I am so in awe of your friend. This is the type of brilliance that one day either leads to greatness or insanity. Want…to…play.
Sure, if Australia is all you have, you will eventually be gobbled up. But the goal is to use the two extra armies to your advantage while making our other territories stronger. From there, you can easily move into Africa via southern Asia, and then moe into South America. Options are endless, really. You really can’t expect to win if you just sit on Australia and do nothing else. To me, it’s just been a great stronghold to maintain if I can to benefit from the extra armies. At the beginning, that is important to help tilt th balance. That and a couple of lucky rolls of the dice, and a couple of lucky card trade-ins.
I haven’t played it for years. I’m in the mood for a good long game.
it would be fun if we were to start a game and the peanut gallery would comment on the strategies taken by each of the players. then we’ll know exactly how good Australia is. must resist
I voted Western Australia, but I meant Indonesia. I go for either taking over Australia or South America as my first continent. It depends on what the other players are doing. Lots of people play with the Australia strategy, so if there’s too big of a troop build-up there, I do South America. Africa would be my third choice. I actually think South America is best strategically, as it gives you the most options, but Australia is pretty easy to play with if you’re dealing with inexperienced players.
Usually, I tend to work from either Australia or South America into Africa. The other three continents are a blood bath and too difficult to contain in the early parts of the game, in my experience.
I like the game, but only if played with actual people that allow aspects of diplomacy such as alliances and treaties into the game. That’s where the gameplay is interesting. If played against AI (like I have the game on my phone), where you can’t do the wheeling-and-dealing element, it’s a bit boring, to be honest.
I’ve only ever played Risk 1 on 1. The wheeling and dealing element is obviously gone in that variation but it’s still a lot of fun as a strategic game combined with a game of chance. It’s basically chess on a really complex board with dice and hit points, totally worth the time.
It’s my experience that if you start off primarily in Australia and try to expand out from there, any attempt at outward expansion leaves Australia itself too vulnerable, and you end up losing control of it very quickly. Doubtless, this depends on the personalities of one’s opponents, though.
Admittedly that is one of the coolest things I think I have ever heard of.
Did not vote, as it depends on too many variables.
We usually place the initial countries randomly and then place reinforcements manually. Viable strategies (depends on which random countries you get) –
-
Hold Australia. Get +2 units over everyone else each round. No one else should be able to hold a continent during the first several rounds (see Major Point below), so you’ll have more total armies when it’s time to strike. Regarding the OP: place all initial armies such that you can settle first in Indonesia. Move to Siam. If at all feasible, take China or India (but not both!) and fortify back. 3 RISK cards in hand. If the game has at least 4 players, someone should be getting weak by now. The ideal strategy is to pounce in the next couple of turns to take someone out and earn their RISK cards. Not always possible. In any case, this strategy has trouble if Major Point below isn’t in effect.
-
Hold N.A. Strength in Asia or Europe in the early game is nearly impossible, so N.A. can put perfunctory blockades on Greenland and Alaska (more on Alaska) and set up a stronghold on Venezuela. If someone is playing S.A., Venezuela should be where most of the armies will go in initial placement, as S.A.'s strategy is to move into N.A.
-
Hold S.A. Brazil and Venezuela for initial placements. Balance depends on opponents actions.
-
Africa. You need to move into S.A., so North Africa is the place to place.
-
Anything else with more than 3 players: you’re screwed. Try to evolve quickly into one of the other strategies.
-
Caveat: an early bloodbath is not good. Discretion is (usually) the better part of valor. Just make sure that ceding some area of the board during initial placement doesn’t make the eventual owner inaccessible to others.
Major Point: The above all applies only if the group of players is skilled and has the gaming etiquette that second place is just the first loser (i.e., everyone plays to maximize their own chances of getting first place). In this scenario, no one should be able to hold a continent for very long except Australia and sometimes S.A., as it is in everyone’s best interest to restore equilibrium before someone runs away with sheer number of armies. If there is a weak player or if someone tends to play “for second place” or “to not be the first one out”, there are significant exploitative strategies one can employ that would modify the above.
Have you ever tried it?
The OP is looking for the best place to manually put armies at the start of the game. If you have a chance to take Australia and hold onto it at the beginning, that is two extra armies. Which is huge.
It does depend on your opponents, though. One of a number of possibilities for failure is that someone else has the same strategy, and you can find yourself fighting to the death early on in the game. So, you have to make the decision early. And you have to be smart about it.
You can also sit back and watch two other players fight for Austraila and move in when they are both too weak to defend themselves. But once you have Australia, you want to keep it at all costs. It never fails to deliver and edge.
it’s been so long since i played the physical boardgame i forgot that, for the initial placements, you can allocate somewhere else if there is competition for Australia. it’s different online because you allocate all your armies in one turn.
game options, of course, will also greatly change your strategy. the big one being cards set at escalating or fixed. i believe Australia is better for fixed than for escalating. with escalating, you’ll want to be in position to finish a dying player and hopefully set off chain reinforcements, and hiding in Australia is not good for that.
