Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
19 Posts

Risk Legacy» Forums » General

Subject: King making to win the campaign rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Iain Brown
England
Guildford
Surrey
flag msg tools
No, I'M Spartacus
badge
\m/
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Last night we played our 12th and 13th games of our Risk Legacy campaign and going into it the scores were

4 (me)
3 (Neil)
2 (Mark)
1 (Rob)
1 (Dan)

The other players had all openly discussed allying to prevent me getting a 5th win, so I actively kingmakered to ensure Rob and Dan walked away with a win each, putting me in a good place to win the campaign overall.

The group said they were ok with it, but for me it's kind of soured the experience a bit. It's much more fun when you're trying to win, but because the others all wanted to stop that above all else it felt like king making was my best long term move.

So, should I have gone for individual game wins despite the odds, or is it perfectly valid play to go for the campaign win at the expense of individual game wins? Anyone else done the same?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andreas Krüger
Germany
Krefeld
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think this is inevitable in the last games before the world is named.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Hayes
United States
Los Angeles
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
All the other players were playing to win. It was only you who resigned to kingmaking. And that may have been a reasonable thing to do given the odds, but you also could have just tried your hardest to win anyways.. This is the experience of playing Risk Legacy. It is a core part of playing a campaign.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Iain Brown
England
Guildford
Surrey
flag msg tools
No, I'M Spartacus
badge
\m/
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Black Canyon wrote:
All the other players were playing to win.


No, the other players had all said that they'd sacrifice their own chance to win to stop me from getting a 5th. They were all playing the long game too.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Snooze Fest
United States
Hillsborough
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
We love our pups!! Misu, RIP 28 Nov 2010. Tikka, RIP 11 Aug 2011.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Totally appropriate in this campaign-style game. Also, the one thing I didn't really like about Legacy!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Hayes
United States
Los Angeles
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FritzBraun wrote:
Black Canyon wrote:
All the other players were playing to win.


No, the other players had all said that they'd sacrifice their own chance to win to stop me from getting a 5th. They were all playing the long game too.

I agree with you to a point, but wouldn't you say that if any of them had the opportunity to pull out a win they wouldn't have taken it? Admittedly I wasn't at the table, these are just my assumptions.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave C
United States
flag msg tools
You Greeks are always children!
badge
Jean Gabin in La Grande Illusion
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FritzBraun wrote:
Black Canyon wrote:
All the other players were playing to win.


No, the other players had all said that they'd sacrifice their own chance to win to stop me from getting a 5th. They were all playing the long game too.


Everyone should play as they like, but if those three players with the fewest wins did not team up against you to ensure that you did not secure another win, well, they get the Earth they deserve.

I can see how kingmaking would sour the experience though.

On our Earth we have regularly formed alliances when it looked like one of us was running away with wins.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mar hawkman
msg tools
For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have however seen players would HELP whoever was in the lead because they didn't want to fight them. I don't really understand this thinking since it means giving up on winning.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stuart Holttum
United Kingdom
Southend on Sea
Essex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There is an old saying that says there is no point winning a battle, if it makes you lose the war. This applies totally to Risk Legacy, I think. Taking actions in a battle (one game) that increase your chance of winning the war (the campaign) make perfect sense, and fit totally with the idea of carefully placing scars, cities, fortifications, etc.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D Conklin
United States
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is Ameritrash at its finest...don't fight it, embrace it!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
João Pedro Cotrim
Portugal
Coimbra
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yep, having achieved 4 wins in 7 games with five players (always the same five thoughout the campaign), I found myself for most of the remaining campaigns more active in kingmaking than going for solo wins. The rest of the players all thought that was a perfectly reasonable strategy. In my experience, all the manipulation involved did not make the game any less interesting for me, quite the contrary.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sporktopia Games
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Makes just as much sense as Rob or Dan tanking to let Mark or Neil catch you, because really that's all that preventing your from winning does. It makes more sense for you to let somebody else win a match to win the campaign (from an achieving your goals standpoint) than for everybody else to team up to let one person who's in second or third move into first. Really, Rob and Dan should only be playing for match wins anyway since they are toast no matter what and Mark and Neil should only hold an alliance until you're neutralized.

