Risk: My kid is finally doing schoolwork I can help her with

[dropzone]

"I did what you told me to do. I moved out of South America and am building up my forces in Africa before I attack Europe."

"You should've tried to hold South America longer. Did you keep Brazil to protect your rear?"

"Of course."

"Consolidate Africa before you do anything else. Kiss off any isolated countries you still have so you don't lose any more armies than you have to. Do the rules you play by permit airlifts? If they do, pull all of the armies but one out of those countries. Try to take back South America. It's not good for a lot of armies but it's better than nothing and if you hold both it and Africa it's easy to defend. Make an alliance with whoever holds North America against who owns Asia but keep your countries in northern South America well staffed in case he turns on you or you decide to turn on him. No alliance is permanent and only one person can win the game."

I took four years of German and in her second semester she knows more than I. I can't help with her Biology or Algebra. But her combined World History and English class is different and now that they are playing Risk in class I'm in my element.

[bouv]

I suck at Risk, but have leanred one thing in my many years of playing with a guy in college who was usualyl worse than me:

NEVER TRY TO TAKE AUSTRALIA!

He always tried to take it, and usuallu did...and then was stuck there forever. He would almost abandon his other armies to concentrate on that lone continent, because in his mind, it was the perfect place, cause it has but one point of entry.

"But Scott," I'd say, "that also means but one way out! You always get trapped in there and die a slow death while two or thre big players duke it out!"

"This time is different!" he would retort.


Ahhh...good times. I usually went for N. America. Only three points of entry, a a fair amount of armies gained, and it's super easy to then take S. America, as you don't gain any more points of entry, you just change the locale of one of them. never try to take Europe or Asia, you'll jsut get burned.

[Munch]

[quote=dropzone"You should've tried to hold South America longer. Did you keep Brazil to protect your rear?"[/QUOTE]
Nope. If she retreated from S. America, then holding Brazil is a bad move - you can be attacked from 3 different countries in that position. It's better to back out into W. Africa to limit your surface area, or push for control of all of S. America.

S. America and Africa is the way to go for me. Then you make a run for Europe, as you can then control 3 continents with a total of 4 entry points (M. East, Ukraine, Iceland and the northern SA country).

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by bouv

I suck at Risk, but have leanred one thing in my many years of playing with a guy in college who was usualyl worse than me:

NEVER TRY TO TAKE AUSTRALIA!

I would disagree with this strongly. My main strategy was to always attempt to take Australia first. It's the easiest continent to defend, and it gives you the same benefit as holding South America (which has two entry points). Each turn, you add a minimum of five armies to your ranks. After a couple of turns, lying low, you're ready to begin spreading your influence into Asia, and possibly Africa or North America.

The added benefit of Australia is that it butts up against Asia -- tactically the strongest continent, but also the one hardest to control. So you rarely have a superpower bludgeoning you on your border, because almost nobody controls Asia for more than one turn until the end of the game.

If I can't get Australia, I go for South America. Whenever I get one of those two continents nailed down, I begin working on North America. If I have a large portion of Africa, I'll go for it, but it's surprisingly hard to control -- I think there are something like five entry points, which is a ridiculous hazard to run for a payoff of only three armies.

Europe and Asia are the stomping grounds, to be avoided until you have amassed enough armies to invade the entire area in a single turn, or sufficiently overpower the entrenched forces to make any attempt at a counterattack feeble at best.

[Munch]

I should caution against the "avoid Asia and Europe" trend. Some people play where you choose your starting positions, by placing an army in turn (rather than dealing out the cards to determine starting positions). I once got the entirety of Europe, as my opponents scrambled for N. America, S. America, Australia and Africa. When I secured it, I asked, "When do I start collecting my bonus armies?" - they were dumbfounded.

[Push You Down]

In high school my friend and I played RISK all the time and developed such a complex and rigid set of rules that I can't play with other groups. It just turns into "What do you mean I can't send one army per turn from Western Austraila to South Africa? We have boats!" or "What are you doing? That army already attacked this turn! they need time to resupply and solidify their hold on the region."


Our greatest achievement was kiping a large world map from a class room and playing a game on it.

[N9IWP]

If you play by the rapid card advancement rules, Austrailia is OK., Becuse you attack a border territory to gain a card, then retreat with all but one army. Hopefully someone will kill that 1 army and then you repeat. Tho its hard to take over another continent from Austrailia.

But South Amarica is better. because you can use the same strategy. Also, you can fairly easily prevent someone from holding N America. Eventually you turn in your cards and take over N. America.

Brian

[ShibbOleth]

My son got Risk as a Christmas present, but I swear, sometime in the past 30 years they changed all the rules. They've added new stuff and possibly deleted some old. Does anyone know when this happened (if I am in fact not mistaken)?

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by Push You Down

Our greatest achievement was kiping a large world map from a class room and playing a game on it.

"KIPE?" Where are you from?

