Metanet Forums

Everyone knows that this game is win. I really love this game, I even have rough strategies devised for various situations, depending on which starting countrys I get. There is nothing more satisfying than winning a 7 hour risk game :D

Any other risk fans here? discuss!
:)

Me! A big fan. I used to play up to 12 hours with my friends, best strategy-board game ever.

Hell yes. I own face at Risk.

Thing is, my primary exposure to Risk is through a very simple reproduction of it on my computer called TurboRisk. It's local only (as opposed to multiplayer over a network) but supports bot players. You can write your own bot scripts, but generally the ones it comes with and the ones easily found online can be ridiculously challenging (especially fucking Descartes... that dude never dies unless you seek him out at the start of the game). I've developed pretty much all of my strategy by playing countless games like this, at the rate and frequency that a bored secretary goes through games of Solitaire.

Of the few games of Risk I actually played in person, though, I found that I talk considerably less than other players at the table. My only focus is on involving myself in enough diplomacy that I'm not ganged up on, because I know I can win a completely silent game.

Brazil and West Africa are the key territories, given that you're playing on the classic board.

Tsukatu wrote:Of the few games of Risk I actually played in person, though, I found that I talk considerably less than other players at the table. My only focus is on involving myself in enough diplomacy that I'm not ganged up on, because I know I can win a completely silent game.

Yes.

The silent game is actually winnable. Not really through an evaluation of the eponymous quality of gameplay--no. Through memorizing strategy, really. The game is at its best when it's played socially. That might be why Diplomacy is a slightly superior game.

It's interesting. My roommate and I were just talking about this the other day.

I play Risk a fair bit with my dad and a few friends. We have the classic, 40-year-old gameboard, and I tend to go for the Americas first before expanding through Africa into Europe, if I get the chance to do what I want. But seriously, it's a great game.

I almost always go for the southern hemisphere. Australia is awesome, and so is south america if you get africa as well. The other guys your playing with will usually be more worried about getting the massive areas of the board, allowing you to dominate the south, which means as long as you control one territory in east europe, west europe and north america, you overwhelm the enem... friends.

KlanKaos wrote:We have the classic, 40-year-old gameboard

ahah, same. I also have LOTR risk, which is suprisingly more strategic than normal risk, due to the fact certain territories have abilitys (such as -1 on the attackers rolls), as well as 'heros' and special cards...

blue_tetris wrote: The silent game is actually winnable. Not really through an evaluation of the eponymous quality of gameplay--no. Through memorizing strategy, really. The game is at its best when it's played socially. That might be why Diplomacy is a slightly superior game.

Yeah... The only problem with risk is that I get a bit too serious about it sometimes. Luckily I manage to mask my serious strategys with some chat, so fortunatly none of my friends now think I'm a dick when I play risk, they just assume I'm incredibly lucky :3 fu fu fu. Little do they know...

Also having some kind of game console is necessary for most games of risk, seeing as 12 hours of solid risk isn't everyones cup of tea.

blue_tetris wrote:That might be why Diplomacy is a slightly superior game.

I prefer Diplomacy over Risk. There are no dice involved in diplomacy, the game is a little simpler in terms of mechanics, and it is a game that is almost impossible to win silently. You really need allies to accomplish anything.

On the other hand, I do enjoy Risk, and have played a few different variations on it.

Aphex wrote:I almost always go for the southern hemisphere. Australia is awesome, and so is south america if you get africa as well. The other guys your playing with will usually be more worried about getting the massive areas of the board, allowing you to dominate the south, which means as long as you control one territory in east europe, west europe and north america, you overwhelm the enem... friends.

Getting Australia is in the first things I would do. Also don't forget to take over sourthern Asia, if not, you will be trapped in Australia. Getting all Asia is almost impossible -I didn't saw anyone who did so far- but I like Northern America too. It's awesome.

Tunco123 wrote:Getting Australia is in the first things I would do.

I knew someone would say that and I hate you for it.

flagmyidol wrote:

Tunco123 wrote:Getting Australia is in the first things I would do.

I knew someone would say that and I hate you for it.

I agree. My mom always goes for Australia and it pisses me off.

flagmyidol wrote:

Tunco123 wrote:Getting Australia is in the first things I would do.

I knew someone would say that and I hate you for it.

Why? It's a damned good strategy. My first move is almost always to take over either Australia and park my ass on the bottleneck that is Siam, or South America and keep my forces in North Africa and Central America. Then I grow out of those.
Australia and South America are the best continents to start off owning because they have the fewest places to defend. Australia is very easy to hold because you can just concentrate all of your forces in Siam, but South America has the simple tradeoff of an additional bottleneck for access to a second way to expand immediately.

Just about every game I've played well followed a rise through the following hierarchy.