That's of course totally ignoring group dynamics.

King-make on sir.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
CD Harris
United States
Louisville
KY
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Stu Holttum wrote:
There is an old saying that says there is no point winning a battle, if it makes you lose the war. This applies totally to Risk Legacy, I think. Taking actions in a battle (one game) that increase your chance of winning the war (the campaign) make perfect sense, and fit totally with the idea of carefully placing scars, cities, fortifications, etc.


I completely concur. There's plenty of historical precedent for those at the top encouraging their lowliest rivals to take down their primary rivals. Our campaign is 1 game behind yours and the guy who's in first is quite actively working to secure mathematical advantage for the end of the campaign. None of us has a problem with it.

In the context of a single game, helping a rival win would usually be considered kingmaking. But in the context of a campaign where you're doing it for your own purposes, that's not really what it is. It's more like Duke-making.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mar hawkman
msg tools
For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kotro wrote:
Yep, having achieved 4 wins in 7 games with five players (always the same five thoughout the campaign), I found myself for most of the remaining campaigns more active in kingmaking than going for solo wins. The rest of the players all thought that was a perfectly reasonable strategy. In my experience, all the manipulation involved did not make the game any less interesting for me, quite the contrary.
Hehe, sabotage whoever is second so that they can't catch up to you. I like it!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mister Easton
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I still don't get why winning the campaign is so important. It only lets you name the world right? It doesn't give you any in-game advantages, right? Winning games does give advantages. So shouldn't everyone try to win as much as possible?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Goodnuff
United States
Frisco
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmb
mistereaston wrote:
I still don't get why winning the campaign is so important. It only lets you name the world right? It doesn't give you any in-game advantages, right? Winning games does give advantages. So shouldn't everyone try to win as much as possible?


Well the whole 15 game campaign sort of feels like the "real" game after a while. When you get to the point where all the packets have been opened and you have 1 or 2 people in the running for the overall win that feels kind of important. Individual game wins at that point are less important, the major cities have been founded, the continents named, etc.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D Conklin
United States
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
EvilNuff wrote:
mistereaston wrote:
I still don't get why winning the campaign is so important. It only lets you name the world right? It doesn't give you any in-game advantages, right? Winning games does give advantages. So shouldn't everyone try to win as much as possible?


Well the whole 15 game campaign sort of feels like the "real" game after a while. When you get to the point where all the packets have been opened and you have 1 or 2 people in the running for the overall win that feels kind of important. Individual game wins at that point are less important, the major cities have been founded, the continents named, etc.


Yeah, we are near the end with two in the running for overall winner...

Bragging rights are on the line at this point, way more motivating than any in-game advantages!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Goodnuff
United States
Frisco
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmb
Similar for us, I was ahead 5-2-2-1 in wins and then one of us won 2 in a row so now he is just 1 win behind me with 3 left. At this point everyone knows my primary goal is for him to not win any more, moreso than me winning again even and everyone is ok with that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Iain Brown
England
Guildford
Surrey
flag msg tools
No, I'M Spartacus
badge
\m/
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Odd how this thread suddenly awoke after months of inactivity.

mistereaston wrote:
I still don't get why winning the campaign is so important. It only lets you name the world right? It doesn't give you any in-game advantages, right? Winning games does give advantages. So shouldn't everyone try to win as much as possible?


To answer this specific point, when all 4 other players have sworn to stop you winning another game, despite the personal cost, then trying to win more games is largely futile.

The campaign win is important because it's the culmination of the experience. We had opened all the packets and were done with the game, and we all knew the 15th game would be our last.

The last game got ridiculous, I threw most of my missiles into fights to help Rob kill me.

I did win the campaign in the end, but only on the tie break.

I'm very interested to see what Rob does for the metagame in Seafall, as he has said in the past he was surprised by how much people cared about the campaign.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.