Man, it's been a LONG time since I heard that word. So long that it finally left my vocabulary. I think it's time to bring it back.

[Chronos]

If you start off with a country in Australia, and nobody else is building up heavily in the area, sure, take it. But it cannot be your primary base, and if you find yourself spending more than two armies a turn to defend it, it's not paying off for you.

Personally, I prefer to make South America my main base. It's only worth as much as Australia, true, and there are two points to defend, but they're right next to each other, so they can reinforce each other easily, and you can generally take North America fairly easily from there. North America is worth as much as Europe, but it's much easier to hold, since you only need to defend three points (one of which you already have, in South America). Once you have both Americas, you've basically won the game: You're getting seven armies a turn, plus whatever your territory total is, and if you're deployed forward (that is, defending North Africa, Iceland, and Kamchatka, instead of Brazil, Greenland, and Alaska), then nobody else can hold a continent (except for puny little Australia, but whoever went for Australia is now thoroughly trapped).

I wouldn't worry too much about the added "surface area" from deploying forward, since both of your neighbors at each point are likely to be controlled by the same player, which means that you're still only getting attacked by however much one player can afford to spend on you.

But of course, if you're playing against human opponents, the biggest part of the game is diplomacy. You'll have to make at least one enemy, of course, but try to make it someone you can get out of your neighborhood. That way, if they try to get back at you, they'll have to go through someone else to do it. On the same token, Madagascar, Argentina, Japan, and East Australia are good places to hide out, since nobody ever needs to go through them to get anywhere.

[Stranger On A Train]

My strategy is the same as Chronos; start with South America, or as much of it as possible, move into North America and cut off the entrance points. It's a killer, and while people are fighting over Europe and Asia, you work your way into Africa and then across the Middle East. As long as you keep the opponents fighting each other, nobody will permenantly take Europe or Asia anyway, making the value of controlling those continents irrelevent.

The only thing I would add is that I always try to take the territory in front of the bottlenecks (like Iceland in Europe) and string a small number of armies there as a barrier against invasion. Even if someone does manage to destroy those armies, it has probably weakened them enough that they can't make a second foray against my doorstep. Even better, if you can afford to do it, is string pairs of armies in forward positions and let your opponent wear himself out trying to take back the territories while you advance interior armies up to the front. It's a more tedious, methodical game but it takes advantage of the fact that most players get a group of fresh armies and immediately try to advance and take as much territory as possible.

Jeez, I haven't played Risk in years. I miss that game. Axis & Allies still pisses me off, though. For some reason, I always ended up being Russia, and you know how long that lasts.

Stranger

[AbbySthrnAccent]

There was a new version of Risk in the late 80's after 1986, but I can't remember for sure which year.

Follows is an incomple list of U.S.) Risk versions and spin-offs:
Risk
Empires of the Ancient World
Castle Risk
Vinci
Risk: Edition Napoleon
Shogun (Samurai Swords)
Risk 2210 A.D.
Conquest of the Empire
Risk: Lord of the Rings
Diplomacy
Amoeba Wars
Gnomes War
Wizard's Quest
Global War
Armada
Summit
Wallenstein
Emperor of China
El Grande
Domination
Supremacy
Fortress America
Axis and Allies

Our boy received his first Risk game at 8. He's 18 and he and his friends still occassionally pull all nighters playing Risk 2210 A.D. He says he's taking Risk and Lego's to college with him next year. I believe him.

[ShibbOleth]

Originally Posted by AbbySthrnAccent

There was a new version of Risk in the late 80's after 1986, but I can't remember for sure which year.

Follows is an incomple list of U.S.) Risk versions and spin-offs:
...
Diplomacy ...

Our Risk game would have been from sometime in the 70s. Maybe my folks still have it and I can compare the rules. Diplomacy, now there's a boring game.

[Frank #2]

I played a game of Risk using the mission cards a few weeks ago and managed to win in 3 turns. I had a "Kill the Red Player" mission and was deployed fairly close to all of his territories. I concentrated on taking his spots while appearing to work towards a continent. The other players looked at me funny when I didn't bother to protect Africa after I claimed it, but their expressions sure changed when I revealed my mission.

Anyone else ever see a game end that quick?

[Munch]

Originally Posted by ShibbOleth

Diplomacy, now there's a boring game.

You just throw shit like this out, just to see if you'll get caught, don't you Shibb?

[ShibbOleth]

Originally Posted by Munch

You just throw shit like this out, just to see if you'll get caught, don't you Shibb?

Oops, busted.

[Push You Down]

Originally Posted by dropzone

"KIPE?" Where are you from?

Man, it's been a LONG time since I heard that word. So long that it finally left my vocabulary. I think it's time to bring it back.

There's a bit of a story....

I worked with a woman who said it all the time. I thought she was saying "kyke". But she'd always say it at some time where it was impossible to confront her about it. Then one day I clearly heard her say kiPe.. I looked it up in the dictionary and insantly fell in love with the word.


