Some people will think this is stupid.
But then, they never played RISK.
I’m a big fan of the game, in 3 different forms: classic table-top Risk, CD-ROM Risk, and CD-ROM Risk II, which was designed by a different company and is completely different than its predecessor.
I’m also interested not only in how the strategies for these games differ from one another, but also how the strategy for winning this wargame seems to be different than real warfare.
Still with me? For example, all 3 versions have a Capitals objective, wherein if you capture your opponent’s capital, you win and they lose. This has a certain philosophical appeal, but I can find many historical exceptions:
The British burned the White House in the War of 1812, and that war is usually considered a draw;
The Nazis conquered Paris, but ended up losing WWII;
Hooker could have stormed Richmond when Lee marched north, but he realized the rebel army was more important than the rebel capital (of course, he failed to destroy either).
So, my questions are – what are your best Risk experiences? What have you found that works for you in any 3 versions of Risk? Does playing conservatively EVER bring about success, as it would in real war? Has anyone ever actually conquered all 180 European territories in the computer version?
And to anyone who says, “Geez, it’s just a game”…
I know. I know.
But it’s a pretty COOL game.
JasonG
I’ve played with friends and on some old ass, abandonware(?) computer version, and I had to take over the whole frickin’ world with both. I win much more often than I lose ::knocks on wood:: and, no, playing conservatively often doesn’t work all that well. You obviously don’t want to spread yourself thin (read: take over as many territories as possible each round, leaving you with one guy in each), but playing defensively just doesn’t seem to work very well.
I can’t answer the question because I’ve never won at Risk. I don’t know why I even play it. It’s one of the few things I’m truly bad at. (another thing that comes to mind: throwing a frisbee)
Capitals ?
I must have been playing a really old version of Risk, because there was no capitals.
Anyhoo, my strategy for winning is this :
- take control of an easily defensible continent (in order of importance : Australia, South America, Africa, North America) Asia and Europe are not worth the trouble at this stage (we have a saying You always die in Europe that sums it up) ;
- once achieved (and the borders sufficiently garrisoned), make the minimal amount of attacks needed to get a card (exception : if you can take out a player with 4-5 cards easily) ;
- when you have 5 cards (not 3 or 4, except in emergencies), go after the closest and weakest player to you ;
- repeat as needed.
As far as a realistic approach to warfare, forget it. If you want better realism, play World in Flames.
I haven’t played Risk in like a year but I remember capitals being something you set up before hand. Like, you secretly determine which country you pick in the beginning is your capital and if your opponent captures it, you lose.
Ahh, home rules, I see. Thanks SouprChckn !
I make sure to kiss the Frenchmen’s ass and then shoot them when they aren’t looking.
::spits:: HHHACCCKKKA-TTOOOEY! Viva la France!
A couple of friends and I bought Risk (board game version) a couple of months ago and we weren’t sure if we were playing it right or not. It seemed like we just kept chasing each other around the board again and again. It got very tedious and boring. We checked the rules and thought we were playing the correct way, but who knows.
Either way, I would rather play Shogun or even Axis and Allies.
Tony
Star by taking South America, Then North, Then Africa. Sweep from Africa and North America to the Europe/Asia Border. If you’ve held them all, you now have a lard landmass guarded by THREE countries. Crush in from both sides until you have Asia, then mop up Australia.
I get really pissed because I’m losing so bad I first sweep all pieces off the board with my right forearm, then pick up the board itself in both hands and throw it across the room.
I then once again vow to never play the game again.
I usually win by saying “Look behind you! A three-headed monkey!” and then when they turn their heads in surprise, I pour a bunch of my armies onto the board. You’ve got to be careful or they’ll notice the extra 100 armies, so spread them out.
There are more factors to winning at Risk than most players consider. First you have the rule variations. The capitol variant is listed in the official rules the last time I looked. (Sometimes you can fool your opponent by defending a territory that’s not your capitol. Deploy three or four armies in isolated Siberia for apparently no reason and watch 'em go ape trying to take it!) There is also the issue of how many armies you get for a card set–by the book it’s a set amount, but it can be played as an ever increasing amount for each set. Obviously in that version the cards become critical in the endgame–everyone tries to trade in cards, kill off an opponent, take their cards, get more armies and keep going. Seemingly close games can be ended in one turn.