Good starting points:
Australia: 1 route to defend, access to 1 continent
South America: 2 routes to defend, access to 2 continents

Gambit for power:
North America: 3 routes to defend, access to 3 continents
Africa: 3 routes to defend, access to 3 continents

Road to victory:
Europe: 4 routes to defend, access to 3 continents
Asia: 5 routes to defend, access to 4 continents

Anyone who tries to start with control of Asia or Europe is practically guaranteed to fail. The overwhelming majority of the games I've played end in Asia and Europe.

Yeah, but it's so boring to go for Australia.

I agree it's a good strategy, but I don't like it for that reason. You can just chill in Siam and you've got one country to pack yourself into then collect cards until you feel like a bit of expansion. It just bores me. I prefer to take the Americas first, myself, then expand into Africa and Europe, then Asia, and leave Australia for last.

KlanKaos wrote:Yeah, but it's so boring to go for Australia.
I agree it's a good strategy, but I don't like it for that reason.

o_o
*blink* *blink*

Some people play games for fun, Sook.

You know, a fundamental aspect of game design is that victory and entertainment should involve the same process.

blue_tetris wrote:Some people play games for fun, Sook.

You know, a fundamental aspect of game design is that victory and entertainment should involve the same process.

Sure, but what part of choosing an intentionally stupid strategy so that you'll die early on and be out of the game for the latter 75% is fun?
Having fun and playing the game effectively are not mutually exclusive.

I find that sticking hundreds of army units in Madagascar is funny. Other people don't. I'm always the last to die.

Tsukatu wrote:

flagmyidol wrote:

Tunco123 wrote:Getting Australia is in the first things I would do.

I knew someone would say that and I hate you for it.

Why? It's a damned good strategy. My first move is almost always to take over either Australia and park my ass on the bottleneck that is Siam, or South America and keep my forces in North Africa and Central America. Then I grow out of those.
Australia and South America are the best continents to start off owning because they have the fewest places to defend. Australia is very easy to hold because you can just concentrate all of your forces in Siam, but South America has the simple tradeoff of an additional bottleneck for access to a second way to expand immediately.

Just about every game I've played well followed a rise through the following hierarchy.

Good starting points:
Australia: 1 route to defend, access to 1 continent
South America: 2 routes to defend, access to 2 continents

Gambit for power:
North America: 3 routes to defend, access to 3 continents
Africa: 3 routes to defend, access to 3 continents

Road to victory:
Europe: 4 routes to defend, access to 3 continents
Asia: 5 routes to defend, access to 4 continents

Anyone who tries to start with control of Asia or Europe is practically guaranteed to fail. The overwhelming majority of the games I've played end in Asia and Europe.

If someone has control all over Asia and fails first. That's a fact. Well, not if you mastered the game.

Tsukatu wrote:

blue_tetris wrote:Some people play games for fun, Sook.

You know, a fundamental aspect of game design is that victory and entertainment should involve the same process.

Sure, but what part of choosing an intentionally stupid strategy so that you'll die early on and be out of the game for the latter 75% is fun?
Having fun and playing the game effectively are not mutually exclusive.

Risk is serious business. I usually have fun winning, and using strategy, though I'm not sure if the people I play with find my slaughter fun... Then again, if people don't like it, they usually team up, which means they'll have fun trying to stop their inevitable demise.

Aah, Risk. One of the games I got that no-one will play...

I hate living in a hamlet...

Risk is fun, my friends are the worst losers so we usually dont finish the game cause someone flips the board in anger =\ Has anyone played axis and allies?? It's like risk but on steroids haha. Ive onley played it with my cousins, i don't dare play with my friends.

Aphex wrote:Risk is serious business. I usually have fun winning, and using strategy, though I'm not sure if the people I play with find my slaughter fun...

It's all about attitude. I've done well enough in the art of kicking people's asses and having them love me for it.

Dave has never lost at risk ever, and he never/always uses Australia.

Tsukatu wrote:

KlanKaos wrote:Yeah, but it's so boring to go for Australia.
I agree it's a good strategy, but I don't like it for that reason.

o_o
*blink* *blink*

That didn't come out right.

I meant I agree it's a good strategy, but I don't like it because it bores me, not because it's good. I win a reasonable amount of games other ways, and they're far more interesting than Australia.

KlanKaos wrote:

Tsukatu wrote:

KlanKaos wrote:Yeah, but it's so boring to go for Australia.
I agree it's a good strategy, but I don't like it for that reason.

o_o
*blink* *blink*

That didn't come out right.

I meant I agree it's a good strategy, but I don't like it because it bores me, not because it's good. I win a reasonable amount of games other ways, and they're far more interesting than Australia.

Yes. Usually when I get Australia, it feels like I'm not in the game, because it only has connection with South Asia, not much action you can do.