Yes, I have. And it always results in me getting nothing but Australia, and other players reinforcing my exits heavily. Not so heavily that I can’t break out at all, but heavily enough that if I try, I lose Australia the next turn. Meanwhile, those two armies per turn are quickly overshadowed by the armies others are getting from number of countries and from cards.
I think it might just be that, since Australia is such a common strategy, everyone knows to see it as a threat, so you get a certain amount of focused enmity, rather than just the general background level of animus.
I use the unusual (and seemingly suicidal) strategy of stockpiling everything on the Middle East.
From there I can just sit back and defend, while waiting to see where my opponents are defended least and then expand, slowly, in that direction. While everyone else is fighting over Australia and Asia, I quietly annex eastern and southern Africa, head west to South America…
They obviously didn’t have cats.
That’s the main problem. Australia is a well-known strategy, so quite often you end up with two players (if playing with 4 or more–usually we played 5 or 6) fighting for it early on, so it’s best to focus your attentions elsewhere.
I’ve not really seen Asia being fought over early in the game. (This is assuming a game of 4-6 players). In my experience, it’s Australia, South America, and Africa that get all the early attention. Asia is just impossible to hold. I’ve also won starting with getting control over North America, which isn’t that bad, as it’s 3 borders to defend, and 5 armies a turn if you control it, but with 9 countries, it’s a bit difficult to maintain control of all the borders early on. Europe is difficult, and you have to be some kind of nuts to try to win the game by trying to reign in and control Asia early on. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it’s crazy.
My overall strategy tends to be conservative: defend borders, knock out at least one army a turn, do not make any giant “breaks” for it unless you’re sure you can wipe out an enemy for their cards or seize control of another continent that you can defend. With ties in dice rolls going in favor of the defense, it’s usually best not to be overly aggressive. Playing with aggressive players is great, as they tend to wipe each other out as you sit back, fortify your borders, and collect Risk cards.
That’s why I find the game boring without the added dimension of alliances and diplomacy. The very basic strategy of the game is pretty straightforward. There’s not a whole lot of depth to it (in my opinion). The element of alliances and treaties is where it gets interesting.
North America is one of the continents where, if you can hold it for even a single turn, you’re extremely likely to go on to win the game. Holding it one turn generally gives you enough armies to hold it for the next, you have at least three different choices of countries (on three different continents) to take for a card, and you can easily expand to South America (and 2-3 more armies) at no additional cost in borders. Frankly, I’d love to start by taking North America early, but it’s extremely rare for other players to let you get away with it.
this was my strategy for the poll. if you can get a continent, fine. if you can’t, nobody will be willing to expend the armies needed (and with no immediate reward) to take out a giant blob until it is too late.
Might as well add this here. A graph of the Risk board. Makes it easier to visualize the board.
Did anyone else here play “Double” Risk where two boards are placed side to side, doubling the number of continents, territories, etc.? I did, in college. One of the advantages of living in a dorm. Same number of players, of course, but with more room it was more likely for someone to gain control of a continent. Makes the game more strategic, less tactical, imo.
I know, that was just an example. Wherever the other players aren’t fighting, that’s the direction I head, whichever way that may be. The Middle East is in a unique position to expand in any direction.
I play the same way. My overall strategy is to pile everything I have on the Middle East and wait. Any other territories I own I just let them go; ideally I’ll trade them for cards, extra armies, whatever I can get for them. Any early expansion is focused merely on a single territory in Europe, usually Southern Europe, and a single territory in Africa, usually Egypt. As long as I control those three countries, no one can get the continent bonuses for Asia, Africa, or Europe.
Eventually the other players are spread across the board and I literally have a pile of hundreds, if not thousands, of armies on my three countries. I’m basically playing for a draw.
I can’t play the original Risk anymore since it has been far eclipsed by its newer variants.
I’d recommend:
Risk 2210 AD - Introduces a lot of new mechanics, including mini sea continents, bases, tactics cards, and the freakin’ moon. Also sets a 5 round limit on the game (that’s right, the whole game, you only get 5 turns each). May sound short, but can easily take up to 4 hours still, and the good thing is that the game has a definite conclusion!
Risk Legacy - Closer to the original Risk, except that the goal of a given game is to get 4 victory points (for example, capturing and holding someone else’s HQ is a victory point). You play the game with a set group over 15 games, and the game gradually changes over the course - crap is added to the board, different factions receive bonuses and weaknesses that you choose, etc. These are all permanent changes, and it makes every board unique at the end. You record how you do in each game, and the overall winner is the one who’s won the most games. It’s quite epic and rewarding.
Once you try either of these, you’ll never want to go back to normal Risk again. The thought of playing the original still makes me shudder…
(btw, in Risk Legacy, Australia is still a great starting spot, for the first game or two. Depending on how your group plays, it may become quite awful later on, though…)
Eh, risk 2 for the PC had some of those innovations, but I ain’t biting. The problem as I see is a lot like 3D chess. I’m too stubbornly fixed in my strategy in the classic game to change!