd propose a split between "core" territories where you can actually build and "held" territories, from which you extract resources, and can conquer things, but can't build. With a rather "low" limitation of the number of "core" territories" and a limitation of "held" territories by your "units".
(The Runewar system is a bit more complex than this, but it's been a while since I played that game. The rules are available online though).