You’ve also got to take into account the number of players. A two player game is played quite a bit differently than a six player game. In six player, you can often afford to hide out in Australia or South America, slowly expanding one territory per turn. There you can take advantage of the continent bonus and short front lines, staying heavily fortified while the others squabble over the larger continents. By the time anyone else manages to seize one, you’re usually strong enough to take away one of their territories and take away the bonus. In two player, though, there is a significant disadvantage if your opponent holds more territories, so you usually have to maintain a balance of power by force.
Take over a small country with one entrance point & guard it, then expand, taking over small weakly defensed countries.
I thought people would laugh at me for the OP.
I don’t necessarily want to stop the talk about classic boardgame-Risk, but I * am * curious about the computer versions, particularly because ** Risk I ** includes an “Ultimate” version, which includes such realistic factors as generals, terrain, POW’s, and battle tactics.
You also can limit play to just one continent… but Europe has 180 territories; North America has 159. You can choose from early-1800’s historical scenarios in both those continents. I had the displeasure of watching a young United States swallowed up by Britain, Mexico, and various Native American tribes.
Anyone tried the computer Risks?
JasonG
Hasbro has the Risk Instructions available online (it’s a PDF file), and they seem to jibe with what I remember from the set I’ve got at home.
The standard version of the rules (properly known as World Domination Risk) still requires a player to take over the entire world to win: “The winner is the first player to eliminate every opponent by capturing all 42 territories on the board.” (p. 10)
At the end, though, they include a few variants:[ul][li]World Domination Risk for 2 Players: Basically a two-player version of the basic game, with weird rules for a “neutral” army. To win, you must only wipe out your opponent, not the neutral army.[]Capital Risk: Each player has a Headquarters Area, and the winner is the first player to capture all other players’ HQ Areas. As sub-variants, they suggest requiring capturing only two (4 players) or three (5 or 6 players) HQ Areas for victory.[]Secret Mission Risk: Each player secretly draws a Mission Card at the start of the game, and the first player to complete his/her “mission” wins.[/ul]They also toss in a few variations that don’t really qualify as different versions of the game - stuff like tampering with the progression of turned-in card set values, setting “stacking limits” (max number of armies on a territory), and a few other things. This stuff sounds like a compilation of some of the more popular informal house variations that have cropped up over the years.[/li]
Me, I’ve only played the standard version, and I’m not particularly great. When I do fare well, it’s usually because I was able to implement a strategy something like that detop describes. We have toyed with card set progression, but never reached a clear consensus as to what sort of progression made for a better game.
I haven’t played Risk in quite a while, but this is alarmingly close to the sort of tactics I used. Depending on what the exact situation was, I’d either distract a single opponent or get multiple opponents arguing with each other. While they were thus occupied, I’d steal a few of their pieces at a time, from different areas of the board.
The downside of such an approach is that one must be either (a) really quick and sneaky about it; or (b) prepared to get the living snot kicked out of oneself if caught.
Am I the only one that’s not particularly fond of Australia? I’ve tried starting from there once and did worse than I’ve ever done before.
IMHO, it’s not that it’s hard to defend, but once you have an army built up, wtf are you supposed to do? Take over Asia? Personally, I like the Americas or, in a pinch, Africa, which are easier to attack from and not too hard to defend (depending on what everybody else is doing, of course).
I always take Europe first. Nobody thinks you can do it, so they basically just let you do it. Kind of like Hitler in 1939. Just do it and do it damn fast, but you need a lot of balls and/or luck to pull it off. But if you get it and hold the tiny continent, you are in perfect position for world conquest. I usually win that way for some reason, but I wouldn’t recommend it. It works because it is so loony.
No, no, no, once you take Australia, you have to take Siam (being the only exit), then China and India. By having these two territories, you are able to threaten Africa and Europe (through capturing Middle East) and North America (through Kamchatka) all the while denying Asia to anybody else.
Recently I have been introduced to the “Mission” variant of Risk which makes for a completely different game and prevents the kind of 2/3 player stalemates that inevitably arise with the standard format…
Basically - you draw a mission card at the start, which could be anything from “Occupy Australia and North America” to “Destroy the Blue Player” to “Occupy x Teritories with at least 2 armies on each”. The rest of the rules are the same. The twist here is not to get involved in any direct conflict (if you can) and hover around on the fringes until there is a chance to complete your mission in one BOLD, DECISIVE STROKE. Then turn your mission card over with a smug, self-satisfied look on your face and crack open another beer…
At least that’s the theory.
Gp