Back on topic...

Any fans of Castle Risk?

Once my friends and I discovered that we'd play that often if we wanted a quick game.

[Zebra]

Ummmm


WHY are they playing RISK in class?

[Voyager]

We play that you use cards to get countries at the beginning of the game, since it makes each game more different. I prefer to go to NA first, assuming I have a decent number of countries in it, since it has good connectivity. I've found that I can wipe out the SA player pretty easily, since both Europe and Asia are so chaotic that armies in Iceland and Kamchatka can defend those borders easily.

Another good thing about keeping armies forward is that if someone does attack, and gets weak, and you get cards soon, their heartland has been so weakened that you can pick up a whole bunch of countries cheap after retaking the forward position, and still leave it defended.

[vibrotronica]

Anybody played the Lord of the Rings Risk? It's pretty well designed, and it's cool to attack Isengard, Helm's Deep, Mordor, etc., and it's got a time limit so it doesn't go on for days. The only downside is that whomever goes last has a big advantage.

I've heard from several sources that Risk 2210 AD is the best variant, but I still haven't played it.

[pasunejen]

Originally Posted by vibrotronica

Anybody played the Lord of the Rings Risk? It's pretty well designed, and it's cool to attack Isengard, Helm's Deep, Mordor, etc., and it's got a time limit so it doesn't go on for days. The only downside is that whomever goes last has a big advantage.

I was really bothered by the time limit in LotR Risk...in my experience, Risk games are usually really slow until the end when people have consolidated and start steamrollering each other, and with the time limit there really wasn't enough time for the game to develop.

Also, I wasn't too pleased with the way territories were arranged. Maybe it was just because I wasn't familiar enough with playing on the board, but things just didn't seem to work as well when planning attacks and defense.

I really wanted to like it, too...*sigh*

[Odinoneeye]

Originally Posted by ShibbOleth

My son got Risk as a Christmas present, but I swear, sometime in the past 30 years they changed all the rules. They've added new stuff and possibly deleted some old. Does anyone know when this happened (if I am in fact not mistaken)?

I have never met two people who play Risk the same way in my life.

I think there are about 45 million varieties of the rules out there.

It's why I gave up the game in college, it always led to fights over the rules.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by AbbySthrnAccent

Vinci

I think it's stretching it a bit to say that Supremacy and Axis & Allies are ripoffs of Risk. I've played Vinci and it's nothing like Risk at all.

Originally Posted by Summary from boardgamegeek.com

Along the lines of History of the World by Avalon Hill, players cycle through a series of european civilizations as they attempt to score the most points using the civilization's special powers. The game is set in Europe and each player is provided with a pool of wooden tokens to represent their civilizations. Each player selects a combination of civilization tiles, which give his civilization special abilities or characteristics. Players expand their empire through territorial expansion, often at the expense of other players. The key to the game lies in chosing when to decline your currently played-out civ to get a new one which will keep generating points. Play continues with the cycling of civilizations until a certain score is reached whereupon final rounds are played and a victor is determined.

Marc

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by Zebra

Ummmm ... WHY are they playing RISK in class?

I think it has something to do with World History. You know, the whole "pointlessness of trying to hold the Ukraine and Eastern Europe" thing. It is a classic demonstration why Poland has had about fifteen official languages in the past 1000 years.

[Enderw24]

Originally Posted by dropzone

I think it has something to do with World History. You know, the whole "pointlessness of trying to hold the Ukraine and Eastern Europe" thing. It is a classic demonstration why Poland has had about fifteen official languages in the past 1000 years.

Truly, Risk taught me how right Vizzini was.

[Torgo ate my hamster]

Originally Posted by vibrotronica

Anybody played the Lord of the Rings Risk? It's pretty well designed, and it's cool to attack Isengard, Helm's Deep, Mordor, etc., and it's got a time limit so it doesn't go on for days. The only downside is that whomever goes last has a big advantage.

I own the plain Risk game plus both variants mentioned above. I've only played RISK LOTR once, since I only got it about a month ago and the predominant game in our gaming group is The Settlers of Catan, but liked its design and will certainly be playing it again.

Originally Posted by vibrotronica

I've heard from several sources that Risk 2210 AD is the best variant, but I still haven't played it.

As far as the Risk 2210 AD is concerned, I have to second that opinion. I've only played a game or two of the original Risk since I bought that variant. It expands the gameboard by adding the moon and underwater territories plus I just love the action cards which heavily increase the gaming strategies. You can drag far behind the leading players in the last round but a few good Nuclear cards and a bit of a luck at drawing the territiory cards can change the standings significantly. There's also the strategic positioning of commanders, thereby enabling you to attack or defend the critical territories with d8 instead of d6 and many more. I recommend that you give it a try and see for yourself but I am almost certain that you won't be disappointed.